Cheapest ($500?) AF 500mm lens?

<p>Thanks Hector. So that is about 25% of the frame, and 25% of 6MP is about 1.5MP. That sure puts things into perspective.</p>

<p>It is about impossible to know without knowing what body he has. Now Sarah you said he has a 55-300 AFS VR and wants autofocus. We have to assume that he has a Nikon DSLR. So here is a solution nobody else has posited. </p>

<p>There is no $500.00 step up for him in the lens department. Any change at that price point would be a quibble. If he has a camera with a screw drive he could use the 300 F/4 but it will be a very used one. As one other poster mentioned, the used D7000 with his current lens is a good choice.</p>

<p>The 70-300 AFS VR is right at $500.00 and has slightly faster autofocus but I think the difference is a quibble, especially for 14" prints.</p>

<p>So he should either buy a used body to get better resolution or hold what he has. Have him spend $100.00 of his money on a wildlife photography workshop. And practice.</p>

<p>I owned the Sigma 50-500mm (nicknamed "Bigma") for years. It isn't bad, but suffers by comparison to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AFS and 1.7 X TC I use now for that length. You can find a used Bigma for $500. That is about what I sold mine for.</p>

<p>I also own the Nikon 80-400mm, which a) doesn't reach 500mm and isn't that much better than the Sigma at 400mm, if it is at all. With the new AFS version released, you can find a used one for $600 or so.</p>

<p>A used Nikon 300mm f/4 (not AFS) and a 1.4 X TC from Tamron would get you there, too, and do so at around $500. Autofocus will be slow, though.</p>

 

<p>At this budget, I would first look at 2nd lenses such as the (older) Tamron 200-500 or Sigma 150-500 (the little brother to the Bigma 50-500); the problem however is that these are often not AF-S (for sigma HSM) lenses, and hence no AF on a D40/D60/D3x00/D5x00. But also with all the other options mentioned, this is going to be the main problem - the motorised lenses are newer and hence more expensive.<br>

From my own experience with a 300 f/4 and the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, I find the difference between 400 and 500 mm on APS-C not all that impressive. So maybe with a bit of reasoning, the Sigma 120-400 (HSM) could also fit the bill, and that's always been a more affordable option to start with, so also 2nd hand it's more likely to fit the budget.</p>

<p>But yes, stretching the budget to $1000 opens up a whole new range of options. I think if I'd need a lens like this at this point, I would wait for Tamron to deliver the new 150-600 in Nikon F mount.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any hope of using a TC and still getting AF when using a 300mm f/5.6 lens? Perhaps f/8 with a 1.4x TC?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is only a glimmer of hope, but not much more. Nikon does not block AF under specific apertures, but they also do not guarantee AF to work under certain apertures, in general f/5.6. Especially with the lower-end bodies with simple AF systems, there really isn't going to be a lot of action below f/5.6 if light is less than optimal.<br>

Some of the newer bodies have AF action "guaranteed" up to f/8, but the lowest end of that is still the (current and not specifically cheap) D7100.</p>

<p>If it's the 55(or 28mm)-300mm vr <strong>AF-S, </strong>then a used J1 + FT-1 for $500 is definitely do-able. That will give an effective long reach of ~825mm or roughly double the current DX size of ~450mm*. The AF-S ensures it will AF on the J1.</p>

<p>Being a zoom lens it should overcome the trouble of very long lenses of being unable to find the dratted bird in the bush in the first place. Find it on wide and zoom in to fill the frame.</p>

<p>It will meter and focus OK with the centre focus point, which should be fine for moderately sedentary birds.</p>

<p>*I'm not referring to the actual focal length, but the ability to fill the frame 'equivalent'.</p>

<p>Thanks again, guys!</p>

<p>So it looks like a lot (e.g. min AF aperture -- thanks, Wouter -- and older lens offerings) depends on camera model. I'll see my uncle again on Sunday and can collect more critical data that would narrow the choices. But it looks like he at least has a few workable options to explore. At least I've come up to speed a bit on the subject, thanks to you all.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>I used to have Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x extender. It worked OK until I got bored with birds</p>

<p>I have Nikon 1V1 +Ft1 an have used it with Nikkor 55-300 and 70-300 AFS and if works quite wel. Of course not as well as D7100+Sigma 120-300+ TC2, but reasonable good. The AF works ok. This combo (1V1+FT1) don't work with Sigma or Tamron vibration reduction lenses! You can see the picture, but there is text: Lens not attached, and it will not fire. But your uncle has 55-300 and it is Nikkor lens I presume, then it works.</p>

Just as a piece of meaningless trivia, the only AF Mirror 500 I know of is the Minolta 500 Reflex AF lens. Good mirror, not

too heavy, and focuses well on every Minolta or Sony AF camera I have tried. Doesn't help you unless you buy a

mirrorless body to mount it on (or a sony AF body).

