Richmond, US
|
> Oh my, you guys, expecially you Brian, are going to kill me.
May say "I told you so?"  (Please?  )
> the lens barrel goes in and out and is noisy compared to my nikon 18-200 that has the internal focusing.
The barrel moves in and out even for focusing? (I guess so, since Sigma points out IF or RF - internal or rear focusing - on lenses that have such designs. I didn't notice.) Does the barrel rotate during focusing? I never thought to look.
> is noisy compared to my nikon 18-200 that has the internal focusing
That's the difference between micro-motor focusing (like the 18-55 and 55-200 Nikkors) and "real" AFS such as on the 18-200 and other high-end lenses. As you can guess, micro-motors are less expensive to make than the silent-wave motors used in "real" AFS lenses and Sigma's HSM lenses.
> I guess I never really noticed that a lens could be so noisy
This one (70-300 OS) isn't all that bad - it's certainly no louder than most Nikkors that have screwdriver AF, for example. Of course, since you have a D40, you have never experienced screwdriver AF ...
> I have been ... comparing ... to see if it is really making a difference as far as bringing things closer. I don't think it is.
I don't think it is, not for the things you're wanting to do. The 300mm yields a subject that's 50% bigger than the 200mm, and for the most part, your bird shots really need a lot more than 50% increase. There will be plenty of times when 500mm isn't enough - I'm just warning you in advance! (Ditto for 1000mm. Calculating just how I know this is left as an exercise for the reader...)
> I think my brain is set on what a 500 could do and I'm going bonkers.
LOL. We call that NAS For comparison, you can have a look here for a comparison of the differences between 200mm and 500mm (and 1000mm).
> Give me some advice. How bout for not a teleconverter for my 200 just so I can play with and see if I am going to really want to invest in a 400 or 500.
A teleconverter with your lens is just a bad idea. You're focused on the fact that it gets you more focal length. For example, a 2x TC would get you 400mm, instead of 200mm. True, but what you're not remembering is that it's not a free lunch. In fact, that tasty-looking lunch costs quite a lot. It costs two f/stops, to be specific. So right now you have a 200mm f/5.6 lens. If you put a 2x TC behind it, you'll have a 400mm f/11 lens. Even with VR you'll have trouble keeping shutter speeds up to the point where you'll get decently non-blurry images, and that's before we discuss focusing. Ah yes, focusing. As in... I'm pretty sure your D40 will just give up and not AF at f/11, unless you happen to be shooting a high noon on a sunny day, or if your subjects are melting under the artificial lights. Then you'll be trying to do the focusing manually - but at f/11, the viewfinder will be so dim that you can't see well enough to focus accurately.
Remember when I said that the lunch was tasty-looking? The proof is in the eatin', and at f/5.6 (on the lens = f/11) you'll find that the image isn't as sharp as it was with no TC, and that you'll want to stop it down to f/11 or so (meaning effectively f/22) to get sharpness back to where you were without the TC. Suddenly that lunch isn't seeming so tasty, even before eyeing the bill.
I'll let you guess what I think of the idea of putting a 3x TC behind your lens. (Big hint: 600mm, f/16 maximum aperture, about f/32 effective aperture.) I'm not even going to tell you who makes the TCs that would actually fit! Here's another hint: Nikon do not even make a 3x TC. Never have.
> I don't think I'm keeping it.
Think of the return postage cost as the price of a lesson on focal length, silent-wave focusing motors, and some of the reasons that some lenses cost less than others.
A Sigma 150-500/f4.5-6.3 HSM OS DG yields a subject that's 2.5x the size of your 200mm's, has internal focusing, a silent-wave motor and Sigma's equivalent of VR. For about $1000. I predict that you'll also want at least something like a monopod as soon as you have that big a lens taken out of the box... and if not, it'll probably take you until about... oh... three hours into your first shoot with it. Try a Manfrotto 679B - about $45.
> will my d40 support a 400-500mm lens?
Not if you try to hold the camera!!! But then a D3x probably wouldn't do that either. When you have these big lenses, you hold the lens, not the camera. With some of the big lenses, you can barely even see the camera hiding behind the lens - it's a lot like the tail wagging the dog.
If you hold or otherwise support the lens, you won't have any problems with a 500mm or even 800mm lens with a D40. (Don't get your hopes up - the Sigma 800/f5.6 HSM does AF on your D40, but it costs about $9,000.) (Chuckles...) As long as you don't mind manual focus, manual exposure and a $40,000 bill, you could even hide your D40 behind the old 2000/f11 Reflex-Nikkor. _____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
|
