Posted by Bonnie Forte on February 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Hi everyone,
I would like to know what type of lens to buy for my Nikon D40. I love my camera and have the lens that came with it as well as a 55-200. I am pleased with both, and find I utilize them both quite often but it is a bit of a pain to constantly change lenses all the time, and with the risk of dropping one I do it anyway just because I have so much fun taking pictures. I love that I can snap away and delete what I don't like. So with that said, I would like to purchase a telephoto lens for Nature and wild animal shots, mostly birds and what ever I see on hikes. I take photographs for myself only and would love to be able to frame some for my home and maybe even gifts if they come out nicely. So I have found that my 55-200, really doesn't reach that far out, of course I can make it bigger on my computer, but it doesn't always come out that nice. Since I am so new at this, I am overwhelmed by the choices of lenses. So would someone mind just telling me of a good lens with VR that would be cost efficiant? Also eventually I would like a macro as well. Anything over a couple hundred dollars is going to be too much money for my hobby at this time. Thanks so much for everyone's help!
Also, I just read some of the ethic posts and was very surprised to hear that alot of shots were taken by baiting animals. I would think that should not be ok, and to get paid for it is kind of cheating isn't it? Maybe the photograpers doing that don't really think about the danger they put the wild animals in or themselves for that matter. To feed wild birds of prey by the road side seems to me that would be wrong, it really might endanger the animal. Getting hit by a car for one thing and maybe getting used to people for another. To feed wild four legged creatures would not even cross my mind. Why put yourself or the animal at risk like that?
With that said, I do feed my birds outside and the squirrels too. I have always done this even before getting into photography. We have our feeders in a tree that provides protection for them and dogs that chase away any cats that might hurt them. I never even though about birds of prey that might eat them as I have never seen any in my area. I have always enjoyed watching the birds come and feed and use the bird bath. A cute little story really quick...I have some bird houses for decoration on a fence (never thinking they would be used because of all the foot traffic outback) and this litte brown sparrow (I think it is a sparrow, sometimes they all look alike) kept trying to get into the little hole in the birdhouse. I think the house is more for a finch, well this little one tried for like an hour to get into it possible thinking it to be a good nesting spot, and then along came a steller jay and can you believe that this bird totally swooped in and pushed this little bird down and then checked out the hole too?! yes, the little bird was fine and sat on the fence just watching the jay. I wonder...do stellars eat other birds eggs or chicks?? I have even witnessed the blue jays watching squirrels bury their peanuts then go to the very area and poke around with their beaks to see where the peanuts are! I also saw a jay pecking on a squirrel feeder that contained peanuts..the one that the squirrel has to lift the lid and take a nut out then the lid closes...it is all very fasinating to me to watch nature at work. I would have never thought everyday birds to be so smart! Anyway, I have wrote alot here and really just wanted some input on lenses...less expensive is really better for me.
Thanks and hope everyone has a wonderfull day!!!'
Bonnie ><>
Bonnie, your question about lenses is tough to answer. Given the length of telephoto lens you need to get a satisfying photo of birds and wildlife, your budget becomes an issue. I'll make a couple of suggestions and hope that people more familiar with the array of lenses out there will add more info for you.
For a hobbyist, the reach of the longest lens you have now can be extended with a teleconverter in sizes 1.4, 1.7, or 2.0. I always recommend to use the ones made by the camera's manufacturer since they are built to match the lens optics. However, 3rd party manufacturers make decent ones that are usually cheaper. Given your budget, this might be the only solution. Your dilemma does present you with a good opportunity, though. Learn to use blinds and to sneak up on your subjects! Or place yourself in a likely spot for viewing and wait patiently. Hope this helps a little.
P.S. As to macro, try the close-up lenses that screw onto the end of the lenses you have. Various diopters are available. Take your camera to the shop with you so you can get an idea of what you see when it's on there. Good luck, and have fun.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hi Bonnie,
There really isn't a low-cost solution without sacrificing image quality. You can try the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR, for about $480 on Amazon, or even better for wildlife, the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR for about $1475. Sigma makes cheaper lenses but I don't know if they offer VR. Please check compatibility with your Nikon body and the lenses I mentioned as I'm a Canon user and don't know the Nikon line all that well.
