Posted by Bonnie Forte on January 2, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I recently bought a Nikon D40 with kit lens 18-55 and it also came with among other items, a 55-200 lens. I have been checking out zoom lenses and not sure which to buy. Money is an issue, but I really want to be able to take pictures of wildlife which I have found to be not that easy, as wildlife is farther away then I seem to be able to reach. Both lenses have been wonderful for family/pet shots, but I would like to do much much better. I also noticed that there is a 55-200 VR lens that costs a bit more then the lens I have. Is that better then what I currently have? I don't own a tripod yet...that and a macro lens is in my future
Thanks for anyone's opinion and help!
Also, I am going to the class that Ritz puts on for buying one of their DSLR's. Hopefully it will also shed some light on my new and very enjoyable hobby!
Bonnie ><>
I'm sure many more experienced photographers will answer as well but here's my 0.02.
I'd put the wildlife photoraphy on a shelf until you can shell out good money for good glass. I'm in the same boat and the one constant recommendation I've gotten from people is to save and spend money on the better lenses.
This is opposed to buying what I can afford and then ending up buying more expensive stuff later due to disappointment. If you really can't wait why not rent some of the bigger lenses and see what that gets you? With the longer lenses you'll probably want a tripod, and in some cases this also means specialized head equipment (gimbal arms, etc) to deal with weight.
My interests also include macro and I went that route first. You'll end up with a tripod and flash and plenty of time working on technique. I think the Ritz class will be a great help with introductory stuff. Congratulations and good luck.
I don't shoot Nikon, so I'll have to keep my advice generic. For wildlife, you're going to need a minimum of 300mm - 400mm would be better. If you see what the best wildlife and bird photographers are using, you'll see super-telephoto lenses: 300 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4. They're excruciatingly expensive. To keep the cost down, a 300 f4 or 400 f5.6 lens would be a good choice. You could consider zoom lenses, such as Nikon's 80-400 VR. If you get a 300mm lens, you are going to want one that performs well with tele-converters. Primes generally perform better with TCs than do zooms. If you like sharp photos, a good tripod will be your best friend.
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 2, 2008 at 11:35 PM
A 200mm lens isn't going to get you much. Also consider that the D40 body needs to have either Nikon AF-S or Sigma HSM lenses to autofocus. Three good choices for you are:
1) Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR
2) Sigma 50-500mm HSM (look for used on eBay)
3) Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S, eventually add 1.4x TC
Though probably more than you want to budget, the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 with the TC-14E teleconverter will give you superb performance. It is a lens that you will want to keep until Nikon adds VR to an equivalent. Also, you will need a really good tripod and ball head. We have used this set up for our in-home back yard photography for years.
Going out on a limb, my feeling is that most zooms are shot at their extremes, usually the long end. Our AF-S 80-200mm is probably an exception in our use. But, if you are going for a wildlife lens, my bet is that 60-70% of your shots will be at the long end. If so, why compromise with a zoom? Particularly, since only the Nikkor AF-$ 200-400mm f/4 would give the sharpness and reach that one needs.
If you plan on spending less and buying a lens that you will replace in a year or so, you need to weigh the cost savings with the disappointment which you might experience. It is tough to get really sharp images of wildlife, even with the best of equipment. If the disappointment won't bother you, then a less expensive lens may work. BUT, you will learn more by having good glass to start with. You will be able to literally see when you are doing things right. Likewise, when things are soft you won't be able to blame the lens.
While deciding and waiting for the bux Bonnie, I certainly continue to shoot with your 55-200. Not only will the experience teach you a lot about the habits and habitat of wildlife, but it will also teach you a whole lot about composition.
While fang and nostril photos are certainly nice trophies, in my experience they've become dime-a-dozen in the marketplace. Compelling compositions that show the animal smaller while including better views of its habitat consistently sell better in my markets. I've got long lenses out to 500mm, and for me they are often confining, preventing me from doing the composition work that I know sells. As a consequence I carry a second body mounted with an 80-200 any time I use longer lenses. Images shot with that getup almost always fare better.
