Nikon Lens Question
- This topic has 16 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated Aug 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Birds, especially small birds, are always a focal length issue. Those that peruse birds find themselves with 600mm lens + tc2.0lll + crop sensor bodies and they still complain about the lack of reach.
That being said, one of the great bargains in Nikon’s lens line up is the current Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens. For birds in the yard, the larger water birds along the river and the bald eagle in Yellowstone, generally, 300mm is enough reach.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html
Even though I have the range covered with a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 I still have and will keep the 70-300mm.
The problem you would have putting a TC extender on the kit lens (if you could) is that you will lose Fstops.
As Roy mentioned, the 70-200 is a 2.8 and the 1.7 TC is a great option. I use it a lot for sports and birds.
Remember that the key to getting great wildlife shots is not about the focal length of the lens.
I tell soccer moms all day that think because I wield a large lens they think I can get super tight shots. I tell them that I get the same reach as them using their 70-300 5.6. People look at large primes and think it is easy to capture close shots, I smile every time. They simply think it is easy mode.
It is not about the gear but about position, patience, more patience and some skill in the approach and setup. The only thing an expensive prime will give is more opportunities when it comes to light and buying fstops! There is a reason why the 300 2.8 cost 6k and a kit lens is a few hundo. A 2.8 fstop with a 1.7 TC is going to put you at f4 and if you use a 2.0 TC your going to lose 2 full stops. In most birding situations especially out west where I reside, my opportunities come early mornings or evenings when light is at its best and when the wildlife is out. I owned a Tokina 80-400 5.6 and it was a fairly quick zoom lens. Even with its fast focus it wasn’t good enough to get me the exposures I was looking for during the times I mentioned. I was constantly bumping up higher ISO’s and grain was very noticeable. However something very important to note….it didn’t stop me from shooting, it just made me work harder for my shots 😉
I’ll just add a couple thoughts.
Generally speaking, for wildlife you want to hit 300mm. This is widely accepted as the starting point. There are a number of ways to do this. Budget plays a big role, as does expectations.
More reach is always desireable. The more you want the more you will likely shell out. That said there are a number of good long lenses people can look at, without having to shell out for Canons and Nikons beast. There are trade offs but your saving a lot of coin. The Tamron 200-500mm is very popular and is a lot cheaper than Canon or Nikons 300 f4.
For the most part pairing a TC with a zoom is not something I would advise. Even with the best zooms (read big budget) the hits are noticeable. Hits can and do include.
1) IQ
2) Light loss
3) Focus acquisition and focus speedThats not to say you can’t. Everyones expectations are different and what I consider unsuitable (delete) another may not. Then to is the arguement that any shot is better than no shot.
Basically what Im trying to suggest is if you want reach and want to utilise a TC to gain even more reach, a 300 prime + TC is better than a zoom that reaches 300mm + TC.
I would not use TCs with consumer lenses. Atleast I wouldn’t expect the results to be what I wanted. Again, though this is subjective.
In the end as with most things photography there are trade offs and you want to decide what you are willing to “sacrifice” to get what you “want”.
Patience, technique, being able to get close (a blind) and
As stated alot depends on the “species” your hoping to get.
Some species are notoriously hard to get close to. For these reach becomes very important. Some species while not hard to get close to don’t sit still very long, and focus speed/acquisition becomes more important than reach. Some species really only present themselves at dawn/dusk so light becomes an issue. This can be compensated for with a tripod, but only if the subject itself is stationary or moving very slowly.For example.
Backyard type birds/critters.
A bird feeder and a shooting station can get you within 15feet easily.Waterfowl: Good technique, patience, maybe a blind gets them within reach
White tails: See Waterfowl. I have all kinds of great White Tail images taken with my 70-200mm
Basically no matter the species, if people can hunt them with bows and shotguns, you can get great images without dropping serious coin on high end telephotos.
Just something to think about.
Filling out a kit takes time and $$. If you are happy with the 55-200mm overall and are predominantly looking for something that gets you more reach.Go to straight to a 300 f4 prime or something like the Tamron 200-500. Does make a whole lot of sense to spend X hundred on a 70-300 just to duplicate your focal range coverage from 70-200mm.
Basically.
55-200
70-300vs
55-200
+ 300mm and maybe adding a TCThe 300 f4 prime is going to be far superior to the 70-300 at the long end (300mm) and for everything else (shorter than 300mm) you already have 55-200mm that your happy with.
Its faster at f4 than a consumer zoom f5.6. So at dawn/dusk/overcast it will seriously outperform.
