Lens for Nikon DX-Wildlife: I'm looking for recommendations to replace a Nikon 55-300 4.5-5.6. My objective is to acquire something better for low light shots, early morning, early...

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I'm looking for recommendations to replace a Nikon 55-300 4.5-5.6.

My objective is to acquire something better for low light shots, early morning, early evening wildlife in particular.

Thought of a Nikon 70 or 80-200 f2.8, but my next available focal length is my 150-500 Sig, so that leaves a gap between 200 and 300mm that is desirable to me for those low light shots toward the brush.

D7000, D7100, heavy use of monopod/tripod.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Nikon 200-400mm F4

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Nikon 300mm f/4

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

MT Shooter wrote:

Nikon 200-400mm F4

Sounds good! Right after the divorce I'll make a surgical appointment to have a $7000 lens removed from something.

I appreciate a good answer to my query. I should have mentioned that a 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter, if it would be a truly viable solution, would probably be my expenditure limit.

:D

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

DaveO wrote:

Sounds good! Right after the divorce I'll make a surgical appointment to have a $7000 lens removed from something.

I appreciate a good answer to my query. I should have mentioned that a 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter, if it would be a truly viable solution, would probably be my expenditure limit.

:D

My suggestion met your posted criteria perfectly, that just shows why posting a budget along with a request always makes sense.
I cannot afford that lens either, but it's a great one. I use my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 and a 1.4x TC to cover that range myself, it's an excellent combination.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I'll check them out, thank-you.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

DaveO wrote:

I'll check them out, thank-you.

Lots of good used deals out there too if you look hard enough.

Jim Bob

MT Shooter wrote:

My suggestion met your posted criteria perfectly, that just shows why posting a budget along with a request always makes sense.
I cannot afford that lens either, but it's a great one. I use my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 and a 1.4x TC to cover that range myself, it's an excellent combination.

Excellent reply and initial response. You answered what was asked which is a lot better than many posters do. Drives me nuts.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I'm so darn reluctant to use E-bay, so I'll have to tailor my wants to be under $3000. Plus, for a few hundred or so, Id rather buy new and be secure with my purchase.

I prefer a zoom to essentially carry not more than two lenses on my jaunts.

We're going to be getting into birding, we have some very good Audubon sites close enough. My lack of experience is making me lean toward the 70-200 2.8, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Lens has been recommended as a good bang for the buck and may fill my needs. Too confusing for a new guy. I'm trying to do something before returning to Yellowstone the end of September for probably our last big hiking trip. Contingent upon recuperating from neck surgery shortly. Anyway, I want to be ready! Thanks, again.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Jim Bob wrote:

Excellent reply and initial response. You answered what was asked which is a lot better than many posters do. Drives me nuts.

My reply stated: "I appreciate a good answer to my query. I should have mentioned that a 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter, if it would be a truly viable solution, would probably be my expenditure limit."

Many questions don't even very well define uses or existing equipment! I tried! :D

Photosmoke

Dave , I recently acquired a 80-400mm AF-S Nikon VR and I love it. It takes beautiful close ups, people are commenting about my macro, with a 400mm lens , it focuses' to about five feet. On a D7100 I am getting great range. If you want to see some shots click my flickr link

CO

Check out the new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S lens. I've had one for about one year. It's an impressive lens.

The new Nikon 300mm f/4 lens has a phase fresnel element that allowed them to make it lighter and more compact than the previous one. If you consider that one I would rent first. In Ken Rockwell's review he says that the fresnel element can cause some weird flare. I noticed that Nikon's Capture NX-D software has a box to check for PF flare control. Maybe that works to correct flare when it occurs.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Photosmoke wrote:

Dave , I recently acquired a 80-400mm AF-S Nikon VR and I love it. It takes beautiful close ups, people are commenting about my macro, with a 400mm lens , it focuses' to about five feet. On a D7100 I am getting great range. If you want to see some shots click my flickr link

Thank you for your reply,

I have a Nikon 105 2.8 macro, what I want is a really good lens for shots of a hundred plus feet in early morning low light, animal time. I'm looking for some guidance to get something much better than my 55-300. A quick focus will be good for some bird shots.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

CO wrote:

Check out the new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S lens. I've h... (show quote)

Even though I wanted a zoom, I am looking at this as well! Thank you for your thoughts!

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

phlash46 wrote:

Nikon 300mm f/4

Some additional info on Nikon's 300mm f/4.5 lenses. They have a great reputation. And they are very nice primes.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/300mm-f4.htm