Kelpfish 15 Posted January 5, 2005 Hi folks, I am in the market for a zoom lens, but for topside shooting. I currently use a Nikon 75-300 5.6 cheapie. The image sharpness is medicore at best, so I am thinking about upgrading. I want something more than 300mm. I have been looking at Sigma's 50-500, and read mixed reviews. Then there is the real gem, the Nikon 200-400 2.8 at a cost of 5k :shock: Unless someone wants to give me 5k, are there any recommendations from experience. Joe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted January 5, 2005 The 80-400VR is sharp, but slow (I think it's 4-5.6). It's also not AFS, but has decent focusing. It's VR, which helps if you want to hand-hold it. I think they are about $1,200 new. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detonate 0 Posted January 5, 2005 I use the 70-200 VR with a 2x Tele. It's a fast lens, very sharp, AF-S. I like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Schulz 1 Posted January 5, 2005 Some good Nikkor lens reviews here. http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm Including the Nikkor ED 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littlemermaid 0 Posted January 6, 2005 I also have the Nikon 80-400 VR and LOVED it during a recent trip to Kruger National Park in South Africa. Of course I read a wonderful little wildlife photography book on the plane home....and wish I had done so before. Here is a link to some pictures: http://homepage.mac.com/echorowe/Topside/P...otoAlbum45.html I also swear by the straight shooting reviews at www.kenrockwell.com. Good luck picking a lens! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kelpfish 15 Posted January 6, 2005 Hi Mermaid, Why do you wish you'd read the book prior to the trip? Wrong lens? Joe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littlemermaid 0 Posted January 7, 2005 Hi Joe, Guess that statement might be confusing....I meant that I wish I had read the book prior since I think I could have gotten even better pictures with the lens and had a a few more "keepers" (though I still had to wade through about 400 wonderful photos). I think any shortcomings were my own and not the lens. I am finding it a bit tricky to master the VR feature (which adds a hefty amount to the price tag) and take full advantage of it. But quite honestly I think the 80-400 is still more lens than I am photographer... sort of like the small print that should be at the bottom of the page for someone like myself who posts "example" photographs to demonstrate lens performance. Hope that makes sense...it has been a long week at work Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
