View Full Version : wildlife lens (Nikon body)
i am very close to purchasing a lens to use mainly for wildlife/birding. there is lots to consider: sharpness, max aperture, constant vs. variable aperture, focal range, image stabilization, autofocus speed, build quality, price! - the list goes on and on. i have a couple lenses in mind, but i can't make a decision. possibly some of you can give me some feedback regarding your xp. i was considering 70-200 nikkor afs vr, and still am - but not as a long lens, as it is a bit on the short side - even with a 1.4x tc. if only they made it a little longer, this lens is amazing. i've also considered the nikkor 300mm f4 prime telephoto lens + a 1.4x tc. all the other nikon long primes are WAY out of my price range, unless i ever make some money off my photos, this is not a logical step for me in my hobby. also i am considering the 100-300 f4 sigma ex + 1.4x tc, or possibly the sigma 120-300 f2.8. any tips, advice, suggestions, experiences are very welcomed.
meriadoc
01-14-2005, 4:56 PM
at least 400mm on the long end. the longer, the better.
if you use a 2x teleconverter, you will lose autofocus (and quality)
JerseyJay
01-14-2005, 4:58 PM
Agree with Lisa about quality and loss of "good" aperture.
How much money are we talking about ?
yah i would never consider a 2x tc lisa. i dunno, i wanna stay under $2000. i think i have my choices narrowed down to these two, of course others may be considered if i could find a store that has them, so i can at least look at them.
1. nikkor 300mm f4 + 1.4x tc (i dunno how much i will like a long prime)
2. sigma 100-300 f4 + 1.4x tc (i dunno how sharp this lens is, but it gets good reviews)
meriadoc
01-14-2005, 7:09 PM
I'm a fanatic for primes, but it's all a matter of personal opinion. They're generally a little more money, but sometimes, they're very well worth it.
Trust me, I shoot alot of wildlife, and until I can get the $$$ raised to get a 400mm + 1.4x tc, I'm finding that the 300 isn't long enough, so i'm going to get a 400mm 5.6 prime (can't afford the 2.8 400) and eventually a 200 f4 IS and add a tele for added length.
300 won't cut it for wildlife - unless you can get somewhat close.
(source : B+H)
Nikon's 300 4.0 is just under $1200 in the grey color (if you want to look like you're shooting with canon gear :D)
But as I said, long primes are either a love 'em or hate 'em. Either you like them, or you don't. Some like the convenience of a zoom (i don't).
Have you thought of the sigma 80-400 OS lens?
i considered it, but if it's anything like the nikkor 80-400 vr, the autofocus is super slow. do you have any experience with this lens? i have tried to find one in a store i could look at but nobody here stocks it. i went to ritz camera and the only thing they had longer than the nikkor 70-200 was a sigma 170-500 or something like that. -.- so junk the stores here.
meriadoc
01-14-2005, 11:41 PM
I've played with it, the focus certainly isn't slow. I never had any problem with focus hunting either, which for me is a big plus.
have you played with the nikkor version? can you give a comparison of the two?
meriadoc
01-15-2005, 11:45 AM
I don't shoot nikon ;)
but I have compared it to the canon 100-400 L (which focuses FAST), and its not as fast, but still pretty fast. Pretty much a fraction slower.
brbrown
02-01-2005, 3:07 AM
hir0,
I don't know if you have purchased your lens yet but I recently purchase the Sigma "BIG Mama" Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D for exactly the same type of photography. I am very pleased with the lens but you MUST have a very good tripod or a VERY LARGE arm to hold it steady considering it weighs in at 4.10 lbs. and is 13.7" long fully extended but if you are interested in looking at the lens here a link to the Sigma BIG Mama (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=192446&is=USA) . Also, you might send a message to user ccplim (http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/member.php?u=6) here on APF as he has considerably more experience with this lens and also has some very nice "wildlife/bird" shots he has taken with the lens which I am sure he would be glad to show you. He has been very helpful getting me set up with all of the correct equipment for my Nikon D70 and is a very nice guy to boot.
