opinions and past exp on telephoto lenses

[ClaudioG]

Hi all,i find asking peoples opinions and there experiences helps me to decide which direction to take

So I'm here in sunny south Africa and decided I'd like to give a go out wildlife photography. I'd like to here some views on some affordable but good quality glass. Something maybe in range of about +-800 usd ? Is there anything out there? I have a Nikon d5100.

Does the 70-300 nikon have enough reach? Is it better to go for 200mm with extender? Does stigma or Tamron have anything on offer? And can i get longer reach in this price range?

Your advice and opinion is always greatly appreciated.

[ajohnw]

It's some time ago now when I bought a lens for that use. I went for an earlier version of the Sigma 170mm-500mm zoom. The reason for that goes back to film days and finding that 200mm isn't much of a telephoto really.. The way to look at it is to consider the view through a 50mm lens. 200mm will give a 4x magnification, 500mm 10x - now that is magnification - 4x? The sigma's also come with a tripod mount which you might need if you can't cope using the IS. There is also the option of a monopod. The mount on the lens keeps things reasonably in balance.

Downside - mine at least which dates from very late film days is a big heavy lens and for me that has limited it's use. On the other hand you probably have more suitable subjects close at hand than we do in the UK. If I go out to shoot "wild life" there isn't much of a choice really.

I have switched to micro 4/3 and have used a Panasonic 100-300mm, so 600mm in 35mm terms. I try lenses out like that on ducks in the pool in a local park. Small pool really probably about 30 yards wide and even at this focal length I wouldn't mind more. That should give you some idea about the magnification that range of focal lengths give. Most of the times it's at 300mm.

One other aspect that I would be interested in hearing views on and should interest you as well is max apperture. I recently bought an Olympus 75-300mm looked at reviews and found optics are good but the comment that at F4.8 - 6.7 it's slow so no good for low light photography. I've completely ignored the comment because the depth of field is so short at these focal lengths that I can't imagine even using it's max apertures. I'm more interested in it's optical performance in the F8 - 12 region and know that there wont be all that much available even at F8.

John
-

[GrahamS]

Claudio, the Nikon AF-S 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G IF ED VR will deliver what you ask. Anything longer will not be easy to hand hold and will make a tripod mandatory. Unless you have pockets deep enough for a 300mm f2.8 prime I would forget about using a 1.4 or 2x converter as the AF system of the 5100 will struggle.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...uct/992/cat/13

[shreds]

Unfortunately good glass long range costs stupid money.

I might be tempted to try something like the 150-500mm lens from Sigma, and marry that with a decent monopod which you will need to keep it relatively vibration free. (Indeed that will be true for a lot of telephotos). GrahamS is right about the converters unfortunately.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Si...6-3_DG_OS_HSM/

It gives you a bit longer reach than the 300mm, and whilst I am not necessarily Sigma's biggest fan, I do think that for a budget (!) lens it ticks most boxes, but might burn too big a hole in your pocket. (Sorry, if it does!)

I don't think that 300mm will necessarily have the 'reach' you are hoping for. Maybe a secondhand one might be within reach?

Go find a dealer and try them for yourself…that should answer your question.

[rpcrowe]

Claudio..

300mm is about the absolute minimum that I would want to use for any wildlife which is not within the enclosures of a zoo. Your 1.5x crop camera could give you enough range for many larger animals.(depending on close you can or would be willing to get to the animal). I would actually prefer a lens that has a long side of at least 400mm. However, lenses of that focal length for Nikon mount cameras are quite expensive.

Here is a thought. Depending on your uses for the final image, a bridge camera might suit your needs.

My son-in-law purchased a Canon SX50 HS bridge camera which has proven to produce quite good results, if used correctly. It has a 50x optical zoom which will give you up to a 1,200mm equivalent. (I don't know about prices in South Africa, but these cameras run around $300-$350 USD here in the USA). One caveat:, even with the Image Stabilization in this camera, when shooting at those extreme focal lengths, you are advised to use a camera support,: tripod, beanbag or monopod; in that order of preference.

You could combine the bridge camera with a 70-300mm or even a 70-200mm lens on your Nikon. Use the shorter focal lengths when you can and revert to the bridge camera for long shots. OR... use whatever lenses you have on your camera now and use the bridge camera when you need a longer reach...

The nice thing about living in your area, a wildlife trip might not be a once in a lifetime deal as it would be for me!

