Telephoto lens for a Nikon D80

[Garethgina]

Hi there all,

I have a Nikon D80 - and can never quite get near enough to the action to take great wildlife images.... So - I'm looking to buy my first telephoto lens. I'm no great photographer - but keen to get better - so a cheapish one to start with is probably best (under £300?). Ideally one that compensates well for camera shake.

My first post to the forum - so lets have lots of replies to encourage me to believe I've found the best

Gareth

[Barney]

so a cheapish one to start with is probably best (under £300?). Ideally one that compensates well for camera shake.

My first reaction is that you don't have a lot of budget to play with. If you're shooting wildlife a fast aperture is more important than VR (Vibration Reduction) as it will enable you to get faster shutter speeds to freeze the action. You're likely to be looking to use a shutter speed faster than VR would be able to affect anyway.

So, I'd suggest looking for an older 80-200 AF-D f:2.8, but you will be lucky to get one for £300 or less these days.

You may however be able to get a Sigma 70-200 f:2.8 which may not be as shapr as the Nikon, but will have faster AF.

Finally, is 200mm isn't long anough for you, these lenses can be used with teleconverters, however you have to check compatability before buying.

[Fen]

What sort of wildlife are you after?

It might give us an idea of what sort of lens to recommend.

[IvorETower]

For a budget of £300, you may be fortunate enough to get a Nikon 70-300VR and cheap monopod :-)

[adetri]

A bit left field, but if you really want to try out a telephoto cheaply, the Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210mm can be picked up with an adapter for Nikon Cameras for well under £50 on a well known auction site.

I bought a seemingly unused one for £18 with a Nikon Adapter and a Hoya UV filter on the end. I thought I would keep the filter and sell the lens on.

Actually, I found it is rather nice to use and very sharp with a reasonable aperture of f/3.8 - 4. The out of focus backgrounds it produces are way nicer than those made by my Nikon 18-200mm and it has absolutely zero chromatic abberations (or purple fringing).

Of course, it is manual focus only and you will have to use it manual mode to get any metering on your D80 (I think).

Still might be worth a punt. The best model is the 103A - see http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/103A.html

Example pic using mine: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/...bf968a58_o.jpg

Alternatively the Nikon 55-200mm VR is well thought of.

[phiggy]

Hi I would suggest you take a look @ the Sigma AF 70-300mm apo it will focus to within a meter giving half life size images on FX and even greater on a DX camera.
There is a specially made 58mm APO close up lens also available made by Sigma. that gives 1-2-1 or greater again on DX.
It = 105mm-450mm for less than £200 which leaves money over for either a good monopod or tripod to support it.

[Pastieman]

Hi, I have the Tamron 70-300 with macro lens, will set you back about £200 so is within your budget, and is a great lens

[markinberks]

Suspect you've made the purchase by now, but the following is worth bearing in mind.

If you buy an older AF (better still AFD lens) you get a number of benefits.
1) the AFD lenses focus really quickly (usually!!)
2) they are a lot cheaper than the G or DX equivalent
3) they are full frame lenses so if you ever trade up to an FX Nikon you can still use them
4) This is the cunning bit. A DX sensor crops the image when compared to the same view for a full frame. The effect is that the image is magnified by 50%, so an 80-200mm AFD lens is the same as having a 120-300mm DX lens. If you want to get really wild, the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF lens would translate to roughly 115-450mm !! All this in a package weighing 850g (try finding a 400mm telephoto that is lighter)

[Learning]

80-200mm AFD lens is the same as having a 120-300mm DX lens. If you want to get really wild, the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF lens would translate to roughly 115-450mm !! All this in a package weighing 850g (try finding a 400mm telephoto that is lighter)

Rubbish.
I think that I realise why you think that but I suggest that you think your argument through again.