Need help choosing a wildlife lens

<p>Hi. I'm not "new" to digital photography but am finally getting where I'm taking my D90 off "AUTO" and feeling OK about it most of the time. I have a Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 that is my "everyday" lens but am going to be taking a trip to Yellowstone this summer and don't know what to do....lens wise, anyway. Do I buy a super-tele, just a TC, both? Some of the options I'm considering are... (1) Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 w/ TC14a; (2) Nikkor 300mm f/4 w/ TC14e, or (3) Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3. I'm hesistant about buying third-party as reviews I've read are either "great" or "horrible". I would appreciate comments from anyone whose been in the situation - what did you do? - or has shot in Yellowstone and can tell me what they found most functional? TIA - Cynthia</p>

<p>If I have to choose between those 3 lenses you mentioned, I'll get the 80-400 VR. It has wonderfull optics , VR and 5x zoom. Of course, don't forget to take with you an wide angle lens.</p>

<p>I can only say that the 300mm f4 works great on its own and is as good with the 1,4x TC (especially if you can afford stepping down from f5,6 to f8). Autofocus works 100% this way and I cannot see image quality degradation.</p>

<p>I never tried any other lens combinations that you mention, but you're probably asking for trouble if you're adding a TC over a lens that has a smaller max aperture than f5,6 (autofocus problems and a dark viewfinder for manual focusing).<br /> <br />Have fun in Yellowstone!<br /> jm</p>

<p>Cynthia, the 80-400 VR has good optics, but, you cannot use a teleconverter with it. And, it is not an AF-S lens. I have it, and I like it. It uses the motor in your D90 to autofocus which means that it won't focus as fast as your 18-200 mm VR which is the lens that I think you have. It is very usable in good light, but slow in poor light like early morning and evening when some of the truly best photo opportunities occur.<br>

The third party options, like the new Sigma optically stabilized zooms, 120-400 and 150-500, might be worth a look for you. They are HSM lenses which have the motor in the lens and are faster than the older AF design, like the Nikkor 80-400. Many people have commented in user reviews that they like them.<br>

The Nikkor line of new AF-S prime telephotos are excellent and very expensive, $8000 for the 500 mm f4 VR II. You could also look at the 300 mm f4 without VR and add the 1.4 TC to that. The reach isn't as great but the optics are excellent.<br>

The bottom line is that really high quality long lenses are very expensive. Most of us have to make reasonable financial compromises. That's why I bought the 80-400, and I'm having fun with it. Here is a shot from last summer...</p><div></div>

<p>I'm familiar with Yellowstone, and I have the 80-400mm VR. It's a good match unless you're wanting to spend thousands more. Forget about using a TC on it though. If you are thinking of a lens that doesn't have VR, I highly recommend a tripod and high quality head or you're likley to be very disappointed with sharpness.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>everyone</strong> , for all your answers! I had read that w/ the 80-400 you could use a TC14a (not e) - I guess that is not correct, judging from your answers.</p>

<p>Paul - you mentioned also taking a wide-angled lens? Any recommendations?</p>

<p>Richard - great shot!</p>

<p>Cynthia - I was in Yellowstone and the Tetons this past week and got a lot of mileage from my 80-400 - the VR does wonders for image quality for shots held in my arthritic old hands. But it's not for birds-in-flight. Animals on land are fine, but if you want to shoot birds in the air, I suggest switching to manual focus and practice, practice, practice.<br>

Having said that, if I was in the market for such a lens today, I'd be checking out the Sigma lenses that Richard described. The Sigma 50-500 is known as the Bigma and for good reason. You will develop good arm muscles using that one very much. The Nikon 300 VR plus 1.4 converter is a very popular choice, and the photos I've seen from that combination tell me that it will do anything the 80-400 will, except zoom (which is important to me - YMMV).<br>

Whatever you choose, get it fairly soon and get out there and shoot with it. Don't spend your visit to Yellowstone learning the new lens - you'll miss so much. And while you are there, I highly recommend the Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center in West Yellowstone, MT. It's right outside the west gate of the park and is a terrific small preserve for grizzlies and gray wolves with truly excellent shooting opportunities. And try to get down to the Tetons - the scenery is first rate and the summertime wildlife shooting opportunities are, in my experience, on a par with Yellowstone. Wherever you go, have a great time.</p>

<p>Cynthia, was that really the 18-200 f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR that you currently have? If it is you already have one very capable lens that can be used for landscapes and a lot more. There are a lot of wide angle options. I have the Sigma 10-20 mm zoom which is very sharp.<br>

Have a great trip!<br>

Dick</p>

<p>" I had read that w/ the 80-400 you could use a TC14a" You can, but you will not be pleased with the IQ and autofocus suffers as well.</p>

<p>I suggest you take a look through Richard Armstrong's online portfolio, specifically his Squaw Lake images where most of his bird shots and other images are shot with Nikon's 80-400 lens. They are quite impressive and illustrate how good the 80-400mm lens is in the hands of a skilled photographer. (Hope you don't mind Richard!) Here is a link:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840110</p>

<p>Hi Dick, I currently walk around with the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, yes (sorry about that typo up there!). Glad to know that will suffice - wasn't looking forward to another lens purchase when this one is causing me such brain frenzy! I've heard good things about the Sigma, but mostly what I've read has been posted by Canon users on the web. Wish I could hear from someone who actually uses it on their Nikon ....</p>

<p>Thanks again to all who are contributing - your input is awesome and invaluable!</p>

<p>Cynthia, here is an example of a shot with the Sigma 10-20 at 10 mm. Some of the best examples of what the Sigma is capable of are in Matt Laur's portfolio here on PN. <br>

Elliot, I don't mind at all and I appreciate your kind words. I think that anyone who buys the 80-400 should know that it is a quality lens that has some limitations that you can learn to work with.<br>

And Cynthia, the advice about lots of practice and tripods is very good advice.</p><div></div>

<p>Probably 80-400mm would do for your purposes, convenience being one of them, and hand-holdability another. The animals there don't move fast [except for the 2nd fastest animal in the world, fastest in North America]<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/wyoming07/images/2007-07-27-y-pronghorn-3687.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

5 females for 1 male, can't beat that..... do some reading, see some photos of Yellowstone on here, to read how you should be in Lamar Valley at 6am :-)<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/wyoming07/images/2007-07-28-y-morn-4393.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

This was at 6:53am, during the first half hour of sunlight, but at 6:15am, it looked like this:<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/panoramic00/images/2007-07-28-y-morn-4333-sp.jpg" alt="" width="880" height="235" /><br>

If you wake up at 5am [somewhere in Yellowstone] and get to Lamar Valley by 6am, even if just once, you will see things that don't happen during the day, including the light and animals in motion. And if you see you a group of parked cars and long lenses, they are probably aiming at a faraway Grizzly or Wolves [sorry i don't have any pictures of them, all i had was a 105mm for these pictures].<br>

Besides the most common elk and bisons, there are also pelicans and beavers for those who stop along Yellowstone Lake around 7pm, 8pm and later... and the bisons usually use the correct side of the road :-)<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/wyoming07/images/2007-07-22-y-buff-bridge01.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

All these and more pictures possible with your 80-400mm VR........ get a tripod for those 6am Lamar Valley shots, VR or no VR, there are other advantages to tripods. Try underexposing by 1 stop for some low light photos [in addition to regular exposure].</p>

 

<p>There are no perfect lenses. The "best" lens is probably the Nikon 500mm f4 VR, but it's $8,100 and to get good results you'll need to spend about $1,000 on a tripod and head. The Nikon 300mm f4 is a great lens and works well with the TC-14E and probably the TC-17E too. However, it doesn't have VR and we are back to needing a really first rate tripod and head for it. The Sigma 150-500mm has VR, but the lens is slower at f6.3. I'm not sure that extra 100mm is worth the loss in speed.<br>

There are lots of options, but each has its own drawback. The Nikon 80-400mm VR has solid optical performance, the VR works (within reason,) but the focus is slow and it's sometimes limited by the f5.6. All in all though, it's a great general purpose lens. It's sort of like coming in second in a bunch of specific categories makes it come out as number one overall. If you want to spend about three times as much $$, look at the Nikon 200-400mm VR f4. Great lens, but you will pay for the f4 and faster focus speed.<br>

When I go to Yellowstone I do photo some wildlife, but not all that much. Most of the critters they have there I have right here at home. What I find most interesting to photo are the geo-thermal features. Those are truly unique! I also love the waterfalls.<br>

Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>Cynthia, if I were you, I would probably try to stay away from anything that "slows down" to f/6.3. Nikon's AF systems are only rated down to work with f/5.6 lenses. A f/6.3 lens wouldn't work all that well in low light and/or while shooting fast moving wildlifes. The 80-400 is the top choice for convenience. But it doesn't work with teleconverters, and it lacks a SWM AF motor, so its AF performance is not very fast nor noise/vibration-free. The 300 f/4 lens seems to be the budget pro/enthusiast's top choice, especially with a 1.4x teleconverter. </p>