[ajohnw]

Before you jump to conclusions on the Sigma it might be worth looking at the test results for the Nikon 8-400mm on the same site. Canon don't go to 500mm except on primes either. In my view the drop in performance at 500mm will mean that the 100% res images may be a bit lacking. With contrast type processing and sharpening I am not convinced this matters so much these days. Perfection - buy the canon to 400mm but oh the price.

I do have one silly shot handy from my Sigma -500mm taken on a pen when I wished it had an aperture ring as without it I can only shoot wide open. Hand held seated through glass. Subject distance about 25ft.

Bear in mind that it was moving and I had to manually focus at 500mmx2x7 and the only IS is in the camera when the shot is actually taken. I found the fly eventually.



John
-
Edit as the link to the shot didn't work

[inkista]

Depending on how big and shy the wildlife is, 300mm is the minimum, but you might be a lot happier with 400mm if you can find it. Especially if wildlife includes birds.

Sigma has the 120-400 HSM OS, 150-500 HSM OS and 50-500 HSM OS in the US$1k range, and you could look for a used Nikkor 80-400 VR. The problem with the Nikkor is that if you find a used copy, it's undoubtedly the old D non-AF-S version, which may be too slow to autofocus for fast-moving wildlife/birds in flight.

The Sigma 500mm lenses are, obviously, going to be holder to handhold, and you'd probably be happier using at least a monopod with one.

Also, if you're thinking of adding a teleconverter, read up on how they reduce maximum aperture and may lose you autofocus. IMHO, a teleconverter+lens is never quite a good as a bare lens, particularly when it comes to autofocus speed.

[shreds]

Or at $120,000 and jumping over the fence to Canon and you could have this

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

[ClaudioG]

Thank you guys for all your comments, Richard..i think you have a great idea, this way i can really see if wildlife photography is an option for me, and i could get my wife in on the act a little as well.

Thank you all again for some very useful advice

[Downrigger]

I rented the new(ish) Nikon 80-400 for a day at the area bird sanctuary just recently. I found it manageable for handheld, fun to use, and to my eye, sharp and with nice color. I will do some more renting before I make a commitment - for this lens or others I might consider.

[rpcrowe]

Thank you guys for all your comments, Richard..i think you have a great idea, this way i can really see if wildlife photography is an option for me, and i could get my wife in on the act a little as well.

Thank you all again for some very useful advice

It's also a nice little camera for birthday parties and that sort of stuff. However, give the camera a decent chance and ensure that the shots using a super long focal length are taken from a steady support.

[KeithM]

Hi Claudio, depends what you want to shoot. I wouldn't even consider 800mm unless I were a bird specialist and had unlimited cash. If you need that reach you should hire a better safari guide to get you closer. For larger animals 300/400mm is perfectly adequate

Keith M

[Ken MT]

I used to have a Sigma 50-500, but found it a bit soft and also heavy to carry round. Subsequently I changed for a canon 100-400, with a 2x extender. The following shot of Lions in Etosha park was at 800 mm (full frame film). We could not get out of the van, but I was able to use a tripod. Can't recall if stabilisation was on or off, but it was getting late in the evening so exposure was quite long 1/30 sec?. Note the narrow depth of field that results from such a long focal length

[jcuknz]

If you are on a budget or not sure that you want to go seriously then Richards suggestion is very good, except Panasonic appear to be the leaders here with the FZ70 and its x60 zoom for the time being. Some time ago with only a 430mm lens I got myself a telephoto adaptor which gives me 950mm reach. then I got a Olympus TCON x1.7 which gives me 750mm reach.

Even with image stabilisation I suggest the tripod or monopod is a good almost essential accessory unless the subject is moving [ in my case surfers on the breakers ] when the tracking seems to help. After editing I had 2000mm reach and I was only using 1/400 shutter.
But finding the subject is a problem with 950mm and Birds in Flight would be very hard, impossible in my case. The only time it worked for me was when I used my x10 zoom to find the birds at WA and then zoom in on the hawk very nicely circling above me but with only 280mm reach it was really a waste of time.

A side issue is the difference between Contrast Detection focusing and Phase Detection of the DSLR ... if you get a lower priced and slower lens and add a telephoto converter you are likely to find PDAF unreliable or just will not work whereas I know CD works 'as normal' at f/10. In many cases I doubt if you would notice the difference between the speed of CDAF and PDAF.

