| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2009 05:12:13 PM · #1 |
| Ok question, I have a Nikon ED 70-300MM ZOOM 4.0-5.6....A VR lens is a bit out of my price range right now, but I'd like to get something a little stronger. I've been trying to photograph birds, which I enjoy, but can't seem to get close enough, nor the clarity that I'd like. What should I be utilizing as far a s a lens goes, and what other brands are decent for the buck, other than Nikon. Tamron, Promaster, Tokina, etc...Any advice would be helpful..thanks. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 05:36:15 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by fr8hound:
Ok question, I have a Nikon ED 70-300MM ZOOM 4.0-5.6....A VR lens is a bit out of my price range right now, but I'd like to get something a little stronger. I've been trying to photograph birds, which I enjoy, but can't seem to get close enough, nor the clarity that I'd like. What should I be utilizing as far a s a lens goes, and what other brands are decent for the buck, other than Nikon. Tamron, Promaster, Tokina, etc...Any advice would be helpful..thanks. |
I have the Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR and let me tell you...1) it's heavy 2) I can't seem to move fast enough (pan) to catch anything that is on the move...but it is good for long distance picture of things that are holding still...I got this last year for Christmas and it wasn't what I was looking for. My fault, not an action lens. I would recommend looking through the wildlife pictures and see what "common" lens is being used and PM those people to find out there direct input. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 05:54:29 PM · #3 |
| most of the nikon bird shooters on bpn seem to use the 200-400 nikon lens but i'm guessing that that is probably out of your price range. my daughter has a sigma 170-500 and that seems pretty good a lot of people seem to like the sigma 50-500 just some things to check out |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 08:02:24 PM · #4 |
I've got a Bigma (Sigma 50-500). It's clunky and giant. Focus speed is decent, sharpness and contrast are alright but the difference between it and the nikon 80-400 are obvious (so was the price). It is slow so you need to be ready to capture your picture right away and hope your subject sits still for a bit and that you will have decent sunlight. You will be needing a LOT of lens for birding. Even with the Bigma I feel as though I don't have enough sometimes. What that means is a lot more weight. The Bigma weighs 2.5 times what the nikon 70-300  Ja-9 mentioned, and it doesn't even have OS... |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 09:28:49 PM · #5 |
I would like to move up too (I have the 70- 300mm VR Nikon on my D80 and don't consider it to be too heavy) but the the next step is quite a big jump in price and looks like size/ weight too. I am not convinced that a cheaper long lens will be any better than digitally cropping the one I have. The Nikon 80- 400 sounds nice (and a bit pricy at about $1500) and is said to be a bit slow on focus. Rumour has it that Nikon is working on an updated version (it is one of the first VR lens they made). Sure something like a 400mm f/2.8 VR would be awsome but that would also be probably $10,000 and pretty big to lug around (I travel by bicycle). I just plan to deal with what I have for now.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2009 04:32:09 AM · #6 |
| birds are tough i have a 5 and usually shoot at 700--5+1.4 but you have to figure 400 to be a the smallest you can go for decent results and as a + 400 usually works good for flight shots |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 04:32:54 AM · #7 |
what's your opinion on the Vivitar 400mm f/5.6? It's a heavy mother, but as I understand it it will give me a lens comparable to a 600mm lens??? I am going to take it out this wkend to give it a trial run (this is my friends ex-husbands lens that she is trying to sell, price range $89-$197 e-bay) so I hate to pass up the obvious lens choice when I have it right under my nose. I don't think that when you get to these lengths in lens you get much choice on the weight and speed of it, unless your willing to pay the $10K or more (which I am not ever going to do that), it's just what it takes to get that kind of shot.
Would appreciate your opinions on this if I'm on the right track or not... |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 05:10:46 AM · #8 |
I am assuming you want to fill the frame with songbirds ....
If your budget excludes purchasing a 500/f4 AF-S VR (as most budgets do) you can investigate:
- The 500 f/4 P, it's manual focus but is supposedly a steal for the glass. The lowest price I've seen recently has been ~$1500, but expect to pay closer to $2k.
300 f/4 AF-S is a monster steal for the quality of the glass. Add a TC-1.4 and you'll still have excellent image quality, the 1.7 is a little soft but still nice. This is one sweet lens. You can find them used for approximately $1000, if you're lucky you can find a refurb on B&H or Adorama for under <$1000. On a DX sensor this lens is a hoochiemomma! |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 05:20:57 AM · #9 |
I had a Sigma 400/5.6, and I gave it to my son. I could get sharper images with the old 300mm 4.5 ED IF Ai manual Nikkor. It's the lens that I use for almost all of my bird shooting.
I also have had the 70-300 G, which was a little better than the 400 Sigma, and still have a 70-300 D ED, which is almost on par with the prime 300 except slower.
You may want to try a good monopod, and with a good solid tripod, you need to turn VR off to get best results.
Sometimes I use a mirror lens too, but the 300 ED IF makes better photos, unless the scene happens to be right for using the 1,000 f11, and there is plenty of daylight.
I try to put shooting info with all my pix here at DPC so that people can see how I made the shot, and have found that it helps me to have that info available as well.
I think that I paid less than $150 on eBay for the ED IF 300 about 3 years ago.
I also shoot most of the time at iso 400, and sometimes 800 to get better shutter speed. High shutter speed is a very big factor in getting sharpness in long lens shots. I try to hold shutter speed at 750 and up, even if it means having a little more noise.
eta I also have a Vivitar 400, an old one on the shelf. I shot about 3 shots with it, and removed the adapter mount so that I could use it with this thing.
Message edited by author 2009-12-23 10:24:02.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2009 06:29:42 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
what's your opinion on the Vivitar 400mm f/5.6? It's a heavy mother, but as I understand it it will give me a lens comparable to a 600mm lens??? I am going to take it out this wkend to give it a trial run (this is my friends ex-husbands lens that she is trying to sell, price range $89-$197 e-bay) so I hate to pass up the obvious lens choice when I have it right under my nose. I don't think that when you get to these lengths in lens you get much choice on the weight and speed of it, unless your willing to pay the $10K or more (which I am not ever going to do that), it's just what it takes to get that kind of shot.
Would appreciate your opinions on this if I'm on the right track or not... |
have you tried a tele extender on your 300? sorry just read your above post and see that you have problems picking up things in that and that is a big problem with very long lenses, you are looking at such a small area that they are difficult to find your target especially iif moving, perhaps you need to pratcice more with the 300 and save a bit it the process good resluts don't come quickly with really long lenses
Message edited by author 2009-12-23 11:34:32. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 12:53:48 AM EDT.
