William, GOOD POINT!!!! this is a really sad turn of events for Nikon users that now they have to pay attention to the missing body focus motor on some of the newer cameras.
Once all the lenses have been converted to AF-S this worry should go away as most cams are compatible with the Auto Focus motors in the newer lenses.
Manny Gonzalez
Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS
Just noticed this thread today, not sure how I missed it, so a bit late to add my lens to the mix. I currently use the Tokina 80-400 for Nikon and absolutely love it. Picked it up from B&H last year for about $550.
-Tad
The price of a cannon 400mm isnt much diff derf. Ive been looking so I can finally get rid of any kind of limitation. Its going to be awhile before I join the rest in 301-400mm territory.Originally Posted by Derf
Rom,
The the 80-400mm is a good lens when you have plenty of light, but it's a dog in low light and the auto focus keeps hunting around. Yes, it's a screw lens when it comes to focusing, and there may be issues with focusing when using it on a D60 as mentioned. My suggestion is to go to B&H with your camera and try the variety of lenses there. See what best suits your needs and see how the lens feels. By the way, before I purchased my Nikon 80-400mm lens, my other choice was the Bigma 50-500mm lens.
I never said that the Canon was any different, I have a 300mm for that exact reason. You can get a good non stabilized Tammy 70-300 for about $165 and your probably looking at $800-1000 for a 40mm for both bodies. I was just rubbing in that I am not a Nikon user with the "Canon user here" -nudge nudge wink wink
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
I can't remember who it was during UN Week I met at the Mounds that was carrying a Nikkor 80-400VR mounted to a D300(mark it wasn't you it was an older gent). I overheard him telling someone who was asking about it that it works "just fine". On that body, I'm sure the AF speed is negligible and I think it has a limiter on it as well that can be used to speed things up. In good light at f/8 and 1/1000 and above, I'm sure the images would look excellent.
Dang, now I'm trying to remember who that was...serves me right for only coming up there every other month or so.
Sigma 150-500 AF OS HSM in mint condition for sale, $875.00. Lense is very sharp, sorry no carry case but comes with filter (UV) Hood and both front and rear caps. I don't know if the AF is compatible on a D60, have been using it on a D300.
http://fredkopf.smugmug.com
"Just fine" is relative. If you want to get closer and think you will just be a casual shooter any of the above mentioned lenses will be fine but if you find yourself wanting to raise yourself to the next level you will find the 80-400VR limited. I was at Nellis couple of years back in good light and the action was just too fast for that AF. Can you make it work? I got some keepers but had to bin many more. Half the reason I went prime. From what I have read you may start with upgrading to a D90 or a D200 refurb so you get a better choice of lenses but if you feel you just want pics for your own edification than any of the lenses discussed would work.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Very true, primes would certainly be best. With the recent markups that are sure to stick around for a while though, little chance of getting one of those. My last prime was the 135 f/2 but not able to do that sort of thing for a while. I'd LOVE to have the 300mm f/2.8.
Wow that thing is monster, could you imagine that on the 1.4 TC? I wish I had 4000 laying around for it but I am itching for a newer body first.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks