What lens for birds and other wildlife?

Hello and thank you in advance for any suggestions. I am the happy owner of a D300 and have been having a great

time with it(although the D700 sure looks tempting!). Anyway, I would like to get some more serious glass for bird

and wildlife photography. I only have the 18-200 VR zoom which is good for general walk around use but inadequate

for most wildlife shots unless you happen to get lucky. I would love to have the 200-400mm VR Nikkor, but it's a bit

steep for my budget. I've read quite a bit about the 80-400mm VR Nikkor, but I'm concerned about it's autofocus

abilities even though it sounds like a good quality sharp lens. I've also tried to get as much information as possible

on the new Sigma 120-500mm HSM OS zoom. I've seen some good example shots, but the comments I've read so

far have been mixed. I would also consider the Nikkor 300mm AF-S f4 prime, but I do like the flexibility of a zoom

even though in some cases there is a compromise in sharpness. It looks like the Nikkor 300mm f4 would work well

with the Nikkor 1.4 teleconverter on my D300. So, I'd appreciate your thoughts and suggestions on the best second

alternative to spending 5 grand for the 200-400mm VR Nikkor.

 

Thank you!

 

Dick Armstrong

Get Sigma 120-300 / 2.8 Digital Series and matching Sigma 1.4X tele-converter.

If your plan is for wildlife esp. birds you'll want the longest lens that you can afford. Zooms are nice for composition and creatures that allow you to get very close. Most birds do not let you get close and for those that do seagulls, pigeons, etc you can use your 18-200 VR.

 

Out of all the lenses you mentioned the 300mm AF-S will have the best optics (not sure how it stacks up to 200-400mm but that's out of the question anyway). The Sigma is pretty heavy so what you gain in OS still requires some type of support for long outings. The 300mm AF-S is hand holdable though I use a monopod when possible. 300mm works well with TCs. From word of mouth I hear the 50-500mm DG lens is sharper than the newer Sigma zooms. For what it's worth I'd go with the Nikon 300mm AF-S + TC or Sigma 50-500mm. Get a Bogen or Gitzo monopod and start shooting. My preference is for good optics over utility (e.g. zoom) and if I have a zoom lens for wildlife I'd be at the far end most of the time so makes sense for me to get the tele prime. For sports rather than skiddish wildlife I can see the purpose of a zoom.

 

Good luck.

I have a Sigma 50-500 mm that has been doing a pretty good job for wildlife. I'd really like more focal length, but everything else is way too pricey to justify.

BTW, a solid tripod is an absolute must! I have a Manfrotto carbon fiber with a fluid damped Manfrotto head. This combination works fine, and is not a compromise.

300mm or 400mm manual Nikkor and a TC convertor to get you out there and most bang for the buck...

 

denny

Richard,

You can also check into some of the older Nikon AF-I series lenses.

 

I have a 300 f2.8 AF-I, and a 500 f4 AF-I. The AF-I lenses offer fast enough focus, and are considerably less expensive then any of the current lenses of this speed.

 

The only drawback is if they need repairs, there is a limit on what can be repaired because Nikon does not supprt this series of lenses any longer.

 

But these lenses work great for me!

 

If you want to go the Manual lens route, look at a 500mm f4 P lens. This lens is a sharp lens also.

And as others have indicated, and tripod is a must for any of this large glass.

Good luck in your search.

Serious glass for bird and wildlife photography will cost serious money. My advice would be to save up for the AF-S VR

Zoom- NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED. Long, fast, primes would be better, but why don't you try the 200-400mm first

and then if bird/wildlife photography becomes your passion, you can start looking at prime lenses. If not, the 200-

400mm lens holds it's value well for resale.

 

My response is based on your statement of wanting serious glass. If you are not serious, there are lots cheaper options

which will seriously compromise the ease of capture and quality of your images.

 

Save up, Richard. I know it is hard, but it will be worth the wait.

You'll want at least the Nikkor 500mm F4, with a good tripod and a gimbal head for what you've described. Okay, you can't afford that now, it took me a long time too! Just keep in mind that what you're buying now will be temporary so you should consider the resale value for when you make the big step.

