So a few months ago I decided I wanted to take a step up from my old point and shoot Nikon Coolpix camera and started looking around at digital SLRs. After figuring out my budget on what I wanted to spend on an entry-level camera I settled on the Nikon D40 with the standard 18-55mm lens that's included in the Nikon package. So far I've been extremely happy with it, although I'm still learning the ropes. I'm still tinkering with adjusting the shutter speed, aperature, white balance, etc to adjust the outcome of my photos.
In any case, I'm not super happy with the low-light performance of the lens I have, and want something that's going to give me some better performance, especially if I'm gonna try to snap some wildlife photos eventually. I'd also like to get a little more reach out of my lens, so I'm looking at something in the 200 to 300 mm range.
I'm looking at a Sigma 18-200 mm f/3.5-6.3D for $379 or a Sigma 55-200 mm f/4-5.6 for $149. I guess my question is, for the additional $200 am I going to get that much better performance in low light with the larger f-stop?
Also, what cameras/lenses is everyone else using that you've had good luck with?
Thanks!
__________________
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.
Hey Justin
I shoot the Nikon D-80 and I have the f/2.8 70-200 VR Nikon lens. It was alot of money but money very well spent. Pics come outsharp as a razor and the auto focus on to it is real fast.
I just got the camera in January of this year and like you, are still pretty much a newbee. I just recently started taking deer pics atdusk with it and am amazed at what slow shutter speeds I can get with the vr on. Deer need to be standingstill or you'll get motion blur. But from what I can see with my lens -as soon as the sun hits the horizon -I'm already shooting at f/3.5. Not very long and I'm shooting wide open at 2.8
If theres anyway you can afford it I would recommend a 2.8 lens - I just don't think you'll be happywith a f/3.5 -if you'll be shooting a lot of low light pics. JMO
Thanks for the info, I was looking at that lens as well. From what I've read everyone has been astounded with this lens, which is why nobody can keep them in stock! I think Sigma makes a comparable lens with their own version of the VR (I think they call it OS or IS or something like that?) but if memory serves I think it's only an f3 or 3.5.
I may just push off my purchase a little bit and wait until I can spring for the better lens.
__________________
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.
Buy cheap, buy twice. Save your money like C Dave said.
Two things to consider:
1) What youhave to realize is that not only are you getting a two stop faster lens w/the 2.8 but you're getting VR w/it which will add an additional 2-3 stops to it.
2) This kind of goes against the speed that you're asking but it makes more sense to get the 80-400 VR, yes its slow but every single wildlife photographer friend I have has never complained about havingn too long of a lens. 200 is short even w/the 1.5 crop factor.
If I was you, I would save, buy the 80-400 VR and a good bogen or slik tripod w/a good ball head. I shoot Canon and I have the 100-400 and many many times I needed more. The 80-400 and the 70-200 are two of Nikon's sharpest zoom lenses so you won't go wrong.
Hope this helps and let me know if there's anything else I can help with
Scott
__________________
"Yes, well, I’m polymerized tree sap and you’re an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon Cooper
I use a Canon 30d W/ 200mm IS USM f/2.8 L lens. I Have never used a Nikon, but I think they would be a great choice also. Click on my site to see examples from my canon cameras.
I just started using my D-80 with a Nikon 80-400 VR lens. I am very pleased. In a perfect world I would like to have a lens with a lower, and contant max apeture (200-400 f2.8 would be nice, but I cannot afford that).The 80-400 lens isslow to focus, but I have found that manual focus at long distance alows me to catch some good action shots. It keeps the camera from refocusing on brush and roaming does. Set your ISO to 500+ and you should be fine in low light. I also recommend a tripod or monopod. They are essential. Good luck.
__________________
Be thankful for the blessing we have recieved.
I just bought the D-40 with the 2 lenses 18/55-55/200 will this not be enough lens this is what was within my budget and if I am not going to get at leastmediocore pics with that I doubt I will graduate any furthur because the lenses you all spoke about are about 1000 $-4000 to much
__________________
Team 19 !
Bow: Vectrix 60# DL=28 1/2
Sight: HHA optimizer single pin
Quiver: Alpine Archery Soft-Lok
Rest: Trophy taker Shaky Hunter
Arrows: Carbon Express Maxima 350 28"
Release: TRU BALL CYCLONE
Broadheads: Shuttle T Lock 100 gr
Quality wise, if you are pleased with the results then they are great. It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what you think. For some people there is no need for professional lenses.
Focal Length wise, I think 200 is a wee bit short. You could buy an teleconverter and extend the lens you have. However, be aware it will degrade your images.
__________________
"Yes, well, I’m polymerized tree sap and you’re an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon Cooper
What cameras and lenses are you using?