Posted by RL Potts on February 27, 2008 at 10:28 PM
You might be able to get a 300mm AI 4.5 used in your price range from KEH. Could also try ebay. VR helps with camera movement, but has no input on animal or wind movement. For lots of nature stuff, you have to use a fast shutter speed. Longer tokinas and sigmas are dirt cheap used, but I can't vouch for them. They are good enough for some folks, but not others.
Posted by Sean Watson on February 28, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Hi Bonnie,
You're right to put the welfare of your subject well above your desire to get a good shot.
Catherine's suggestion about getting closer is probably your best bet. With the right patience and understanding of your subject, you can often get pretty close. You can get a long way by sitting still and being non-threatening. Or by shooting from a car or something else that works as a blind.
I'd be worried that Nikon's TCs may not be compatible with the 55-200. You should probably check into that if you decide to go that route. Also with any 1.4 TC, your 200 F/5.6 will be a 280 F/8. If autofocus works, it'll probably be dog slow and you'll have to limit yourself to brightly lit subjects to catch them with a reasonably fast shutter speed.
I know you said you were on a budget, but good glass is generally worth the investment. I don't know where you are, but Glazer's in Seattle has a rental program where they'll credit your rental fee towards the purchase of a lens. A 70-300 is $15 for the day (and a weekend counts as a day). An 80-400, a 70-200, and a 300 F/4 are each $25. It's worth trying a lens out before you buy it. And it may be worthwhile to rent a few times as you save to get a nice lens. I'd check with camera stores in your area if you're not in the Seattle area.
I've heard mixed things about the 80-400. If it's not out of your budget think about the 300 F/4 (which I own and like a lot). If you use a 1.4 TC on it, it'll be a 420 F/5.6.
I had the non-VR version of the 70-300 and really didn't like it (too slow to focus and too dim at the long end). I went to get an 80-400 but the guy at the camera shop sold me on the 70-200 with a 2x TC. I'm really happy I picked up that lens.
As I recall, the D40 only works with AF-S lenses, so double check that you're getting something that works with your camera. (Most lenses you want for wildlife will be AF-S or AF-S II anyway.)
I can't comment too much on 3rd party lenses like Sigma. I've heard some good things about them. Again you'll need to be careful that AF will work with the D40.
I know these aren't super options. Wildlife photography is hard to do on a limited budget. But with good technique (getting close, prefocusing, shooting in good light) you can probably stretch your investment a long way.
Discussion
4 repliesI would like to know what type of lens to buy for my Nikon D40. I love my camera and have the lens that came with it as well as a 55-200. I am pleased with both, and find I utilize them both quite often but it is a bit of a pain to constantly change lenses all the time, and with the risk of dropping one I do it anyway just because I have so much fun taking pictures. I love that I can snap away and delete what I don't like. So with that said, I would like to purchase a telephoto lens for Nature and wild animal shots, mostly birds and what ever I see on hikes. I take photographs for myself only and would love to be able to frame some for my home and maybe even gifts if they come out nicely. So I have found that my 55-200, really doesn't reach that far out, of course I can make it bigger on my computer, but it doesn't always come out that nice. Since I am so new at this, I am overwhelmed by the choices of lenses. So would someone mind just telling me of a good lens with VR that would be cost efficiant? Also eventually I would like a macro as well. Anything over a couple hundred dollars is going to be too much money for my hobby at this time. Thanks so much for everyone's help!
Also, I just read some of the ethic posts and was very surprised to hear that alot of shots were taken by baiting animals. I would think that should not be ok, and to get paid for it is kind of cheating isn't it? Maybe the photograpers doing that don't really think about the danger they put the wild animals in or themselves for that matter. To feed wild birds of prey by the road side seems to me that would be wrong, it really might endanger the animal. Getting hit by a car for one thing and maybe getting used to people for another. To feed wild four legged creatures would not even cross my mind. Why put yourself or the animal at risk like that?