Hope this helps,
Bryant
brbrown, thanks for lookin out. but yes i did make my purchase already. i will have to get longer glass later on, i purchased a 70-200mm 2.8 for now since i needed the speed. the bigma is a very popular lens indeed, but i think if i go 300+ i may go with primes. thanks again... and share some of your "bigma" photos with us :)
alanhill
02-01-2005, 8:37 AM
I agree with Meriadoc. If you use a zoom for wildlife work, 99.9% of the time you will zoom it out to the longest focal length. A prime lens will always be lighter and easier to handle than a zoom - so it will increase your chances of a successful shot.
Alan
brbrown
02-01-2005, 4:35 PM
brbrown, thanks for lookin out. but yes i did make my purchase already. i will have to get longer glass later on, i purchased a 70-200mm 2.8 for now since i needed the speed. the bigma is a very popular lens indeed, but i think if i go 300+ i may go with primes. thanks again... and share some of your "bigma" photos with us :)
hir0,
Congrats on your new lens and I hope you get many great photos with it. The primes are definitely the way to go if you can but I needed to go with the 50-500mm to try to stretch my money as far as I could. It does seem to be a very nice lens for the money and as I get some good shots with it this Spring I will definitely share them on the forum. I have been unable to get the practice or quality photos yet with the lens because I have had some health problems since I first got the lens which have limited my use up to this point. Hopefully, I will be able to change all of this by the time Spring rolls around so I don't have to miss out on all of the beautiful changes which take place this time of year. I remember someone mentioning something about it on an earlier post about the adjustments required to use this lens and this is very true, it is definitely not a lens to just point and shoot, I found this out VERY quickly! :confused:
Take care and hope to see some shots with the new lens very soon,
Bryant
A prime lens will always be lighter and easier to handle than a zoom
not always lighter.
Nikon 500mm f/4D = 7.6lbs
Nikon 400mm f/2.8D = 9.7lbs
Nikon 300mm f/2.8G = 6.3lbs
Nikon 200mm F/2G = 6.4lbs
Sigma 50-500mm = 4.1lbs
ccplim
02-11-2005, 3:21 AM
brbrown, thanks for lookin out. but yes i did make my purchase already. i will have to get longer glass later on, i purchased a 70-200mm 2.8 for now since i needed the speed. the bigma is a very popular lens indeed, but i think if i go 300+ i may go with primes. thanks again... and share some of your "bigma" photos with us :)
Which 70-200 did you bought? Sigma or Nikon?
ccplim
02-11-2005, 8:05 AM
nikon vr af-s 2.8
Nice choice! I have it and I love it too :-O I am cconsidering getting the 1.7x TC to go with it.
JerseyJay
02-12-2005, 7:29 PM
Nice choice! I have it and I love it too :-O I am cconsidering getting the 1.7x TC to go with it.
Let us know when you get it. I'm thinking about 1.4 or 1.7
ccplim
02-16-2005, 7:43 AM
Let us know when you get it. I'm thinking about 1.4 or 1.7
Will do. I personally would prefer 1.7 (though loss 0.5 stop more but you get more reach).
i'm still very curious. i've heard mixed reviews of the 1.7. i even hear somewhere that optically, the 2x gives better results. that's a hard one to swallow. i'd like to hear some first hand experience. 1.7 is far more appealing than 1.4.
Would be interested as well for a future purchase. From what I've read, the 1.4>1.7>2.0.
ccplim
02-21-2005, 6:56 AM
i'm still very curious. i've heard mixed reviews of the 1.7. i even hear somewhere that optically, the 2x gives better results. that's a hard one to swallow. i'd like to hear some first hand experience. 1.7 is far more appealing than 1.4.
Though I have not tried the 2.0 before, I heard that it will affect the color saturation