Saving up for the BIG lens

So I've decided that its time to get the BIG lens. The lens that every wildlife photographer dreams of having. I've been thinking about it for a while, and I think it would make a huge improvement for my photography, but a big lens is an even bigger investment. I'm looking at getting the Nikon 600mm F4. So my question is for the people who have purchased one of these lenses. How can a semi-pro photographer like me, save up for one of these beauties, preferably from profits made from my photography?

Hello there Joe:
No, I haven't gotten this lens [most likely won't, have to see] but I can tell you that I've gotten back into the photography game after being relocated by my company recently and am looking at upgrading equipment as well.

I used to do youth sports photography as a business, tweaked it down to doing action shots [parents and coaches can make it difficult] and did quite well with that. I had to lay it aside and now live in a big city where I can pick it back up on the weekends; so I've just now started throwing my name out there again.

I can actually work my regular job while doing my sports photography and use the proceeds from that to purchase the equipment that I need. I'm not trying to talk about myself [don't like to have a platform]; I'm just saying that this approach has worked for me in the past and maybe it can work for you. If it's something you like, go for it.

One saves for a lens the way one saves for anything. I sold a car to start the fund for my big glass and then added to it week by week. the lens hasn't paid for itself yet, but it has repaid the cash from the car. If you want to save for it by selling pictures, one can make salable photos with less costly lenses.

Thanks for the replies. I think the best thing i can do is just start saving. I do happen to have a rare large format print of a very famous yellowstone photographer. Im blinking on the name at the moment... But aperently it could be worth some serious cash. Although i dont think i could ever part with it. I'll also be doing several art fairs this year which should help.

If I am reading your blog correctly, and that you're in fact a 13 year old, you have PLENTY of time. I don't know what equipment you have now, but a 600mm lens is far from essential to be an excellent photographer - a 300 f/2.8 + 2X TC would serve you just fine, not to mention a 400 or 500 prime lens with a 1.4X or 1.7X TC. I'm assuming you have done your research, but a 600mm f/4 from Nikon is $13,000 + and you certainly aren't going to be pairing it with the D90 you are using, so you'll need a top of the line body which is going to be $2000 - $5000, not to mention a SERIOUS tripod to support it as well as some filters and you quickly have spent $20,000, and don't forget the gym membership you will need to lug that thing around. To be able to make that kind of money from selling your photos will take a decent amount of time and a considerable effort and will require smaller lenses on the way to the big one.

I'm not here to discourage you from your dream, and certainly not discourage you from saving, but there are VERY few ppl on this site who have a 600, and those that do are pro's or retired and have saved their whole lives to afford such a lens. My suggestion is if you are really serious, and want to get closer to the action and get sharper images, go with a 300 f/4 and a 1.4 or even 1.7X TC (this is what I use). It will work fine with the D90 and get you a ~500mm equivalent and should bring you plenty close to most birds and mammals. In Minnesota, the bears/elk/moose/deer/cats etc. are large and having 500mm should be more than enough to get you outstanding images. Brad Hill (co-moderator of the Fauna gallery) makes unbelievable photos using a wide variety of lenses ranging from 200-400mm.

Also, keep in mind that when you purchase a lens (200-400 zoom, 300 f/4, etc.) they retain their value very well, even over several years, so when you lay out $2000 for a lens, you'll be able to sell it a few years later for as much as $1500 and the difference in cost by that time will easily have been made up by selling your work.

Good luck, happy savings, and I look forward to seeing more photos.

- Luke

Joe I put aside from my earnigs as a pro for equipment 10% from every payment I recieve
this way all and every one (wife) dont complain

Thanks for checking out my blog Luke. I understand what a huge investment a lens like that is, but I also need to be realistic. My goal is to get a lens like that before im 18. I guess I was just getting anxious. Right now I'm using a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter. Its a great lens for wildlife, but not close enough for bird photography. As for my camera, my d90 has been a great camera since i switched to nikon last year, but as my photogtaphy is taking off I agree I'll need to upgrade eventualy. A fellow photographer said though, that the first thing i want to do before upgrading in a new body is investing in good glass. So im stuck, should I save up for a few years so i can buy a top quality super telephoto, or invest in a more professional camera body before the lens. My 70-200 is a great lens, and as I start to make even larger prints I wonder wether upgrading the body first might make more sense. Thanks again, Joe.

Uprgrade the Glass. That's a common misconception that amateurs make, they spend big money on a body and can't afford the glass. The only reason I mentioned the upgrade to a body is because a 600mm lens will almost require a pro lens (though I'm sure plenty of people will argue against this). The D90 is a great camera, especially with its ISO capabilities. The reason I went for the D300s is because I wanted the weather sealing and a more "pro" style body along with the 51 AF point system.