With that said, I do feed my birds outside and the squirrels too. I have always done this even before getting into photography. We have our feeders in a tree that provides protection for them and dogs that chase away any cats that might hurt them. I never even though about birds of prey that might eat them as I have never seen any in my area. I have always enjoyed watching the birds come and feed and use the bird bath. A cute little story really quick...I have some bird houses for decoration on a fence (never thinking they would be used because of all the foot traffic outback) and this litte brown sparrow (I think it is a sparrow, sometimes they all look alike) kept trying to get into the little hole in the birdhouse. I think the house is more for a finch, well this little one tried for like an hour to get into it possible thinking it to be a good nesting spot, and then along came a steller jay and can you believe that this bird totally swooped in and pushed this little bird down and then checked out the hole too?! yes, the little bird was fine and sat on the fence just watching the jay. I wonder...do stellars eat other birds eggs or chicks?? I have even witnessed the blue jays watching squirrels bury their peanuts then go to the very area and poke around with their beaks to see where the peanuts are! I also saw a jay pecking on a squirrel feeder that contained peanuts..the one that the squirrel has to lift the lid and take a nut out then the lid closes...it is all very fasinating to me to watch nature at work. I would have never thought everyday birds to be so smart! Anyway, I have wrote alot here and really just wanted some input on lenses...less expensive is really better for me.
Thanks and hope everyone has a wonderfull day!!!'
Bonnie ><>
For a hobbyist, the reach of the longest lens you have now can be extended with a teleconverter in sizes 1.4, 1.7, or 2.0. I always recommend to use the ones made by the camera's manufacturer since they are built to match the lens optics. However, 3rd party manufacturers make decent ones that are usually cheaper. Given your budget, this might be the only solution. Your dilemma does present you with a good opportunity, though. Learn to use blinds and to sneak up on your subjects! Or place yourself in a likely spot for viewing and wait patiently. Hope this helps a little.
P.S. As to macro, try the close-up lenses that screw onto the end of the lenses you have. Various diopters are available. Take your camera to the shop with you so you can get an idea of what you see when it's on there. Good luck, and have fun.
There really isn't a low-cost solution without sacrificing image quality. You can try the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR, for about $480 on Amazon, or even better for wildlife, the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR for about $1475. Sigma makes cheaper lenses but I don't know if they offer VR. Please check compatibility with your Nikon body and the lenses I mentioned as I'm a Canon user and don't know the Nikon line all that well.
You're right to put the welfare of your subject well above your desire to get a good shot.
Catherine's suggestion about getting closer is probably your best bet. With the right patience and understanding of your subject, you can often get pretty close. You can get a long way by sitting still and being non-threatening. Or by shooting from a car or something else that works as a blind.
I'd be worried that Nikon's TCs may not be compatible with the 55-200. You should probably check into that if you decide to go that route. Also with any 1.4 TC, your 200 F/5.6 will be a 280 F/8. If autofocus works, it'll probably be dog slow and you'll have to limit yourself to brightly lit subjects to catch them with a reasonably fast shutter speed.
I know you said you were on a budget, but good glass is generally worth the investment. I don't know where you are, but Glazer's in Seattle has a rental program where they'll credit your rental fee towards the purchase of a lens. A 70-300 is $15 for the day (and a weekend counts as a day). An 80-400, a 70-200, and a 300 F/4 are each $25. It's worth trying a lens out before you buy it. And it may be worthwhile to rent a few times as you save to get a nice lens. I'd check with camera stores in your area if you're not in the Seattle area.
I've heard mixed things about the 80-400. If it's not out of your budget think about the 300 F/4 (which I own and like a lot). If you use a 1.4 TC on it, it'll be a 420 F/5.6.
I had the non-VR version of the 70-300 and really didn't like it (too slow to focus and too dim at the long end). I went to get an 80-400 but the guy at the camera shop sold me on the 70-200 with a 2x TC. I'm really happy I picked up that lens.
As I recall, the D40 only works with AF-S lenses, so double check that you're getting something that works with your camera. (Most lenses you want for wildlife will be AF-S or AF-S II anyway.)
I can't comment too much on 3rd party lenses like Sigma. I've heard some good things about them. Again you'll need to be careful that AF will work with the D40.
I know these aren't super options. Wildlife photography is hard to do on a limited budget. But with good technique (getting close, prefocusing, shooting in good light) you can probably stretch your investment a long way.
Good luck,
Sean