<p>You should probably wait to make the purchase until right before the trip. Many people think both the 80-400 and 300 f/4 lenses legitimately deserve updated replacements: an AF-S 80-400 and a 300 f/4 with VR. </p>

<p>Cynthia, lots of really excellent advice here. Shuo's note about being careful not to buy something that is slower than f5.6 is very important. I would never try to talk you out of the 80-400, I just think you need to be aware of it's limitations. You can handhold it and get good optical results and the VR helps...not just for wildlife. These hollyhocks were shot from 15 feet away, at 1/250 sec, iso 400 with the 80-400 at 330 mm, VR on. I was standing, handholding the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>I was at Yellowstone two years ago with a D200 and Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF manual focus lens. I did not have problems getting focus and I used a small tripod. I would really liked to have had more focal length for a coyote I saw a couple of times. I don't believe its wise to get to close to wild animals for several reasons with the most important being my safety. I now own an older Nikkor 500mm f4 P manual focus and like it very much. The animals in Yellowstone seem pretty aclaimated to people. I did manage to see bears everyday I was there. A wonderful place!!</p>

<p>It would be good to wait, but in the last few weeks before the trip, get the lens and play with it outdoors, practicing, to get a feel for the lens and what there is to learn for you.<br>

80-400 is weaker in its upper end, and how that will effect your photos, that's what you should find out during those last few weeks. If you decide you don't like the quality, you can return it and get 300mm f/4 instead.<br>

I wouldn't get 80-400mm myself, but then my Yellowstone trip would be a lot of time spent with photos and expecting a lot in return [quality wise]. I would use tripod as much as possible [always if possible]. 300mm or 400mm is too long to handhold [on a cropped body especially] and get exceptional results on stationary animals. If they are running and you're tracking them, that's different, then your hand vibrations effect the photo differently.<br>

Monopod would do even better for you than tripod [but still for morning scenic shots i would use tripod myself], for those opportunities you have to respond to quickly, like elk crossing the road and everybody is there to see<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/wyoming07/images/2007-07-28-y-road-elk01.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

Also, VR can be great, but it takes some getting used to, you want to point, focus, let VR kick in, then you press the shutter -- a process with a slight delay, not just point and shoot. And check the image to make sure there wasn't a blur. Use ISO-400 if there isn't enough light... things like that.<br>

80-400mm VR can be good if you use it right. For people after maximum quality, 70-200mm VR f/2.8 would do a better job overall, and if you put 1.4X on it... i have some people do it, i can't comment if that would be better quality than 80-400mm... probably depends. You don't want to use TC if you don't have to, but it could make your lens a 2-in-1.<br>

The real story is that you will be using your 80-400mm at the lower ends at times, and at other times 400mm won't be long enough, or you won't like the images at 400mm end... all the reasons why you should try the lens in weeks prior to your trip.<br>

Generally speaking you want to be as close to your subject as possible, and that way even if you have 80-400mm, if you can make a few more safe steps towards your subject and use 200mm instead, you would probably like the image more. I don't know the specifics of 80-400, but towards the upper end you might lose color saturation and sharpness... again something to try in weeks prior :-)</p>

<p>You already have up to 200mm covered so I would opt for a prime lens for those tighter shots. The 300/4 and TC-14E would be a good autofocus combo. The prime lens, even with the converter would provide better image quality to any of the megazooms.</p>

<p>For the same price you could get the manual focus 500/4 P AIS that Carl referred to above. Another manual focus option that would be easier to handle, and a little less money, would be the 400/3.5 AIS. It is possible to even hand hold it for short durations in bright conditions. On the D90 you do not get metering with manual lenses but the histogram will tell you instantly if you need more or less exposure. You also do not get auto aperture but this is not a problem since lenses like this are usually used wide open anyway. Of course your biggest challenge is manual focusing, but if you can develop your skills with large manual Nikon lenses the image results are superb. I use mostly manual AIS lenses up to 400/2.8 on my D2X.</p>

<p>Cynthia,<br>

you have the 18-200VR. If you have a good copy - you have a great lens to work with. If you wnat more extreme wide angle the 10-20 Sigma is very highly spoken of.<br>