<p>A 300mm focal length on a V1 with its 2.7x crop factor doesn't get you any closer to the subject than the 300mm focal length on a DX format body or FX format body. 300mm is 300mm on all formats. And the original Nikon 1 V1 body is only 10 megapixels. There is no advantage going to the Nikon 1 V1 system regardless of the body he currently has. Even the current model, the V3 with its 18 megapixel sensor which is out of the OP's budget may not offer much if any improved IQ over his current mystery body, and certainly would not over a D7000 which would cost less than 1/2 of the Nikon 1 V3 which is priced at just under $1200.<br /> </p>

<p>The best way I've come across regarding the relationship between focal-length and pixel density is this...</p>

<p>The image from a 300mm lens covers the same area of chip regardless of CX, DX or FX. However, I'd rather a birds' eye be made from more pixels than fewer pixels.</p>

<p>This results is a bird filling the frame on CX or being a smaller proportion of the frame in DX or an even smaller proportion on the frame in FX.</p>

<p>The OP has specified IQ is not necessarily the be all and end all of this idea to get a 'bigger bird'. If the mystery camera is one of the lower res early DX bodies such as a D40 or D70, cropping is not a good option to get a bigger bird either.</p>

<p>A cheap lens option (perhaps the cheapest) would be a used Sigma 170-500mm available used for under $500. IQ for typically sized smaller prints should be fine. But depending on the body, this lens may not AF on it.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<h1> </h1>

<p>Hi again,</p>

<p>He has a D5100 with a 55-300 VR lens. I didn't see any mechanical focus linkage, so that would eliminate a couple of older lens possibilities.</p>

<p>Is this one of the camera bodies that will AF with lenses as slow as f/8?</p>

<p>How well does the 55-300 VR hold up with a 1.4x TC? Maybe a Kenko DGX pro 300?</p>

<p>Again, take a look at the smaller sensor superzooms. There are a few interesting models under $500 that would be well suited to casual birding from the yard or while walking/hiking. The Canon SX50 HS in particular received favorable reviews. The worst I saw from any reviewer was that it was better than he expected from a small sensor superzoom bridge camera.<br>

<a href="/reviews/canon-sx50hs-review/">Bob Atkins' review for photo.net (which mentions other comparable models at the end of the review)</a>.<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon_sx_50_review.shtml">Luminous Landscape review of Canon SX50 HS</a>.</p>

 

<p>Sarah, unfortunately the D5100 will not AF with that lens and a TC. And the results would likely not be very favorable anyway if it did.</p>

<p>The P&S superzoom option may be a good one. Another one to consider is 'upgrading from the D5100 to a D7000, and then getting one of the inexpensive 500mm lenses (they will AF on the D7000). This would put your uncle a bit over his budget but would get him where he wants.</p>

<p>Or, if he is not making huge prints, he could just crop his images. The D5100 has plenty of resolution allowing for reasonable cropping/upsizing. I briefly owned a Bigma 50-500mm and was not happy with the results on the long end. I found my Nikon 70-300mm lens provided superior results at 300mm when cropped and upsized to 500mm than I got from the Bigma at 500mm. A lot has to do with print size though. </p>

 

<p>Small sensor, super zoom, and get him a mono-pod. I have a friend, probably comparable to your uncle, who is getting great results this way. </p>

<p>Thanks, guys! I'm forwarding your thoughts to him. I've also added my own recommendation, which arose from another person's thread on a forum far, far away. Today I became aware of the CamRanger...</p>

<p>http://www.camranger.com </p>

<p>A bit of peanut butter and birdseed on a branch, a tripod set up a very short distance away, the Cam Ranger on top, an easy chair in front of the patio door, a laptop computer, a wireless link... I think it could work! :-)</p>

<p>I've been trying to take a decent photo of Gambel's Quail on my front porch with a DSLR Nikon and a (non-auto) 500 mm Vivitar mirror lens. Let me tell you at this point I have to conclude the birds are smarter than I am. They seem to smell when I am pointing my camera at them despite my putting up an elaborate "blind." It's hard to get closer because then they would be in the shade. <br>

Nikon makes some very good lens extenders and you might think about a shorter, presumably cheaper, lens and an extender. Good luck.</p>

<p>Hey, that reminds me of my cheapskate bird photography trick from years ago when I lived on a rural lake front. My longest lens was a 300/4.5 AI ED non-IF Nikkor, a very nice manual focus lens. But even with the D2H's DX sensor 1.5x factor, it still wasn't quite long enough to fill the frame with the birds that haunted our shoreline, when I was sitting on my porch about 50-75 yards away.</p>

<p>So on nice days I'd set up the camera on a tripod near the shoreline, with a Pocket Wizard radio trigger, and covered the entire rig with lightweight camo pattern mesh. It had to be pre-focused on the sweet spot the birds liked.</p>

<p>Then I'd sit on the porch drinking coffee and trigger the camera when the birds were in that zone. But I got an interesting series of photos only once, when a heron managed to choke down a small catfish. I kept waiting for the heron to gargle up blood from the catfish's spikes, but apparently those birds have some ultra-tough plumbing.</p>

<p>I only used that lens once after moving to the city, on <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=824961">this series of photos of grackle mating rituals</a>, and finally sold it a year or so ago. Pretty good lens with a compatible DX Nikon dSLR.</p>