A&P Getting a Nikon D80 - better lens combo?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Sir William, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    I think I'm finally purchasing a Nikon D80 this weekend. Which would you prefer in terms of lens combinations? Here are a few that I am looking at:

    Nikon 18-55mm
    Nikkor 80-400mm

    Nikon 18-55mm
    Nikon 70-300mm

    Nikkor 18-200mm
    Sigma 170-500mm

    Nikkor 18-200mm
    Sigma 50-500mm

    I've read lots of good things about the Nikkor 18-200mm lens, so I'd like to go with one of those combinations. Does anyone prefer either the Sigma 170-500mm or 50-500mm? I'll be doing mostly wildlife/bird photography, so I want something with good range. Is the picture quality with the 170-500mm better at all than that of the 50-500mm?

    Thanks so much!
     
  2. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    18-70 and 70-300VR; dont buy the older G version. OR 18-70 and nikon 80-200 2.8.
     
  3. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    18-70mm seems like a good range, too, but I really want something longer than 200 or 300 to go along with it.
     
  4. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    .


    I have the 18-70, and it's a nice lens. I love it.

    The 70-300 is next, and I can't wait!
     
  5. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    It just seems like that would cover the 18-300 range great, but then I have nothing long-range. And I can't afford a fixed focal length 500mm or even 400mm.
     
  6. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    i am not really sure what you want us to say. the 70-300VR is a very sharp, affordable lens that will give you a ton of reach. the only thing i can think of that would be comparable is the 80-400VR (out of your price range).

    what are you shooting that requires you to need more reach than a 300mm is going to provide?
     
  7. BeachBoy

    BeachBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    70-200 2.8, it's such a good lens that even with an extension tube you can get good pictures.

    US$1700 street, ouch

    http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

     
  8. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Wildlife/bird photography. The camera I have now zooms to about 432mm and I really can't see myself going to something less than that.

    I can afford the 80-400mm, but I've read so many good reviews on the 18-200mm I wanted to include that in my purchase. Really I just want to know which is better (or if there's a difference in picture quality @ 500mm):

    Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3
    Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
     
  9. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    That 70-200mm sounds amazing, but yeah, I can't spend $1700+ on that range.
     
  10. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
  11. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
  12. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    I am for the most part, haha...but for $160 wouldn't it be worth a shot?

    Probably not, but still.
     
  14. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    No.

    cheapo 800 is not worth a shot.

    What birds are you shooting at f16?

    The only thing that will be able to sit still long enough for that lens to gather enough light is the sun.

    either the Bigma (50-500), or the 170-500 will work. They're both decent lenses.

    but if you weren't even considering 300mm lenses, why'd ya put it in your choices?
     
  15. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd get the 18-70 just because it's such a superb walkaround lens. It's compact, it's tough and it's definitely sharp. Get the 170-500 if you're going to be needing the reach anyways. It doesn't sound like a 200 or even a 300 is that useful to you, so the 70-170 range doesn't sound that important. As an economical alternatve, the 18-70 and a 70-300 wouldn't be bad. It's what I'm going to be doing.
     
  16. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    what the hell are you shooting that would require a focal length greater than 300mm???
     
  17. BeachBoy

    BeachBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    he said it.. birds.
     
  18. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    whoops, missed that!
     
  19. Sir William

    Sir William OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    13,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    If there's really no difference in the 170-500mm or 50-500mm I might as well just get the 170-500mm, right? I'll already have 18-200mm so why have such a big overlap?

    And I will be using it for other things besides birds/wildlife, so I want some shorter lengths too...but yeah, I definitely need the longer lengths for birding.

    Thanks, everyone. If anyone can shine more light on the Sigma 170-500mm vs. 50-500mm let me know!
     

Share This Page