any zoom lens up to 400mm to recommend?


Status
Not open for further replies.

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#1
hi,

i am shopping around for a lens capable of zooming up to 400mm or so....
already have a 70-300mm lens....
but feel that zoom power is not enough.... any recommendations for a lens up to 400 mm capability ? (preferably not too expensive, cause i prefer to buy new....)

thanks
 

TMC

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2004
6,321
0
0
Beyond Space-Time Continuum
#2
anything up to 400 and beyong would cost you. I see a lot of the pro pjs here use 80-400VR to cover events. You might consider that one tho I heard from some that the pics are soft. Or else try 50-500 bigma.
 

jamestan

New Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,726
0
0
50
Singapore
#4
erictan8888 said:
wow... 50-500mm sigma would also cost a bomb...... how much >?
Firstly, what cam is yours?
If Nikon then 80-400 VR.

If Canon then 100-400L.
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#8
using nikon D70....

pls advise... and also pls let me know the approximate cost... thanks
 

rebbot

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2005
1,828
0
0
#9
80-400VR or 70-200VR + 2xTC? One of the best lenses I have ever owned and used. Sharp and VR actually proves to be extremely useful ;)
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#11
wa kao..... so expensive ah....

actually why 70-200VR so much more expensive than the 50-500 ?
because of the VR technology?

i actually looking for a further than 300mm zoom lens...
currently have a 70-300mm sigma (cheap and good)
but feel that the reach is not there when i go to the zoo and shoot...
would like to have more zoom.... hai....

now stuck at cross road... dun know which lens to buy.....
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#12
how much money are you willing to spend and how much quality are you looking for? that would give a good indication of what sort of lens is suitable. the top end lenses for such a range would be heavy and costly (e.g. AF-S 400mm f/2.8D IF-ED II which costs more than $10k and weigh 4.4kg).
 

rebbot

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2005
1,828
0
0
#13
erictan8888 said:
wa kao..... so expensive ah....

actually why 70-200VR so much more expensive than the 50-500 ?
because of the VR technology?

i actually looking for a further than 300mm zoom lens...
currently have a 70-300mm sigma (cheap and good)
but feel that the reach is not there when i go to the zoo and shoot...
would like to have more zoom.... hai....

now stuck at cross road... dun know which lens to buy.....
consider getting a 2xTC?
 

idor

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2004
666
0
0
42
Northern California
#15
Actually wanna recommend to you Nikon 200-400mm.... but then just read your complain about price.... so dun know what to recommend.... the Bigma is the cheapest lens if you wanna go >300mm in reach... But the biggest problem i have with my Bigma is that its more of a lens for use in bright daylight... Also, to use Bigma effectively, I recommend that it be used swith a good tripod.... I have seen people manage to take great shots handheld.... unfortunately i do now have any luck with that.....

BTW OT a little.... if you use lens with that long reach... its usually heavy... So besides a sturdy tripod, you also need a good ballhead that will not slip. So if you do not have a sturdy tripod and ballhead, you may wanna add those to your cost of lens...
 

#16
i'd been pondering over this fr a few days n having heartache cos my 80-200mm ED is soft and having back focus prob despite sending it to NSC for the 2nd time. i guess i'll b watching this thread too. wish i had nuff money to get the 80-400 VR.
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
0
East
#17
Most economical and efficient way to get to 400mm -> get sigma 70-200/2.8+2XTC (Less than $2000).
:thumbsup:
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#18
To get 400mm range, I personally use a 200/2.8L coupled with a 2x tele which gives reasonable quality. The setup is pretty light (around 1kg) and inexpensive (~$1k if used) too. There is probably a similar lens in Nikon's line-up too.
 

besh

New Member
May 8, 2005
494
0
0
#19
i'm also looking for those >400 tele..... 80-400 is about 2.5k, and bigma 50-500 about 1.6K........ diff by 900.... 900 good enough to get a 12-24......
which to go ? suggestion suggestion........
 

glennyong

Senior Member
May 2, 2004
5,587
0
0
Singapore
#20
icarus said:
Most economical and efficient way to get to 400mm -> get sigma 70-200/2.8+2XTC (Less than $2000).
:thumbsup:
dun reccomend this lah.. coz this combo sometimes give u soft pics. and sometimes good pics when u have super good lighting... i wouldnt recommend this combi.

if u wish. u can consider getting a Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 Macro lens. it functions as both a macro and telephoto.

theres one at Alex Photo. its condition is MINT lah... go try... and its a AF lens. cheap, good, and a 400mm too.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom