Separate two lenses wide and telephoto vs one zoom lens

[cauger61]

I am an absolutely new comer to the world of dSLR photography. I have recently joined a bird watching group and have made a few trips with successfully (to the extent permissible) taken birds and nature photographs with my existing point-and-shoot camera. But now I have started realising its limitations and therefore I have recently decided to have a Nikon d5200 which suits my budget.

The camera comes as usual with a 18-55 kit lens. The experienced members of the group come with awe raising 80-400 or 150-600 lenses, which are to me at jaw-dropping prices. Within my limited budget, I find that 16-300 or 18-300 or 70-300 by Nikon or Tamron is relatively affordable.

My question is, is it advisable to have a single lens of 16-300 or 18-300 range or to have two separate lenses -- one 18-55 (as kit lens) for wide shots and another 70-300 for bird shooting? Because, I have the option of buying the body-only of the dSLR and in that case the price of the camera will be reduced by 3-4 thousand rupees, if I forego the kit lens. I am a bit confused -- pls. help.

[William W]

My question is, is it advisable to have a single lens of 16-300 or 18-300 range or to have two separate lenses -- one 18-55 (as kit lens) for wide shots and another 70-300 for bird shooting?

Mostly always it will be better to take the two lens option.

The reason being, in general terms the wider the zoom's compass (that is the range of the zoom from wide focal length to telephoto focal length, the more compromises there will be in the optical performance, especially if the lens is being made to a budget price.

If you mention the actual lenses you are considering, then more specific advice will likely be forthcoming.

Another option to consider when on a budget is to buy a prime lens - for example a 400mm lens. This is common for bird photographers. I suspect that 300mm could be a little bit short for your purposes - what camera AND lens combination do the most successful photographers in the group use?

WW

[Geoff F]

I use the Sigma 150-600 Sport lens for birds and similar subjects on a Canon 7D Mk II.

It works reasonably well for mid sized birds but even at 600 mm you need to get quite close to smaller subjects. I went for the more expensive lens option because it has better weatherproofing and a stronger construction which will be better for those occasional accidental knocks that come from using such a large and heavy lens.

300 mm is sufficient for larger subjects if you can get close enough. For example the half tame harbour seabirds and similar targets.

One possible advantage with a prime lens is that you may be able to add a 1.4x converter at a later date to extend the zoom. But check carefully before purchasing because converters don't fit on all lenses.

[Mike Buckley]

Recognizing that budget is a concern, if you decide that the 70 - 300 lens best meets your needs, consider buying a used version. The 70 - 300 brand new might be Nikon's best value for a lens. When purchased used from a reliable company that accurately describes the quality of the lens and has a no-questions-asked return policy (sorry that I don't know anything about companies in India), it can become an even better value.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi,

Warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm and it is a bit short for birds, the problem is that whatever lens you get just encourages you to shoot birds that are (still) too far away
e.g. not much bigger than the focus point!

I haven't got a longer one yet, I might go for the Nikon 200-500mm if/when I can justify the cost to myself.

That's mainly because I have been dissatisfied with third party lenses in the past; e.g. Sigma and Tamron, etc. but perhaps I'm holding a grudge too long, many here seem happy with theirs (and the technology has advanced).

I bought a wide zoom (18-200mm) instead of the kit lens when I started with a DSLR, it made me happy for many years and is still useful, but as has been said above, any extreme wide range zoom is a compromise to quality.


Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

Cheers, Dave

[Hans]

Oh no you've been stung by the bird bug. I almost did until my wife advised me otherwise because the choice between a house and a lens is not a rational one 🙃

If you intend to proceed along this course of madness (I'm joking) a two lens option is a better choice. You can often buy quality in the used market. Buy lots of megapixels and maybe crop lots of your shots from a 70-300 and see if you are really into birding before spending the big bucks. If you are not, you'll most likely sell for what you paid for the lens.

Good luck in any case and enjoy the journey.

Kind regards,

[rpcrowe]

Birds are unique in that they are often relatively small and often are quite a distance from the camera. That seems to say that a very long lens is necessary for successful birding.

However, what does one do when a focal length longer than 300mm (300mm seems to be the limit of affordable lenses in both the Nikon and Canon lines) is not possible to purchase?

The answer is simple but just because it is simple doesn't mean that it is easy to do: GET CLOSER TO THE BIRDS!

Just how does one get closer to these nervous creatures without scaring them into flight... One answer might be; let the birds come to you. Using some sort of a blind (it is often called a hide by people who speak British English). This can be quite an intricate thing or it can be somewhat simple. One of the most simple types of blinds might be a folding chair with a hood.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quik-Shade-F...gAAOxyqjBTl27z

Clip some gardening shade cloth or camouflage mesh, long enough to hit the ground, to the awning with a hole cut out or a slit cut for your lens.

Placing that chair (which will now hide your outline and even hide slight movements) in an area where you expect the birds to congregate. Using some bait to attract these birds is not frowned upon like it is in sport hunting. Also using a bird-call recording ca be quite handy. I got very competent in using a wooden duck call. I have been also able to attract elk in the rut when I lived in New Mexico. Unfortunately that was before I had a digital camera.

Here is a YouTube video about using a blind for birds/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmWt-FSHSs

Tony Northrup uses a hunting blind - however the chair and mesh should do as well.

Single person tent-blinds can be available for a lesser price. But the nice thing about the chair blind is that you can use it for other than hiding from birds...

There is another trick for getting photos of birds. Instead of using a DSLR with a long lens, opt for a bridge camera. I have a Canon SX-50 HS that I purchased refurbished for less than any new DSLR and long lens. The SX-50 HS has a built-in lens with an equivalent maximum focal length of 1,200mm. Their are other bridge cameras that have as long of an equivalent focal range but which have a faster aperture. The SX-50 HS does achieve some fairly decent imagery especially when mounted on a tripod.

[Shadowman]

The 70-300mm might suit your needs depending on the size of the birds you encounter, whether they are typically on the ground or in flight, and whether or not they tend to hide in trees. Another thing to consider is the size (weight) of the lens, whether you'll be handholding or using a monopod/tripod.

Regarding the kit lens, it does come in handy for other types of photography, if you need that focal range then the two short range lenses (the 16 or 18) accompanied with the 300mm might be best option. One other thing you should really analyze from your group members shots are: what focal length do they use most often and are any of their shots cropped. This information might make it easier for you to decide if you need the extra reach. Also, if they have the same model camera as you, try to borrow their lens or at least let you try their camera.

[cauger61]

Oh no you've been stung by the bird bug. I almost did until my wife advised me otherwise because the choice between a house and a lens is not a rational one 🙃

If you intend to proceed along this course of madness (I'm joking) a two lens option is a better choice. You can often buy quality in the used market. Buy lots of megapixels and maybe crop lots of your shots from a 70-300 and see if you are really into birding before spending the big bucks. If you are not, you'll most likely sell for what you paid for the lens.

Good luck in any case and enjoy the journey.

Kind regards,

Very rightly said Hans -- I have really been stung by the "bird-bug". Now, it is really a choice between my household and the hobby. Thnx a lot for your very valuable suggestion.

[cauger61]

Birds are unique in that they are often relatively small and often are quite a distance from the camera. That seems to say that a very long lens is necessary for successful birding.

However, what does one do when a focal length longer than 300mm (300mm seems to be the limit of affordable lenses in both the Nikon and Canon lines) is not possible to purchase?

The answer is simple but just because it is simple doesn't mean that it is easy to do: GET CLOSER TO THE BIRDS!

Just how does one get closer to these nervous creatures without scaring them into flight... One answer might be; let the birds come to you. Using some sort of a blind (it is often called a hide by people who speak British English). This can be quite an intricate thing or it can be somewhat simple. One of the most simple types of blinds might be a folding chair with a hood.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quik-Shade-F...gAAOxyqjBTl27z

Clip some gardening shade cloth or camouflage mesh, long enough to hit the ground, to the awning with a hole cut out or a slit cut for your lens.

Placing that chair (which will now hide your outline and even hide slight movements) in an area where you expect the birds to congregate. Using some bait to attract these birds is not frowned upon like it is in sport hunting. Also using a bird-call recording ca be quite handy. I got very competent in using a wooden duck call. I have been also able to attract elk in the rut when I lived in New Mexico. Unfortunately that was before I had a digital camera.

Here is a YouTube video about using a blind for birds/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbmWt-FSHSs

Tony Northrup uses a hunting blind - however the chair and mesh should do as well.

Single person tent-blinds can be available for a lesser price. But the nice thing about the chair blind is that you can use it for other than hiding from birds...

There is another trick for getting photos of birds. Instead of using a DSLR with a long lens, opt for a bridge camera. I have a Canon SX-50 HS that I purchased refurbished for less than any new DSLR and long lens. The SX-50 HS has a built-in lens with an equivalent maximum focal length of 1,200mm. Their are other bridge cameras that have as long of an equivalent focal range but which have a faster aperture. The SX-50 HS does achieve some fairly decent imagery especially when mounted on a tripod.

Presently I am using Canon SX510 HS, a model lower to SX50. It has 30x zoom with 12/13 megapixel. But it being a point-and-shoot type with very small sized sensor, does not allow to capture smaller birds at a distance. If one tries to crop tightly, it "pixilates"!! Apart from this, its aperture-priority mode, does not properly make photos with blurry-background as can be done with a dSLR etc..etc..

[cauger61]

Hi,

Warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm and it is a bit short for birds, the problem is that whatever lens you get just encourages you to shoot birds that are (still) too far away
e.g. not much bigger than the focus point!

I haven't got a longer one yet, I might go for the Nikon 200-500mm if/when I can justify the cost to myself.

That's mainly because I have been dissatisfied with third party lenses in the past; e.g. Sigma and Tamron, etc. but perhaps I'm holding a grudge too long, many here seem happy with theirs (and the technology has advanced).

I bought a wide zoom (18-200mm) instead of the kit lens when I started with a DSLR, it made me happy for many years and is still useful, but as has been said above, any extreme wide range zoom is a compromise to quality.


Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field,
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

Cheers, Dave

Many many thnx!! Greatly encouraged to know that persons (photographer) like you started the pursuit with a zoom lens instead of the kit lens. Yes my name is "Sanjib" -- sanjib mukherjee (mukhopadhyay) and I am putting that in my profile. Thnx once again!!

[cauger61]

Recognizing that budget is a concern, if you decide that the 70 - 300 lens best meets your needs, consider buying a used version. The 70 - 300 brand new might be Nikon's best value for a lens. When purchased used from a reliable company that accurately describes the quality of the lens and has a no-questions-asked return policy (sorry that I don't know anything about companies in India), it can become an even better value.

Thnx Mike -- then what do you suggest -- a 300mm prime? But, pls. tell me will it not make me constrained in taking photos of landscapes which are at say 70 or 100mm focal length?

[Mike Buckley]

Thnx Mike -- then what do you suggest -- a 300mm prime?

No, I'm not recommending that. I only recommended that if you decide upon the 70-300mm zoom, which seems to me to be an excellent choice for the circumstances you described, that you also consider buying a used version.

[cauger61]

Mostly always it will be better to take the two lens option.

The reason being, in general terms the wider the zoom's compass (that is the range of the zoom from wide focal length to telephoto focal length, the more compromises there will be in the optical performance, especially if the lens is being made to a budget price.

If you mention the actual lenses you are considering, then more specific advice will likely be forthcoming.

Another option to consider when on a budget is to buy a prime lens - for example a 400mm lens. This is common for bird photographers. I suspect that 300mm could be a little bit short for your purposes - what camera AND lens combination do the most successful photographers in the group use?

WW

I was planning to have Tamron 16-300 or Nikor 18-300 in lieu of the 18-55 kit. But, according to many members of the group, like you, 300mm will be a bit "short" for capturing bird shots. They mostly use Nikon, some uses Cannon with 150-600 or at the most 80-400 lenses. Your that suggestion of having a 400mm prime needs to be given a thought. But, pls. tell me, in that case will I not be constrained in taking photographs of landscapes which are say, at 70mm or 100mm focal length? You can very well understand that procuring 2-3 lenses to start with is a burdensome proposition for an amateur on a budget, like me!!

[cauger61]

No, I'm not recommending that. I only recommended that if you decide upon the 70-300mm zoom, which seems to me to be an excellent choice for the circumstances you described, that you also consider buying a used version.

That is exactly what I am asking -- a 70-300mm zoom (used or new whatever) or a 300mm fixed aperture prime (used), while keeping the 18-55 kit for household and such other purposes. Pls. bear with, if I appear boring!!

[Mike Buckley]

One of the really important things to consider is how you plan to display your images. As an example, if you want to make 20" x 30" prints your needs will be very different than if you only want to display your images on the Internet. If your needs are the latter, you can use a 300mm focal length in many situations and heavily crop. That's because a small file size will work on the Internet, unlike when making large prints.

To give you an idea of what can be done at least in certain situations, all of the photos shown below were captured by my wife using the Nikon 70-300mm lens mounted on a Nikon D5100 camera. All images were captured at the 300mm focal length and were heavily cropped. I post-processed all of them. Neither of us are birders or have anything other than very minimal experience photographing birds, which is probably abundantly evident when viewing the photos.

Lilac-Breasted Roller



Magpie Shrike



South African Shell Duck



Southern Yellow Billed Hornbill



African Spoonbill

[cauger61]

One of the really important things to consider is how you plan to display your images. As an example, if you want to make 20" x 30" prints your needs will be very different than if you only want to display your images on the Internet. If your needs are the latter, you can use a 300mm focal length in many situations and heavily crop. That's because a small file size will work on the Internet, unlike when making large prints.

To give you an idea of what can be done at least in certain situations, all of the photos shown below were captured by my wife using the Nikon 70-300mm lens mounted on a Nikon D5100 camera. All images were captured at the 300mm focal length and were heavily cropped. I post-processed all of them. Neither of us are birders or have anything other than very minimal experience photographing birds, which is probably abundantly evident when viewing the photos.

Lilac-Breasted Roller



Magpie Shrike



South African Shell Duck



Southern Yellow Billed Hornbill



African Spoonbill

Great answer Mike -- thnx a lot!! I will once again get back, if I am stuck.