Being a prime and a very good one it will have superior optics.
It will have noticeably better/faster focus speed. Nothing will frustrate you more than having something in your sights, but your not getting any images because the lens is slow to grab focus or its hunting. This opens so many doors to birds in flight, animals moving at high speed…Opportunities that are there 1 second, gone the next.
Being an f4 prime it will take a 1.4 or 1.7 TC very well with only minimal hits to IQ….Light loss, focus speed also take hits but not as noticeable.
With the 55-200mm already in your kit and given your happy with it.,…..Honestly I would counsel against a 70-300 given your stated reasons for wanting something with a bit more reach.
When I shot my D70 and D2x I never felt I had too little lens with the 300 f4. Here are some examples with D2x and 300 f4 and D3x and 200 f2:
D2x
D3x
I also have a D3 and use it with the 200 f2 and 70-200 f2.8 and both do well with either the TC 1.4 or 1.7.
I’ve read excellent reviews on the 70-300 (latest version not the older one) and the newer 300 f4 the one I had would not take a TC so be aware of this when looking in the used market and I use Fred Miranda most often when looking at the used market. Best of luck.
Keep in mind that not all lenses have to be new, in order to be a great lens. At these distances, you may find that you want to manual focus anyway and there sure are some amazing old school lenses in the secondary market, that are very inexpensive!
Also, do yourself a favor and don’t freeze every shot, a little motion blur can be a lot of fun and bring life to your subject’s. 🙂 As always, if the subject is to far out of reach, you may be to far away from it ;).
Keep in mind that not all lenses have to be new, in order to be a great lens. At these distances, you may find that you want to manual focus anyway and there sure are some amazing old school lenses in the secondary market, that are very inexpensive!
Also, do yourself a favor and don’t freeze every shot, a little motion blur can be a lot of fun and bring life to your subject’s. 🙂 As always, if the subject is to far out of reach, you may be to far away from it ;).
I couldn’t agree more!
Love that Jay!!!! I don’t specialize in Wild Life Photography but here are some recreational shots slow shutter speed. Very limited post work so, overlook the potential quality.
Most were shot at 200m, one at 300mm.
These aren’t slow shutter speed but were recently shot at 400mm
And finally at 200mm
Yep, I love being out in the densely forested wilderness. ;D As Steven Tyler says: “Walk this way” 😀
I’m not sure if your body has a gear drive (will look like a little flat head screwdriver end coming out of the lens mount on the camera body) or only HSM. But, a great super cheap starter lens would be a 400mm 5.6 prime. These should be sub $200 on auction sites and it’s a great focal length, off brand, Sigma or Tokina seem fine, just check for fungus or dust and oil on app blades. These aren’t HSM so the focus will not snap and can in fact “hunt”. They are also slow @ 5.6 but you can get some great shots and it will double your current focal length at approximately the same aperture. I always bumped min to F6. Anyway, nice cheap little lens. I would not use a T/C in your setup, they, in my experience, require an extremely stable platform (tripod) and a very fast lens, nothing slower than f4. I would even want to run them in mirror lock up if I ever used them again. I gave all of mine away.
The attached image was captured on a cheap body with a cheap lens way back when.. a D70 with a Tokina 400mm f5.6. Not a great shot. but it will capture birds in flight.
I’ve owned several 80-200 / 70-210 2.8’s and these are AWESOME lenses, but they just rarely have the reach for what you want. The 300 prime is better, but really IMHO 400 is pretty minimum and 600 is optimal, but unless you have the equivalent of the cost of a small import in your account.. the 600 is out of reach, plus.. it’s a monster.
Just to put this in perspective, no other reason.
One of those was taken at 180mm, has been purchased and will be with all 2012 Deer Seals.
One at 180mm and from about 10feet.
One was taken at 245mm (70-200 + 1.4 TC)
One was taken at 500mm (bare lens)
One was taken at 1000mm (500 +2.0 TC)
One was taken at 1400mm (500 + 1.4 + 2.0 TC)
Can anyone tell me (without checking EXIFs) which is which?
1) you dont have to fill the frame, nor fill 40% all the time, even when you “can”
2) Reach (while great) is not everything.You do not need the hubble to get good pics.
Mike to be honest.
I had the 800mm at one point. Loved it, but that extra pound over the 500mm for what I do was a deal breaker. Sure the extra reach was nice at times, lugging it around wasn’t.
If I shot say 80% sure birds, then yeah I might have kept it. Reach is always an issue not matter what your flavour but I find these days I shoot between 200 and 500 more often then not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.