Ideally,<br>

birds = 600mm/4<br>

large wildlife = 200-400VR<br>

<br><br>

 

Compromised solution:<br>

birds = 200-400VR + TC14IIE + DX platform<br>

large wildlife = 200-400VR<br>

<br><br>

Highly compromised solution:<br>

birds = 300/4 + TC17IIE + DX platform (viewfinder will not be bright enough and you'd be struggling with AF when

bird is in shade)<br>

large wildlife = 300/4 should be fine as long as you are willing to take a little more risk getting closer<br>

 

Fantasy solution:<br>

birds = 400/2.8 (without TC) = bright viewfinder and higher shutter speed at lower ISO

<br>

wildlife = 400/2.8 (take a few shots before I get killed because this lens cannot be handheld)

<br><br>

About that Sigma 120-300mm/2.8 HSM (no OS, by the way), it seems attractive based on the specs. But, as you may

already know, maintaining an extremely tight tolerance for adhering to the design during manufacturing is very

costly; and, it gets even costlier when a partially manufactured product has to be rejected because it is not

within the tolerance range. Only the really anal company, so to speak, is willing to do that and that's why their

products cost more. Based on my own experience and others experience, Sigma's tolerance range for maintaining the

product to specs during manufacturing tends to be wider than Nikon or Canon. As such, I suggest getting the lens

from a nearby store and returning/exchanging when you find something wrong. Check the outer ring of your images

from your sample lens carefully. If they are too soft shot wide open, you might wanna think twice.

Hi Dick, you have gotten some good advice. The minimum focal length you will need is 300mm and longer is better, like 500mm. I prefer Nikon lenses, like the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS paired with the D 300, that took the sample image below, That green heron was only about 8-10 yards away from me and I still cropped away 30% of the right hand side of the image. I would not have gottten the shot with the older AF version of the lens because of its slower AF. I wished that I had my 500mm with me for a heron shot 10 yards away. This is why you need long focal length lenses and tcs. The advice about the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens is very good. This lens is excellent. It is chipped or electronic. You will have to focus it manually on your D 300 and this is not a problem. If action shooting is going to be your focus, then you need to save up for the AFS lenses. Joe Smith<div></div>

Good choices: Nikon 500mm f4 P, Nikon 300mm f4 + TC-17E, Sigma 120-500mm OS. As mentioned above, you would be wise to get a pro class tripod and ballhead. The tripod contributes more to sharpness than the lens when you get to these magnifications. I use a Gitzo 1325cf + AcraTech ballhead. It is decent.

 

 

Kent in SD

Thank you all for the quick responses so far! As I kind of expected, you get what you pay for! I know that a better tripod(I have an old bushnell now) is in the future and I may have to take the plunge for the 200-400 Nikkor VR zoom. What I don't want to do is buy a "lesser" lens and then kick myself for not just buying the "correct" lens in the first place. I also have to live with this financial decision with the other person(wife) who I'd like to continue living with:-)!!!

>>I've read quite a bit about the 80-400mm VR Nikkor, but I'm concerned about it's autofocus abilities

 

If you use the focus limit switch, it focuses fast and accurately.

Elliot, thank you and that is interesting. The 80-400mm looks like a reasonable choice. How does the focus limit switch work? Does it limit the focus to a certain range? And, does anyone else have a comment about this specific lens?

I just did some quick reading about the focus limit switch and I have answered the question. Same comment from a reviewer on Amazon.

It is quite well known that the 80-400mm VR lens auto focuses slowly. When it first came out in year 2000, I tried it

at a camera store on an F100, which had Nikon's fastest AF module at that time. The noisy AF from the 80-400

reminded me 1st-generation AF from the late 1980's. I immediately realized that it wasn't a lens for me.

 

If you are serious about bird photography, stick with the DX format for the extra reach and aim for at least a

500mm/f4. Even the 200-400 is going to be too short; I have one and know that very well.

There are various ways to get to 500mm/f4. The cheapest way is the manual-foucs P version.

That and the 80-400 are fine for stationary subjects. If you need to get into birds in flight shots,

you'll be talking about some fast AF-S lens.

 

If you don't want to spend a lot of money immediately, try a 300mm/f4 AF-S perhaps with a 1.4x TC, but you'll

quickly realize why serious bird photographers use 500 and 600mm lenses.

"<I>What I don't want to do is buy a "lesser" lens and then kick myself for not just buying the "correct" lens in the

first place.</I>"

<P>

Understood, however 'correct' is in the mind of the beholder. The 'correct' lens for me may be the wrong lens for

someone else. For example Arthur Yeo's fantasy lens turned out to be not a good choice for me because I prefer

much more mobility than a 400mm f/2.8 permits, and it turned out that there were very few situations where I could

use the lens' maximum aperture because DOF is so shallow. The f/2.8 aperture was more burden than useful to me.