I haven't heard much about it in recent years, but at one time the reasonably priced Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 was fairly well regarded, especially at middle apertures. Several of my students bought them, and it's hard to argue with the results they achieved- mostly on sunny days with the shooting at f/8 or f/11.
I own a couple of 300mm lenses and a couple of 500's. But when I can afford to make the buy, my dream lens is the Nikon 200-400 f/4. It's big and heavy, but gives me the framing options I feel are so important for effective wildlife compositions (as opposed to portraits). I'm betting that once I pick up that lens, there will be two 300's and two 500's for sale.
Hank's got a very good point. Composing "fang and nostril" portraits are cool and have a wow factor that are the reason why so many of us long to do wildlife photography.
A little work with some shorter lenses will give you the oportunity to develop the skills to get really nice evironmental photos and some animal in their place type shots.
And (blasphamy) if you're dying for some close portraits do some work at the local zoo. You'll be able to get some good close-ups, feed the hunger, and work on technique. Shooting photos in a zoo get you thinking about backgrounds and edges really quick! Just make sure you lable any photos as "Captive".
Cheers,
Alex
Posted by Basil Greber on January 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I'll agree with most of the things others have said. The 55-200 DX is a nice lens, especially for the money, and the 55-200 VR will not allow you to get shots you couldn't with the non-VR (apart from a few static scenes where VR can help - but that's usually not the case when you have moving wildlife as your subject). Keep that lens.
Money, money, money - I had wildlife photography in mind, too, when I started, but honestly, unless you can afford a fast 400 or 500 mm lens, it's going to be tough. Of course, what Hank says is true - you can make great animal photographs using shorter lenses, but you're limited in a way.
I looked at it that way: There was no way I could afford a top-notch wildlife lens. But with not too much money, I could get great lenses for landscaping and macro photography (I must say that I buy my gear almost exclusively on the used market). So, instead of shooting wildlife and keep wondering whether I could do better with better lenses, I got nice glass for landscape and macros, and I now know that my skill is the limiting factor. Not the equipment.
3 weeks ago, I bought the a 50 - 500mm Sigma. I am extremely happy with this lens.
If you are going to take photos of small to medium size birds a 200 or 300mm will not
come close to filling half your veiwfinder. Even at 20 feet away.
Save your money and buy a 500mm. If you buy a 300 or 400 you will want the 500mm.
Trust me I went through this.
Mike
Posted by Bonnie Forte on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
WOW! So much great information!!! Thanks to all of you who posted, I took notes and will be doing my research! I so appreciate all who post to questions and with such enthusiasm. I would love to do the nature photography but understand that I may not get those awsome shots with the lens I currently own, but hey, I can still do the family/pet/landscape shots and practice practice practice, till I get enough cash to buy the lens that will work for me. I have no problem taking pics. of animals at the Zoo, they would be for my own walls anyway, if they were good for framing that is.
Thanks again for all the great posts they are all super helpful!
Bonnie ><>
Discussion
9 repliesThanks for anyone's opinion and help!
Also, I am going to the class that Ritz puts on for buying one of their DSLR's. Hopefully it will also shed some light on my new and very enjoyable hobby!
Bonnie ><>
I'm sure many more experienced photographers will answer as well but here's my 0.02.
I'd put the wildlife photoraphy on a shelf until you can shell out good money for good glass. I'm in the same boat and the one constant recommendation I've gotten from people is to save and spend money on the better lenses.
This is opposed to buying what I can afford and then ending up buying more expensive stuff later due to disappointment. If you really can't wait why not rent some of the bigger lenses and see what that gets you? With the longer lenses you'll probably want a tripod, and in some cases this also means specialized head equipment (gimbal arms, etc) to deal with weight.
My interests also include macro and I went that route first. You'll end up with a tripod and flash and plenty of time working on technique. I think the Ritz class will be a great help with introductory stuff. Congratulations and good luck.
