[newie]

hello guys and gals, im new....



ive got the d3100 with the standard lense, but distance photographing is a major issue.



i dont want to be spending the £500+ on a nikon brand lense, so been looking at the tamron ones.



i require some advice, i need my lense to take photos at a distance, sport shots, wildlife.



can someone PLEASE point me in the right direction.



thanks

dave

[popo]

The Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD does well in reviews, has all the latest toys like stabilisation, and if you shop around is around £300 (amazon.co.uk).

[newie]

thanks for that but too expensive for what i was going to pay.



any other options?

[mst]

To cover the tele range, you would soon regret not having purchased a stabilized lens, so you should rule out anything that doesn't carry VR (Nikon), VC (Tamron) or OS (Sigma) in its name.



You can either choose from the lenses reaching up to 300mm, which include the Nikon 70-300 VR and the already mentioned Tamron 70-300 VC. However, since the Tamron is over your budget, the Nikon is most likely, too. There's also a Sigma 70-300 OS: avoid that.



The cheapest option in this segment is probably the Nikon AF-S DX 55-300 VR.



If you want to spend as little money as possible, I suggest to invest in a slightly shorter lens: the Nikon AF-S DX 55-200 VR.



If this is your first tele lens, be prepared that shooting with long focal lengths requires some learning and practice.



-- Markus

[newie]

thank you MST, but whats your views on this?



Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Nikon

[mst]

[quote name='davenewman' timestamp='1324553184' post='13996']

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Nikon

[/quote]



Not bad for the money, but not stellar in absolute terms. As I said, I'm sure you'd soon regret not having invested in a stabilized lens.



-- Markus

[newie]

ok, so this lense Nikon AF-S DX 55-200 VR would do exactly what i require??



or this???



http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000O...r_asin_lnk

[Guest]

Having tried / owned all three lenses – Nikon 55-300mm VR, Nikon 70-300mm VR and Tamron 70-300mm VC, I would definitely recommend the Tamron. It’s cheaper than Nikon and honestly I couldn’t tell the difference in image quality. Also I second Markus – at 200-300mm range stabilisation is a must.



Regarding the Nikon 55-300mm lens – if you’re after sport / wildlife shots, avoid. While the lens is reasonably sharp, the AF is *extremely* slow. Difficult to describe, but even the old screw-driven 80-200mm feels lightning fast in comparison. The only reason I got this one is that it was going for $249.99 in US, so I thought I’d grab a bargain. Well, you get what you pay for, obviously <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' />

[popo]

Personally if wildlife is on the list, I'd prefer a 300mm lens without stabilisation over a 200mm lens with. Often you just can't get enough reach, but this does assume the lens is "good enough" at 300mm in the first place. I do know people who have used the really cheap Tamron 70-300 with good effect.



But it does depend on what you will be using it for. For wildlife stabilisation is not so much an essential requirement anyway. Often you will be aiming for faster shutter speeds to prevent subject motion blur, but again it depends on the type of subject.

[newie]

thanks Loms..... think its going to be between the 2 lense in post 7..



just need advice on which is the better option for my needs..