<P>

A few questions to ask yourself:

<BR> are your skills good enough to justify the expense of a modern high-end lens?

<BR> have you had enough experience photographing wildlife to know what you want from your lens?

<BR> are you comfortable taking a hit on depreciation if the expensive lens isn't right for you and you re-sell it?

<P>

If you've answered 'no' to any of these questions you're a good candidate for older used lenses. Try several and re-

sell the ones that don't work for you, it's likely that you can re-sell for little $$$ loss and while using them you'll learn

how important the lens' various features are to you.<P>

For example<BR>

is AF important to you, or is manual focus OK?<BR>

what about AF speed?<BR>

how important is weight and ergonomic design?<BR>

how important to you is the maximum aperture?<BR>

how often is the minimum focus distance a problem?<P>

These are all individual considerations and there's no single right answer. Once you know what features you want

and what works for you you'll have a better idea what the "correct" lens is and you'll make a better purchase of an

expensive lens.

Shun and Doug, thank you for the input and suggestions. At this point, I have the desire and interest to become a better bird and wildlife photographer, but I lack the experience. I understand very well what you mean by learning your equipment and what works for me. I have experienced this with my 80-200 VR which I've found to be quite good for some situations but limited for others. I think that is why I don't really want to start by spending a lot of money, but I also appreciate the quality of excellent construction and I was worried about making a compromise for price that I would regret. Looking for used lenses is an excellent suggestion and I'll definitely start searching in that direction. Again, I appreciate all of the good advice! This is what makes this forum so great!

I use 300mm 2.8af-s, 500mm 4.0af-s,200-400mm and TC17IIE. They all "handholdable". 300mm2.8af-s is the fastest; 500mm4.0af-s is the best IQ; 200-400mm more flexable. 300mm2.8af-s lens only cost 1/2 the price of 200-400mm or 500mm.

I use a D200 with an older Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF on a Gitzo 1327. Its manual focus but for getting am image of birds in trees I think its better than AF but still a dark view finder. I would like more focal lenght and speed so I am looking at the Nikkor 500mm f4 P which I believe would better suite stationary shots vs the Nikkor 300mm AF-S f4 and tc. IMHO you should get a good tripod and head (read the tripod section on www.bythom.com) first then build techique before you purchase a big lens. You might look into renting a few lenses to see what fits you best.

Dick, long lens technique is very important and it requires a good tripod and a ball head or a gimbal head no matter what lens you get. Factor in the cost of a good tripod and ball head. Read this link for long lens technique:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/ejp0801-1.html

 

All of us are trying to tell you how to avoid some of the costly mistakes some of us--namely yours truly--have made.

I started with a Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF lens for general nature work in Yellowstone. After one outing, I added a well used Nikon manual focus 400mm f 3.5, for general nature and shorebirds. Then I traded up for a used Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens and used it for birds with two tcs, the tc 14B and the tc 301, for 7 years. That is when I bought a good tripod, a Gitzo 1325- and my images improved dramatically. Then I went digital with a D 200 and now a D 300. When I got interested in action stuff, I switched to the 300mm AFS f 4.0 and just recently the 500mm AFS f.4. You can get a used 500mm f 4.0 P for around $2000-$2200. It is a great birding lens with a camera like the D 300 with a above average viewfinder if your eyes can handle mf. I am 65 and wear tri focals.

 

IMO you do not need VR in that you will be using a tripod for most of your shots. Not having VR keeps the costs down. If I had the money to buy the 200-400mm VR, I would buy the 500mm VR instead for birding. I believe the costs are about the same. Now if I were going to africa for a safari, I would probably get the 200-400mm VR.

 

Joe Smith

Unfortunately, a 500mm/f4 AF-S VR is quite a bit more expensive than the 200-400, approximately $7900 vs. $5200 at this point. Given that the 500mm/f4 VR is new, its price probably has some room to drop.

The longest lens you can possibly afford. 300mm is barely adequate for large birds. I've used my 80-400 and it's so so, but a 500 (+ TC ) on a D200/D300 will make life much better for you.

"<I> long lens technique ... requires a good tripod and a

ball head or a gimbal head no matter what lens you get. </I>"

<P>

That's the conventional setup. I'm using a lightweight 560mm f/6.8 with shoulder stock & monopod, total cost

excluding camera body is about US$1000. I rarely use a tripod.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/witu19.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/mammals/artiodactyls/dash01.jpg">

</CENTER>