Wildlife Lens

[Manfred M]

I know there is not such thing and that it's a personal choice but by getting other peoples opinions I can decide if I'll get a 18-300mm or save up for something more powerful.

The 18-300mm lens is an all purpose lens that does things reasonably well throughout its working range. The main advantage is that it is a "one size fits all" design, so it does nothing really well. At 300mm, it is just at the point where you will be able to use it for wildlife shots, but in all likelihood, you will find it too short.

If you want a general purpose lens for general shooting and the occasional wildlife shot, then give the 18-300mm lens some serious thought. If you want to do serious wildlife photography, then look for a longer lens. If you look at the serious wildlife photographers here on this site or elsewhere, you will find that they tend to use some of the most expensive lenses available.

[Stagecoach]

What type of lens have you used for wildlife and what is your opinion on it? Would a 300mm lens be a good length or should I go higher? I'll most likely be doing bigger animals so something the size of a deer or a large dog. Edit: I am thinking of buying the DX NIKKOR18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G for my Nikon D5100 I am not willing to spend more than 1,000 before tax.

Adrian,

I'm going to come at this one from a different angle..............................

From your previous posts regarding a Macro lens and the explanations and examples given your comment at the end was that you thought you would go for the 18-300mm as it would be ideal for your needs.

With regard to wildlife there is no simple answer other you than having a lens that will achieve the image standards you want with the subject (whatever) and conditions that you are using it with (close/far).

Personally, I would say go and get the 18-300mm, it will always be a good general purpose walk around lens for your kit. Go out and shoot and shoot and when you find that you can not achieve the results you are happy with look closely at WHY. Ask yourself is it your technique OR is the lens standard/FL limiting you, when you can honestly say it's the lens then start looking for an upgrade.

There will always be views that this lens is better than that and they at times come from those that rate their opinions based upon a limited scope of use. I recently purchased a budget zoom of which some would only use as a paperweight so that I could explore up to the 300mm FL before making big bucks decisions, what it has produced has been good enough for publishers to want to print in mags.

[NorthernFocus]

...There will always be views that this lens is better than that and they at times come from those that rate their opinions based upon a limited scope of use. I recently purchased a budget zoom of which some would only use as a paperweight so that I could explore up to the 300mm FL before making big bucks decisions, what it has produced has been good enough for publishers to want to print in mags.

I've had similar experience. Photographers seem to be a lot pickier than photography buyers about technical image quality. Buyers are more focused on content. No doubt for studio work things are different. But not for the stuff that I shoot.

[Polar01]

Adrian if you want to do serious wildlife photography then the old saying comes to mind, "go big or go home", the least I would look at it the new 80-400mm from Nikon and it will accept a teleconverter. Getting serious is all about the glass, good glass will last you a lifetime, camera 3 to 5 years the most. I know a number of photographers that use the Sigma 150-500mm on a cropped camera, with a Nikon that equals out to about 750mm, one of them shoots from the front of a canoe always telling her husband "closer, closer. To get the images she gets takes hard work, time, and practice and lots of it.

Cheers: Allan

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Adrian, one thing I can say about wildlife shooting, it is a rare thing indeed to have too long a lens. If you've already decided that the cost and quality of the Nikkor 18-300 fits your needs, then I'd suggest you consider the longest glass you can get in that price range. The Tamron 150-600 or Sigma 150-500 are very close in price and provide you with a lot more reach. And they will likely produce sharper images across the range due to being much lower zoom ratio.

Once you get involved in shooting wildlife, you will almost surely also shoot birds. For one thing, they are typically more readily available. Secondly, it is very challenging. And with birds, you definitely need as long glass as you can get.

But my first and probably best bit of advice is to get something and get out and shoot. Life is short.

But I only have a Nikon D5100?

[Beauty Through a Lens]

okay so I just did some looking and researching turns out I can use it on my nikon. It's more than I want to pay by $400 (ouch) but considering it goes up 600mm which what I want will be handy. Although it's pretty heavy I think I may have to suck it up. Maybe chip in a bit more money for a case to make it easier on those long trips. But considering it reaches 600mm I think I may buy it. Considering nikons 600mm prime lens is 10,299.99 and I guess 400 would be worth it. I guess the only thing holding me back is how heavy it would be. I go out for 6 hours on trails and uneven grounds all the time. Suggestions?

[Manfred M]

Suggestions?

Get yourself a decent backpack to carry the gear on longer outings. How do you think the rest of us handle this?

[AB26]

How do you think the rest of us handle this?

Robinson R22!

[mrinmoyvk]

I generally don't like shooting animals or birds at a distance so can't suggest any lens depending upon its performance. However from my experience I would suggest that if you are ready to do your homework about the subject that you are going to shoot and shoot only that specific subject at a given time then and only then go for prime.
If you like wildlife and just want to shoot because you enjoy then go for zoom lens something like 70-300, 80-400, 150-600

[NorthernFocus]

... I guess the only thing holding me back is how heavy it would be. I go out for 6 hours on trails and uneven grounds all the time. Suggestions?

The zooms that have been discussed are much lighter than similar length prime lenses. Heavy gear is simply one of the realities of wildlife photography. The only real solution to that is to go to mirrorless equipment. For similar investment you can purchase a Nikon 1 V2 and the new 70-300mm lens. That gives and effective reach of 800mm full frame equivalent and the whole kit only weighs a couple of pounds. There are other options but that is one I'm familiar with. I'm not necessarily advocating Nikon 1. There's no free lunch. If you do go with lighter kit there is a sacrifice in ultimate image quality. If you're just shooting for fun you may not care. Any loss of IQ may be more than offset by increased opportunities due to the lighter, smaller kit.