As for a long lens I have to recommend the 300mm AF-S F/4 with a potential of the 1.4 TC - it's an excellent combination & far faster than the 80-400VR from what I've been told. I have seen excellent results from that lens & much of it is still technique. May I recommend a window support like a bean bag for you. A tripod will definitely help as well.<br>

Have fun, sounds like a great trip.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>I am Canon man and use 300mm i also use 1.4 or 2 x extender some time but if you like zoom lenses i would say what says 80 to 400mm the focal lenght is a very good all rounder ,but why i use prime lenses that i have mentioned it that with digital you can always crop the image to bring it larger in the frame and get away with it as it would still be a sharp image and a 300mm is not to heavy but a zoom at 80-400 would be very heavy !cheers.</p>

<p>Cynthia, to add to your confusion this morning and to give a response to the sharpness and contrast of the 80-400 at 400 mm, here is a shot that I took this week from a tripod with the 80-400 at 400 mm. For your information and assistance:-)<br />Dick</p><div></div>

<p>Unless your budget is over $5000, I would get the 300mm/f4 AF-S. It is best to use that lens or for that matter any long telephoto lens on a sturdy tripod, but I have used that on a monopod and still managed to get good results.</p>

<p>At least for Yellowstone, a lot of the popular wildlife are big mammals so that even your 18-200 may be sufficient. A 300mm/f4 is quite long for Yellowstone. If you get into bird photography, you can always add a TC-14E onto it and still get good results, but once again camera support is important as you move up in focal lengths. That TC-14E will always be very useful (1) even though you upgrade to better Nikon long teles and (2) should be easy to sell.</p>

<p>At least for me, AF is way too slow on the 80-400 and it is not that great at 400mm. Personally, for wildlife photography, I would always pick optical quality and AF speed over VR. You'll need a reasonably fast shutter speed to freeze animal motion anyway so that VR will not buy you all that much.</p>

<p>The primary downside for the 300mm/f4 AF-S is a poorly designed tripod collar, and the 80-400 VR uses that same poor tripod collar. There are Kirk and Really Right Stuff replacement collars, but it'll cost well over $100 to get a replacement collar.</p>

<p>WOW - You guys are awesome! Your information and opinions are so helpful (yet confusing at the same time - grins!).</p>

<p>I'm hearing over and over the use of a good tripod is essential - what are your favorites? My mom gave me one for Christmas 2 years ago and already there are things about it I don't like so replacing it was on my list before my trip. What should I be looking for?</p>

<p>Richard - the photo you posted above, can I ask what your setting where? I was going to go out and play today with birds and squirrels and such and love the soft background.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone!</p>

<p>Cynthia, today in 2009, I would get a good carbon fiber tripod that matches your needs. If you are using nothing bigger than a 300mm/f4 or 80-400mm type lens, you don't have to have a huge tripod. Most serious photographers use Gitzo, but Bogan is also good as well as some other brands. Gitzo uses twist type locks that some people don't like.<br>

Additionally, you also need a good ballhead on top of the tripod. My current favorite is Really Right Stuff and again, you don't necessarily need their biggest head. Otherwise, Arca Swiss and Kirk are popular barnds. They all use Arca Swiss's quick release system.</p>

<p>There has already been a lot of discussion on tripod and ballhead here in photo.net. In fact, we have a forum dedicated to tripods and accessories: <a href="../filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/">http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/</a><br>

There is also a lot of threads on tripods in the Nature Photography Forum: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/</a></p>

<p>I have given you some brand names so that it'll be easier to search for existing answers. Unfortunately, you need to be ready for some sticker shock as good tripods and ballheads are on the expensive side. To get started with a 300mm/f4, as I said, I have used that lens on a monopod with plenty of success. If you don't want to sepnd a lot of money immediately, that is an alternative.</p>

<p>Cynthia, the camera was set on Aperture priority at f5.6. This shot was at 1/400 sec, iso 500 at 400mm. Every lens you use will have a characteristic bokeh(blurring of the background) at wide apertures. How it looks also depends on your distance from the subject and how much distance is between the subject and the background. I used a tripod for this shot.<br>

Picking tripods is just about as difficult as picking lenses or camera bodies. There is a lot of excellent information on this site about tripod choices and use. A general rule would be to get the best quality, sturdy tripod that you can afford, without wasting time and money on less well-made, cheaper models.<br>

The tripod collar on the 80-400 is not as robust as it could be, but it is usable and certainly supports the camera much better than handholding for shots where you really need it.<br>

As Shun mentions, the biggest drawback of the 80-400 is the slow AF. and VR will help you, it won't save you.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Dick</p>