Time for a new camera lens.. need advice

[Devhux]

Well, I've had my D-SLR now for a year (Nikon D80), and have decided that it's about time for me to purchase a new lens. Right now, I just have an 18-135mm f3.5-5/6 lens (often considered one of the kit lenses from the D80 when it was released).

I'm looking to take more pictures of animals at the zoo and other nature shots, so I'm presuming a good telephoto would be ideal in this case. For around $300 Canadian, I can either get a 70-300mm lens, or a 55-200mm lens with Vibration Reduction. Stepping up to the 70-300 with VR would almost double the price, and I'm not sure if it would be worth it in the end. I do realize that the 70-300mm would have to be used with a shutter speed of 1/450 or faster when hand-holding to eliminate camera shake, so that's something to think of as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful here. Hopefully Zippy sees this, as I know he takes a lot of pics at the San Diego Zoo and such.

[ray]

Take a look at the Sigma 70-300 HSM Macro lens.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3345&navigator=3

In sunlight scenarios it's a fast enough lens to pick up volleyball, cycling, and marathon runners. You can view some of my photos using this lens here:

http://raymondkwan.zenfolio.com/p379630233

Also, i've taken a handful of photos at SD Zoo with this lens and you can see some of those here (the close-up shots of animals faces were taken with the sigma lens)

http://raymondkwan.zenfolio.com/p312520135

[zippyjuan]

I use the Nikon 70- 300mm VR for my zoo shots. At that length the VR is very helpful. Yes, it is more expensive- I see it has increased in price since I got mine. A 300mm vs a 200mm in my opinion is a better option for a couple of reasons. One is a bit more reach. The second is its narrower depth of field which can help blur out wire cages and backgrounds better.

I trust you have been checking out some of the photo forums like Digital Cameras Review. Everybody who has a lens will say they are great- I pay attention to what people say they did not like about them.

This site has some excellent reviews of lenses- this page is all Nikon compatable ones. http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests It does not have the Sigma listed as one of its lenses reviewed though. It can be better sometimes to save up and buy a decent lens instead of getting a cheap one and being disappointed. I cannot say that the Sigma would disappoint of course. Perhaps you can find a shop with one in you can try and see what you think. Check particularly the sharpness at the longest end of the zoom- that is often where you are shooting it and where things get the softest. The problem with camera lenses is that a little improvement in image quality comes at a considerable more increase in the price.

My zoo photos: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz/san_diego_zoo

Ray- that lens seems to do a very nice job for you. Good pics!

[Devhux]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I think my best bet is to head to my local camera shop and see if I can rent a lens or two for a day trip - that way I can evaluate the lens in a real-world setting. I know they do rentals -- though I don't know if they'd have the 70-300mm for me to try it.

[Jeffbx]

I'd also chime in for the 70-300mm - I use one in that range on my Canon & it works GREAT outdoors, even though it's considered one of Canon's shoddier lenses. As long as you're in bright sunlight & using a fast shutter speed, you won't need the VR (or even a tripod, really). I've actually taken some pretty sharp pics with that lens from a moving boat - as long as you have enough light, it'll work great.

[ArkiStan]

one vote for an ultra wide-angle. so much more potential for fun. :)

[zippyjuan]

I went wider first, but it depends on what you want to shoot. The 18-135mm is a little wide- equal to a 24- 200mm lens on a full frame camera. But yeah, wide is fun. The pictures can be more involving too. Then once you get the long and the wide then you want either faster or more macro. I am in the "faster" category right now having added two f/2.8 zooms from Tokina- a 11-16mm (which is awesome- sharp, wide, and fast for a zoom but hard to find due to demand) and a 50- 135mm. Now I need one in between. Tamron looks to be the best bet there. I am still not willing to spend $1000 or more on one lens for a Nikon.

[Airencracken]

If you can afford it, I believe Nikon makes a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens that is pretty decent for portraits and low light, I'd recommend picking one up if you have a bit of spare cash. I think it's ~$100.

[ray]

If you can afford it, I believe Nikon makes a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens that is pretty decent for portraits and low light, I'd recommend picking one up if you have a bit of spare cash. I think it's ~$100.

indeed they do. they also just released a 35mm f/1.8

[Airencracken]

indeed they do. they also just released a 35mm f/1.8

Which given the crop factor of his sensor would be closer to 50mm than a 50mm lens.

/I hate APS-C sensors
//One of the reasons I shoot mostly film
///Starting to shoot medium format anyways.

[Devhux]

Well, after heading to the Zoo with a Nikon 80-400mm VR lens in tow to try out, I have to say that the 70-300mm VR will probably be my next lens. It was great to be able to get close to the lions and such, and I see what you mean about the depth-of-field being able to blur fences and such.

(Sure, the 80-400mm VR was a nice lens itself, but I just can't justify spending $1600 Canadian on a lens right now -- and it's hard to handhold at maximum zoom even with VR!)

[zippyjuan]

I ran into a guy at the San Diego Zoo who said he had the 80- 400mm VR and wished he had the 70- 300mm one (like I had) instead. He did not elaborate on why but it is a very nice lens. I have heard of some focusing issues in certain conditions with the 400 due to its pretty narrow depth of field (especially wide open).