The camera I would suggest you look at is the Panasonic FZ200 which has a constant f/2.8 lens [ only 600mm reach]and adding a telephoto adaptor to it give one person 750mm reach [ http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=52448 ] at I would guess from my adaptors about f/3.5 .... plus current bridge cameras can work at higher ISO than the 100 ISO I limited my earlier camera to. [ I have about f/4.5 at 950mm but with the limitation of 100 ISO ].

Unfortunately a lot of swings and roundabouts to balanced against each other but going bridge can be ecconomical.

[AB26]

range of about +-800 usd ?

Claudio,

I would try to find a used 80-400 mm FX lens for that money. keep an eye on Gumtree for a bargain. You can get a Sigma lens but.......................the Nikon is just so much better.
Just make sure the FX lens will work on your D5100, I am sure it should.

Sorry Claudio, almost forgot, Wildlife + 80-400mm lens = bean bag or Good Tripod + Gimbal head.

[ajohnw]

On thing I often do when this and that lens are discussed is to search the model of the lens adding test using google pictures. That brings up this page for instance. I'm having problems getting at flickr original images and sizes at the moment. however the problems I can see are depth of field. This page has direct ;links to the full sized image. Notice the difference wide open and when it's stopped down - more like the Nikon.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=255

There are plenty of these lenses about used so borrow one off ebay and if not happy sell it. I suspect you will be. The 170-500mm is lighter than the newer version. Both are smaller and lighter than the one I have. The newer on is about 1/2kg heavier - more glass probably.

This site has a couple taken with the newer lens. The way to find them is to hover over the image in the search and look at the size.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/si...s-review-13621

I borrowed one of the shots. 50% size reduction, Sharpen mostly to take care of the reduction and a marginal contrast adjustment. The only reason for reducing it is image load time on here. The 100% is ok for processing.



The Nikon is better when it's stopped down but the Sigma will be better at 400mm as well. The Sigma has fairly even performance - just like the Canon. The Nikon is a bargain lens too compared with that one. No free lunches at this length.

John
-

[chauncey]

All of the responses revolve around two decisions...
how good do ya wanna be and how deep are your pockets.
I'm a believer in "top, anal retentive IQ, wildlife, images to be printed at 16" or larger" requires pro level gear and the skills to use that gear, read mega dollars.

Buying that long glass, whatever you choose, is secondary to learning to use it...there is an associated learning curve to achieve those tack sharp images. I would submit that none of us bought a long lens and had everything come together the first time out in the field.

Additionally, I'm a PP believer which also has a rather lengthy learning curve.

[ajohnw]

I think most would be perfectly happy with the squirrel shot and suitable for a 20x16in print easily.

I do have a shot that shows one of the problems with long lenses. It was taken with the rather famous Tamron 500mm F8 mirror lens on a micro 4/3 Pen. Manual focusing. That causes a bit of a problem. The viewfinder has 1.4mp and the sensor 10 odd so to get a clear pixel level focus a 7x view magnification has to be used. Finding the gooses head was fun it was also moving and as you can see I just missed the focus but it does show the depth of field available. Worth bearing in mind when looking at other peoples shots. This was shot hand held. Pens have no image stability while focusing, only when the shot is actually taken.



John
-

[HenkB]

Thom Hogan seriously recommends giving consideration to mounting a Nikon 1 to an F-mount telephoto to achieve serious reach (crop factor of 2.7 IIRC). This would elevate the 70-300 to the equivalent of approximately 800mm at the long end. I have mounted a 70-300 on an OM-D which buys me, if not love, the equivalent of 600mm. It is not easy to handle and I wouldn't want to be doing sports or BIF with it, but for stationary targets it could work. The major drawback is that the 70-300 VR is not a wonderful MF lens - the focus ring has none of the silkiness of a good legacy lens. Since the Nikon 1 would AF with it and utilize the VR, that could be a very attractive package, indeed.

[ClaudioG]

Thank you all for your great advice... but the lenses you speak of are quite pricey.. if i were to go deep in the pockets( because it seems i have to for a good tele zoom.....would buying the 70-200 f2.8 and then getting an 1.4 extender be a better option for sharper images? that would give me a reach of 420mm? is that ok for nature and birdlife? and the lens could dbl as portrait lens?

Also pls note..i only have a Nikon D5100