- Luke

Yeah the d90 has been a great camera, but realisticly i think my next lens is going to be a 18-35 2.8 for landscape photography, then hopefully I can start saving up for a telephoto. I like the 200-400, but that costs around $6000. So theres really no easy way out it seems, I just have to keep working on my photography and eventualy I can save up for the nice glass.

Joe,

I have had the same conundrum. Always worth looking into hiring lenses which can be reasonably cheap. When I plan to do photo trips i often hire a nikon 300 f2.8 lens and use a 1.7x teleconvertor to boost the range. Not sure of comapnies that hire in the US but i am sure a quick google search can help you there.

Joe,

I have gotten great images of birds using the Nikkor 70-300mm VR and the Nikkor 80-400mm VR, you just need to learn and use excellent stalking skills in order to use those lenses.

I use the 200-400mm VR f/4 with a 1.4x TC more now that I have moved to Utah. But in FL I preferred the lighter weight of the 80-400mm VR, I could walk all day, hand hold and still get lovely images of birds.

Buy a used Nikon 500mm f4 P + 1.4x. Manual focus but great quality. Don't forget you'll need a tripod capable of holding a big lens, and those are some real money too. Along with a good ballhead and sidekick. That's part of the deal. Go as cheap as you can on a camera. They come & go.


Kent in SD

Right now when I go on a big trip I rent a 400mm 2.8. Which is a great lens, but its expensive to rent and I would like a lens to use when I go out regularly. I also just purchased a new tripod that will be plenty sturdy for any lens. Although if I ever invest in a larger lens, I'll have to buy a sturdier ball head. Before switching to Nikon I was using a Tamron 200-500 f5.6-6.3 which was a great lens, but it ended up breaking twice, and it just wasn't fast enough for the low light shooting I was doing. Right now I think I'll just have to stick with my 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter, until I start bringing in enough money from photography to consider buying one of the BIG lenses. Thanks again for the help. Joe

Stop eating at restaurants, don't pay interest on anything you don't have to, buy 6 year old cars with cash, and, if you can stand it, drink cheaper beer for a year....you'll be surprised at how much you can save.

Ya, when I was 13, I had the same issue. Wait, no that was when I was 31. I'm with Luke, you have time. I bet 90% of the people on the forum can't afford the lens you are talking about unless they are pros and I see some amazing wildlife shots posted. Pick up a cheaper Tarmon, Sigma, or 80-400 Nikon and get some experience.

To be honest I dont plan on getting a lens like that anytime soon, the thread was more just so I could see how people who have the lens was able to save up for it. I know that eventualy I'll end up investing in some top quality glass, and I also dont want to wait until im my thirties, but your right, i have plenty of time to save and the fact that Im starting to save up now will only make it easier in the future.

To be honest I dont plan on getting a lens like that anytime soon, the thread was more just so I could see how people who have the lens was able to save up for it. I know that eventualy I'll end up investing in some top quality glass, and I also dont want to wait until im my thirties, but your right, i have plenty of time to save and the fact that Im starting to save up now will only make it easier in the future.

OK, I'm just getting back. Thirteen and saving for a $5,000+ camera lens? Time for a reality check! A lot is going to be happening to you in the next several years. You're going to discover (1) cars (2) girls. Both are expensive. You'll be trying to save for a lens and your girlfriend will be saying, "Please take me to the Hannah Montana concert!" And you will. And it will be a hundred bucks. Or something. Plus dinner. What you need is a spoiled brat rich kid girlfriend. She asks you what you want for Christmas and you say, "Oh, just a Nikon 600mm f4 lens." And she'll say, "OK. I'll get my daddy to buy one." Better start finding that girlfriend. Christmas is just a few weeks away. Oh, when you finally get married, don't try asking the wife for something like that after you've been married for a year.


Kent in SD

Or maybe by then my photographic career will have takeen off and I wont need that girlfriend but I did think about it and instead of a car, Id rather save up for a lens. I'd get a lot more use out of it anyways.

I'd rather have the car. With the car, you can drive anywhere to photo what you want. Without a car, you will be photo'ing squirrels in your back yard.


Kent in SD

I just have to give Kent props for such a hilarious comment. I'm still young enough where it's socially acceptable for me to be hanging out with teenage girls, and they are quite $$$$ and they won't be impressed by a big lens, not nearly as impressed as they would be with a nice car, so good luck going through that gauntlet!

- Luke

Ok so how about this, I buy the 600mm, a nice car, tickets to the Hannah Montana concert, plus dinner. Then while im at it I'll crash a presidental party

Ok so how about this, I buy the 600mm, a nice car, tickets to the Hannah Montana concert, plus dinner. Then while im at it I'll crash a presidental party

Joe,

I've found an easy way to save money is figure out how much you need, and how long you have to buy it. Divide this by the number of months and you get the Dollars/month you need to save. Each month do an automatic transfer to a separate savings account designated for your lens. Never, ever touch this money. I did this when I was 13 to save for a car when I turned 16 and then for college. I had a goal and worked several jobs starting when I was 13 to reach that goal. If the lens you want is $13,000 and you want it in 5 years, you will need to save over $200/month to achieve that goal.