Alex
I don't shoot Nikon, so I'll have to keep my advice generic. For wildlife, you're going to need a minimum of 300mm - 400mm would be better. If you see what the best wildlife and bird photographers are using, you'll see super-telephoto lenses: 300 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4. They're excruciatingly expensive. To keep the cost down, a 300 f4 or 400 f5.6 lens would be a good choice. You could consider zoom lenses, such as Nikon's 80-400 VR. If you get a 300mm lens, you are going to want one that performs well with tele-converters. Primes generally perform better with TCs than do zooms. If you like sharp photos, a good tripod will be your best friend.
1) Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR
2) Sigma 50-500mm HSM (look for used on eBay)
3) Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S, eventually add 1.4x TC
Kent in SD
Though probably more than you want to budget, the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 with the TC-14E teleconverter will give you superb performance. It is a lens that you will want to keep until Nikon adds VR to an equivalent. Also, you will need a really good tripod and ball head. We have used this set up for our in-home back yard photography for years.
Going out on a limb, my feeling is that most zooms are shot at their extremes, usually the long end. Our AF-S 80-200mm is probably an exception in our use. But, if you are going for a wildlife lens, my bet is that 60-70% of your shots will be at the long end. If so, why compromise with a zoom? Particularly, since only the Nikkor AF-$ 200-400mm f/4 would give the sharpness and reach that one needs.
If you plan on spending less and buying a lens that you will replace in a year or so, you need to weigh the cost savings with the disappointment which you might experience. It is tough to get really sharp images of wildlife, even with the best of equipment. If the disappointment won't bother you, then a less expensive lens may work. BUT, you will learn more by having good glass to start with. You will be able to literally see when you are doing things right. Likewise, when things are soft you won't be able to blame the lens.
Good luck.
While fang and nostril photos are certainly nice trophies, in my experience they've become dime-a-dozen in the marketplace. Compelling compositions that show the animal smaller while including better views of its habitat consistently sell better in my markets. I've got long lenses out to 500mm, and for me they are often confining, preventing me from doing the composition work that I know sells. As a consequence I carry a second body mounted with an 80-200 any time I use longer lenses. Images shot with that getup almost always fare better.
I haven't heard much about it in recent years, but at one time the reasonably priced Tamron 200-400 f/5.6 was fairly well regarded, especially at middle apertures. Several of my students bought them, and it's hard to argue with the results they achieved- mostly on sunny days with the shooting at f/8 or f/11.
I own a couple of 300mm lenses and a couple of 500's. But when I can afford to make the buy, my dream lens is the Nikon 200-400 f/4. It's big and heavy, but gives me the framing options I feel are so important for effective wildlife compositions (as opposed to portraits). I'm betting that once I pick up that lens, there will be two 300's and two 500's for sale.
A little work with some shorter lenses will give you the oportunity to develop the skills to get really nice evironmental photos and some animal in their place type shots.
And (blasphamy) if you're dying for some close portraits do some work at the local zoo. You'll be able to get some good close-ups, feed the hunger, and work on technique. Shooting photos in a zoo get you thinking about backgrounds and edges really quick! Just make sure you lable any photos as "Captive".
Cheers,
Alex
Money, money, money - I had wildlife photography in mind, too, when I started, but honestly, unless you can afford a fast 400 or 500 mm lens, it's going to be tough. Of course, what Hank says is true - you can make great animal photographs using shorter lenses, but you're limited in a way.
I looked at it that way: There was no way I could afford a top-notch wildlife lens. But with not too much money, I could get great lenses for landscaping and macro photography (I must say that I buy my gear almost exclusively on the used market). So, instead of shooting wildlife and keep wondering whether I could do better with better lenses, I got nice glass for landscape and macros, and I now know that my skill is the limiting factor. Not the equipment.
Basil
If you are going to take photos of small to medium size birds a 200 or 300mm will not
come close to filling half your veiwfinder. Even at 20 feet away.
Save your money and buy a 500mm. If you buy a 300 or 400 you will want the 500mm.
Trust me I went through this.
Mike
Thanks again for all the great posts they are all super helpful!
Bonnie ><>