upgrade?

I currently have a Nikon D40 with the kit lens and the 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G ED VR. I want to get into wildlife

photography. My question is, do you think I should get the 300mm f/4 AF-S or another nikon lens around that price

change? Or should I make the switch to Canon? About 50/50 of my shots will be taken in low light, the other half

good lighting. Looking for a good, fast, accurate focusing camera and lens combo that wont kill the wallet, and

will have really good low light capabilities as well. Any info would be appreciated, thanks

I would strongly recommend that you avoid the temptation to re-analyze your choice of Nikon as a system. In the

interest of full disclosure, I will say that I use Nikon, but there is simply not so much difference between the

two to warrant the debates that sometimes rage. Pick a horse and ride it. Once you've got a horse, there's not

much reason to change. I won't change to Canon, and I would never suggest that a Canon user switch to Nikon

unless he really disliked Canon for some tangible reason (usually controls layout preferences).

 

As to the lens, I would suggest you go in a different direction. I'd suggest starting with a good tripod.

That's going to do you better than the 1 stop gain in speed in the lenses you mention, and is particularly

important for low light shots, though I hope your subject is still or at least slow. ;-)

 

Here's a good article on camera support - http://bythom.com/support.htm. For the price of that lens, you can get

a tripod setup that will last you a lifetime and be useful for a wide variety of photography should your

interests expand. You don't get the additional reach, of course, but I think you're going to find the 300mm very

hard to use absent a good tripod setup anyway, so you may be chasing a chimera. Of course, I am assuming you

lack the good tripod setup thing since you didn't mention it and based on the equipment you mentioned (which

suggests to me that you are relatively new to the game).

I am very pleased with my 300 4.0 AFS on my D40. Optically nearly perfect. The foot is a weak point if you do 1/4 to 1/60 on a tripod. Kirk make a replacement. I made a balso wood shim to go between the end of foot and lens barrel.

 

Only you can see if 2.8 or 4.0 is required. 2.8 gets much heavier .

Hi Chad, although I am a dedicated Canon user, I don’t see any reason why you should change brands based on what you want to shoot. You do have an amazing camera capable of producing shots that can rival the best Canon cameras...

 

It is really up to you if you want to change brands, but Nikon has some great optics and would allow you to shoot in low light conditions. Try used store/online for a 2.8 lens, I am sure you can find something...

 

thanks

 

Pascal

Whatever you do, absolutely, positively, don't rent a 300mm f/2.8 or 200-400mm /f.4 from someplace like http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon_super_tele ...

 

Once you've used a high-end lens like those, you just won't be happy with anything else...

 

I don't shoot with Nikon anymore, but I've heard (very) good things about the 300mm /f4.

Hi Chad - the brand you use is irrelevant, and quite frankly, the D40 is a fabulously under-rated body and will perform

flawlessly with any lens you use. That being said, the most critical part of wildlife technique is stability. That means

a good support system for whatever camera/lens system you use. Invest in the 300mm f/4 and a decent tripod/ball

head/mount system and you'll get super results. I use Nikon, but shoot with friends who are Canon users, and we all

get great results. A typical setup is something like this: Manfrotto or Gitzo tripod - basic (be sure to remove the

center column - using it defeats the whole purpose of 3 legs), Really Right Stuff BH55 ballhead, and mounting plates

appropriate for the camera/lens. These are understandably pricey 'accessories' but mandatory for good, sharp

images. Good luck. --Rich

Ok, well I will keep the Nikon and save up for the 300mm I guess. But in the mean time, i will invest in a good tripod. I really would like a decent ball head ...since I assume that would be the best for wildlife. Anyone have any recommendations? With in reason anyway...haha, I dont have $500 to spend on a tripod...

You won't gain anything by switching to Canon. And I'm a canon user. The two lines are just too comparable. Sounds like the 300F4 is your best option. Between that, cranking up ISO as high as you can, and using a tripod or monopod, you should be fine. Unfortunately the next step up in performance exacts a huge premium in price.