Great, thanks for the advice scott

Joe, of course the 600mm is a great lens but do you really need it? I don't think so. Frans Lanting who most would consider the most famous wildlife photographer alive most likely has that lens as he is sponsored by Nikon so he got it for free. However, if you asked him which lens he used the most I bet it would not be the 600mm lens because of how big and bulky it is. It is his photographic technique and knowledge of the wildlife he is photographing that allows him to get those one of a kind images. He has learned to get closer to the wildlife he is photographing and that will make a much bigger difference in your photography than spending $10,300(600mm at B&H) on a lens (just be careful getting close to dangerous animals).

Your 200mm is definitely a short telephoto and you will probably want to upgrade that but there are much more cost effective options out there than the 600mm lens which will work almost as well for a tenth of the cost. I like Luke's idea of getting the 300mm f4 and pairing it with a 1.4x teleconverter which should still autofocus, with the crop factor on your camera it will be a full frame equivalent of 630mm. Pair it with the 2x converter you already have (although you might have to manually focus) and with the crop factor you will have a full frame equivalent of 900mm which is a lot of zoom! Since you already have a 400mm (600mm full frame) with autofocus capability when you combine the teleconverter with your 70-200mm you may want to consider something with a little more reach. The 80-400mm is a great lens for the price, you won't be able to autofocus with a teleconverter but with the 2x and crop factor on your camera you will have a whopping 1200mm full frame equivalent! Without the teleconverter the 80-400mm (120-600mm full frame) will focus quickly and give you sharp images. Although the 70-200mm is a great lens and the f2.8 aperture is very useful in low light you might consider parting with it for now to help fund the 80-400mm since it will probably give you better results at 400mm than the 200mm with a teleconverter. Also you can use the teleconverter on the 80-400mm for more range in situations when you have the time to focus manually.

As I said earlier, your technique and getting closer to the animals will make more of a difference than spending $10,300 on a longer lens. Know your subject and study their behavior so that you can predict what they will do next and capture it when they do something different than just sitting in one place. Learn how to "spish", it doesn't work all the time but when it does its a great way to get small song birds close enough to photograph, if you don't know what "spishing" is, google it (its also called pishing sometimes). Also check to see if any nearby wildlife refuges have a photo blind. There is a refuge about a 20 minute drive from my house which has a photo blind which is free to use, you just have to reserve it for the day you want it. Using a blind is a great way to get the wildlife to come close to you rather than you trying to get close to the wildlife which will often scare them off. Patience is the key to wildlife photography, if you are just walking around with a big lens you will most likely just scare off most wildlife especially if you are fumbling around with a huge 600mm lens and tripod. The trick is to wait for the wildlife to get close to you or to move slowly and in a way that you don't startle the animal.

Many nature photographers have adopted some techniques and gear from hunters to get closer to the animal. You could learn how to mask your scent and use a portable blind which you hide under and it just looks like a pile of leaves to deer or other wildlife so they will pay no attention to you as they walk by. You will have to be patient and may not get any shots much of the time using these methods but every now and then you will be rewarded with one of a kind close up shots of your subject. The pros go to extreme measures and sometimes wait in one spot a whole day for their subject to come to them but most of the time it is those extreme measures and patience that get them those top quality images and not their $10,000 lens.

Sorry for the long post but I just really don't think you need the 600mm lens and it isn't worth it for you to set everything else aside in your life for the next 5 years to get it. I think getting something a little cheaper which still has a decent range and working on your technique is a much better idea. With the money you save you can get a car when you are 16 so you don't have to rely on your parents to take you out to shoot photos and you can still get out to take photos when they are busy. When you get older and you are either making decent money from your photography or some other job that pays well then reward yourself with a "Big Lens" but until then you don't need it and you will never truly "need it" to capture great wildlife photos.

Thanks for the reply, I deffinitly agree with what your saying. I think this thread was a good reality check for me. Its pretty easy getting over excited with these lenses, and I have been getting great shots with my 70-200. I know a longer lens is in my future, but until then what I have is fine.

Your welcome, I just didn't think the 600mm is realistic or necessary at this point or really at all until you go pro. You may also consider something like the $1000 optically stabilized Sigma 150-500mm (225-750 full frame) when you need more reach than the 70-200mm, it may not be name brand but its reasonably cheap and still a great piece of glass. It should be at least as sharp as the 200mm with a 2x teleconverter on it with the added benefit of another 100mm of reach. Also in situations where you have the time to manually focus and need more reach you could throw that teleconverter on there and have up to a 1500mm full frame equivalent (or maybe get a 1.4x teleconverter which won't degrade image quality as much).