# Lens Suggestions Please



## egremont (Jun 14, 2009)

Camera is a Nikon D80. I can sit near the window that looks out at my bird feeders and not disturb the birds. I have a Nikon 18-70mm kit lens which I use only if it is on camera and do not have time to change to my Sigma 0-300mm. 

The Sigma is usually on a tripod and the feeders are about 2 - 3 meters from camera. I like the image quality and especially the bokeh which is needed to blur the background. Too bulky/heavy to handle off tripod.

Suggestions for a more compact lens that will give me the desired effects (sharp/bokeh) subjects are 2- 3 meters distance that I could use from inside now and when it warms up for flowers, goats and people outside and possibly at a greater distance.


----------



## egremont (Jun 14, 2009)

re: lens suggestions

My Sigma lens is a 70-300mm.....not as stated.


----------



## yeeeha (Feb 16, 2007)

The Sigma 70-300mm lens is lighter than most lenses that reach 300mm. Another lens with a comparable weight that I know of is the Nikkor 55-300mm.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

yeeeha said:


> The Sigma 70-300mm lens is lighter than most lenses that reach 300mm. Another lens with a comparable weight that I know of is the Nikkor 55-300mm.




I have the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens on my Nikon D80, It works fine for hand held zooming,
Bought it on ebay off of Henry's ebay store for $470., It came with a used 3 year warranty. 
The lens is the first generation VR, The versions they have in the store now are called the VRII.

If you have the money, The Nikon 18-300mm VR lens is even nicer.

(Boy this is an old thread you dug up)


----------



## yeeeha (Feb 16, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> I have the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens on my Nikon D80, It works fine for hand held zooming,
> Bought it on ebay off of Henry's ebay store for $470., It came with a used 3 year warranty.
> The lens is the first generation VR, The versions they have in the store now are called the VRII.
> 
> If you have the money, The Nikon 18-300mm VR lens is even nicer.


The Nikkor 18-300mm lens is 270 grams (9.5 oz.) heavier than the 18-200mm lens.



> (Boy this is an old thread you dug up)


How so? ergemont posted the question a little more than a week ago.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

yeeeha said:


> The Nikkor 18-300mm lens is 270 grams (9.5 oz.) heavier than the 18-200mm lens.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? ergemont posted the question a little more than a week ago.


Sorry about that, It looked like 2009 on my iPad Mini, But it isn't, Lol, That's the join date.
I'm still having a hard time getting used to surfing on the iPad,
EhMac needs a dedicated app. I hate using Safari on my iPad.

Anyways, Yeah you are right the 18-300 does weigh a bit, Still, I'd love to own one,
Although I'd probably get more use out of a Macro lens, Like a Nikon 105mm f/2 AF-D DC
Or the Nikon 105mm ƒ/2.8G AF-S ED-IF N Micro-Nikkor VR, But I like the f2.0 AF-D lens better.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------

