[donnahaw]

Hi

I bought a D70 last year and at the time got a 70-300mm lens (Nikon) and a 2x teleconvertor (Jessops' own brand so nothing special).

I've had some OK pictures but I feel the quality isn't as good as it should be and sometimes the light is poorer than I would expect. A few times I feel like I've really missed out on some excellent shots just due to a bit of blur etc.

Anyway, I'm going on holiday to Kenya this year so I really want to make sure I'm using the right kit. I'm still learning to use the camera, granted, but I'm worried I'm using the wrong lens and or convertor.

I debated getting the Sigma 170-500mm or 80-400mm but I'm not sure a) if I can use it with a teleconvertor and, if so, which to use it with (I've heard the Kenko PRO 300s are decent?) and b) if either would offer better results. If I can't use it with a teleconvertor, should I settle with the setup I have for close results?

Ah, decisions decisions.

Budget? Well, I've seen the lenses for £319 (80-400mm) and £399 (170-500mm) and I don't really want to go about £600 for the lens and teleconvertor combined.

Many thanks for any advice you can offer for a very lost and confused newbie!

Donna

[Quadophile]

Hello Donna,

First of all welcome to the PC Review

After reading your post what I can gather is that you are using slow lenses and putting a teleconverter in between will make them even slower. That maybe the reason you are getting pictures which could be underexposed as well.

What you need is a fast lens but I am afraid the budget is the hurdle.

Your best bet is to consider a used one to suit your needs, something which has a fixed aperture throughout its focal length. You also need to give up using the teleconverter, unless it is absolutely required you should not consider any other than from Nikon. Teleconverters are generally not recommended for zooms, they are more for fixed focal length lenses.

What is the aperture like on those lenses?

[donnahaw]

Hi

Thanks for the very fast reply!

How duped was I?! When I originally bought my first camera (F55 Nikon) I advised I wanted lenses for nature photography and got sold the 70-300mm. So I just stuck with that with the D70. But more fool me for never checking into it. I just assumed, big better etc.

Here are the details for both lenses...

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...76&navigator=3
APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...75&navigator=3
APO 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG

(Sorry- I misquoted before when I said I had looked at an 80-400. It was actually 135-400mm).

I had also considered Nikon - AF Nikkor Lens - 300mm f/4 ED-IF AF-S Telephoto (quoted features "Super fast, super quiet lens using Nikon's Silent Wave motor technology
Compact super-telephoto lens for travel, sports, wildlife and stock photography
M/A switch for fast transitions from AF to manual focus
No power drain when manually focusing") but originally disregarded it. Although a little more out of my budget (£749) it is not totally unfeasible. Would something similar be more suitable.

Once again - many thanks
Donna

[Quadophile]

I have checked it out and if I had to choose between the two I would pick the faster one i.e 135-400 f4.5-5.6. I gives you a little more in terms of light compared to the 170-500.

Have you considered the brand Tamron? Check it out before you commit yourself to the Sigma for a comparision. I guess the cost of Nikon Lenses in those ranges would be prohibitive

[Quadophile]

Just noticed you edited your post to include the Nikon 300 mm lens

I gues that would be a great choice but remember you do not have the flexibility of zoom. Does that bother you? If not it would be a good addition for you.

[donnahaw]

Hi

Thanks very much for all your advice. I will have a good look through before I make any decisions. To be honest, I always thought I would be desperate for zoom but on many pictures I'm zoomed right out to max anyway on my 70-300mm.

I've got 8 months before the safari so that's plenty of time to practice and make a choice. But I'll let you know what I choose!

Thanks again
Donna

[Quadophile]

You are welcome

Look foward to your post again on the forum.

[silver]

unfort - as you've seen the 'cheaper' lenses tend to be dark,. around 700 quid is the sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG (86mm) it's meant to be pretty good optically perhaps the sigma APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG is similar / better even

once you go past 200 or 300 mm you are either needing something with image stabilisation (for hand held) or expect to use a tripod to get a sharp image,. esp if you are forced to use slower shutter speeds because of the f stop

prime lenses will give you more quality but you can loose a lot of that once you put a tele converter on it,.

something like the nikon 80-400 has VR - it's good optically (from reports I don't have one) and it has VR (nikons image stabalisation system) it's not cheap though..

I have checked it out and if I had to choose between the two I would pick the faster one i.e 135-400 f4.5-5.6. I gives you a little more in terms of light compared to the 170-500.

I don't know but you might find the 170-500 is 5.6 at 400mm,. I would go for the 500mm on spec esp if 500 is going to be long enough and you were thinking of using a tele converter on the 400mm to get to 500mm

Sil

[donnahaw]

Hi

In the end I decided to hedge my bets a bit, so I went for the Sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO. It cost £109 extra to get the DG model. However, when I reviewed my lenses I realised not only was I using a 70-300mm - but I was using the poorer of the two Nikon 70-300mms available. I hadn't bought top quality and was paying for it. So this time, I thought I'd best do it properly.

So I'm waiting for it to come today and I'm going to check it out. Fingers crossed that I'll see a better quality of picture. But of course I'm just biding my time until I win the lottery and can buy the 800mm F5.6 APO EX DG . That or beg my boss for a big pay rise (but I can't see that happening!).

I'll let you know how it goes...

Donna