Isn't this fun?

[Krawuntzel]

Robinson R22!

"irony on": a partner lugging the lens also comes in handy "irony off"

[JR1]

I know there is not such thing and that it's a personal choice but by getting other peoples opinions I can decide if I'll get a 18-300mm or save up for something more powerful.

150-600 anything decent

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Get yourself a decent backpack to carry the gear on longer outings. How do you think the rest of us handle this?

Now if I did get the Tamron 150-600mm for Nikon would you be able to take photographs handheld or does it need to be mounted on a tripod? Suggestions for carrying a tripod as well? I don't see any backpacks that carry tripods as well as the camera lens.

[Shadowman]

Now if I did get the Tamron 150-600mm for Nikon would you be able to take photographs handheld or does it need to be mounted on a tripod? Suggestions for carrying a tripod as well? I don't see any backpacks that carry tripods as well as the camera lens.

Some photographers claim they can shoot that lens handheld, I tried with an even heavier Sigma and it's possible but not for long stretches of time. I carried one mounted to a monopod for a few hours while also carrying a slightly full camera bag; it's taxing on the muscles after awhile. If you don't mind reclining you can always use your camera bag for balance; but a tripod is the way to go with a heavy lens.

[JR1]

Now if I did get the Tamron 150-600mm for Nikon would you be able to take photographs handheld or does it need to be mounted on a tripod? Suggestions for carrying a tripod as well? I don't see any backpacks that carry tripods as well as the camera lens.

Monopod

[Beauty Through a Lens]

I noticed with this lens the lens its self mounts to the tripod and not the camera, will i need a certain type of tripod for this or will the VPT-6072 be fine?
So I decided I'm going save up for the Tamron 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD SP for Nikon and a $500 backpack that's perfect I also need a new tripod since mine broke awhile ago. So i'm probably looking at just under 2,000 but I really think this is the golden lens I've truly wanted and the backpack will be able to carry a tripod my 18-55mm lens (along with another small lens) 2L of water and so on. Since I have a 18-55, 70-200mm and will be getting a 150-600mm I most likely will not need to buy a new lens ever again. I just really wanted to thank all of you for your suggestions, opinions and explaining things to me in simpler terms when I just didn't get it. I really appreciate it.

[Stagecoach]

Since I have a 18-55, 70-200mm and will be getting a 150-600mm I most likely will not need to buy a new lens ever again. [/B]

But........... Ultra Wide angle...........................then a decent Macro.....................

[Manfred M]

Adrian - the tripod you are pointing out looks like a video tripod (the fluid head is a dead giveaway).

Adorama lists this tripod at $35US. For that price, I would suggest, no this is not what you want. If you are planning to put around $2000 worth of camera / lens gear on something that low end, I would suggest that you might as well hand hold; it would be safer. As well, you will likely end up smashing the tripod on the nearest tree out of frustration.

Most people go "cheap" on a tripod and end up spending ever more money until they finally end up with something decent. If you decide you need a good tripod, wait until you have the cash and get something decent; light weight (carbon fibre), large diameter tubes (for stability and load carrying capacity)and a decent head that will support your camera / lens combination without slipping.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Adrian,

Me again (sorry).

Can I suggest you actually try shooting wildlife handheld with your 70-200mm and see how you get on?

Then, when you get the Tamron 150-600, do it again (go out and shoot, I mean).

Then you'll have some experience, guided by your own preferences, which may differ from ours.

++++++++++++++

I just get the impression from you posts over the last week or so, that you want to analyse everything, come to set of decisions, spend all the money - then expect that to be the end of it - oh, if only it were that easy

Although we've reached some kind of a consensus on the lens - you'll have noticed (I hope) that's what 'right' for some members, doesn't work at all for others. This applies perhaps even more to bags, tripods vs monopods, etc.

Don't rush your buying, I urge just one thing at a time, get to know it (in the field) before making the next decision.

+++++++++++++

Personally, I wouldn't buy a Vivitar tripod - there are any number of tripod discussions here at CiC in times past you can search for.

Don't forget the 'nice to have' extras like quick release plates and possibly a decent gimbal head for allowing easy balancing and subject tracking.

It is good that the Tamron 150-600mm has the tripod collar, you can mount the lens to the tripod and camera on lens, which is better than the camera on tripod, then having all that lens weight pulling down on front of it.

Cheers, Dave

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Adrian - the tripod you are pointing out looks like a video tripod (the fluid head is a dead giveaway).

Adorama lists this tripod at $35US. For that price, I would suggest, no this is not what you want. If you are planning to put around $2000 worth of camera / lens gear on something that low end, I would suggest that you might as well hand hold; it would be safer. As well, you will likely end up smashing the tripod on the nearest tree out of frustration.

Most people go "cheap" on a tripod and end up spending ever more money until they finally end up with something decent. If you decide you need a good tripod, wait until you have the cash and get something decent; light weight (carbon fibre), large diameter tubes (for stability and load carrying capacity)and a decent head that will support your camera / lens combination without slipping.

What's your opinion of these two tripods? Again I'm just assuming that the lens is cable of mounting onto on of these.
http://www.vanguardworld.ca/index.ph...1-4-15-89.html

http://www.vanguardworld.ca/index.ph...4-226-108.html