arthuryeo Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 For those of you who have tons of experience with wildlife photography, could you give me some pointers regarding what's the best long lens Nikkor with AF-S? I intend to shoot mainly birds: raptors, swans and geese. Let me qualify what "best" means to me: highest contrast and resolution. Thanks in advance for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Arthur, I do not have tons of experience, but I do know people will need to know your budget to give any meaningful advise. As you may know the best in this area of photography comes with a hefty price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I have a 400 3.5 EDIF nikkor that is a great lens, even with the TC300 I use with it. For infor on long lenses, check out this PN members site. Its a great resource. http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 If you don't mind the size and weight, get the 600mm/f4 AF-S. Most people prefer the 500mm/f4 AF-S because of its smaller size and weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelschrag Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The best Nikkor for birds is the Canon 500mm f/4 IS with a 20D attached to it. Use you Nikon gear for everything else. I have this setup and like it alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk_hui Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 For birds, would suggest getting the AF-S 500/4 based on your 'best' definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Anybody any opinions on the Sigmonster Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 EX APO HSM AF or the newer DG version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 <I>Anybody any opinions on the Sigmonster Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 EX APO HSM AF or the newer DG version?</i><P> Yes. The thing is ENORMOUS and not stabilized -- fine if you have a tripod and head up to the task of supporting it, and you are strong enough to carry them around (or are willing to do all your shooting a short walk from a vehicle). To do wildlife photography, you have to get to where the wildlife are. That becomes a challenge with a really huge lens -- not just in terms of your carrying it around, but also in terms of getting it onto a plane if you like to travel. So I concur with the suggestions for a 500/4. Also, those lenses are "small" enough that brief hand-holding is feasible at high shutter speeds, for things like flying birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 Thanks for responses. Specifically, I like to capture images of them in flight. Would that make a difference to your recommendations? Don't worry too much about the price, I sell a kidney. :) Is the 600mm/4 II too unwieldly? I'm surprised no one suggested the 200-400VR? Is that too short for birds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 Mark, How's the quality of the SigMonster? And, also, how's the focusing speed of the HSM mated with a D2X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 You are going to need to start with the 500mm and go from there. Birds become very small in the viewfinder, even Canada Geese shrink in a 400mm view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 As of now, I'm leaning towards to the 500mm/4 AF-S II but I am quite sure that the moment I place an order, Nikon will announce that they have just released their latest 500m/4 AF-S ED-IF VR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 I have recently purchased the 200mm/2VR + TC20EII with the intention of using the lens (without the TC) for people in action and some occasional trips for wildlife photography. <p><p> Had a really bad experience with that combination in the last trip shooting Alaskan Trumpeter Swans. Images, in general, were poorly focused and those that were focused were low in contrast and not critically sharp. On the other hand, the 200/2VR performed perfectly handheld without the TC. May be I'm not skilled enough with a lens+TC. *sigh* :( Can't believe reviewers anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
work-page Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Arthur, regarding the 200/2+TC, have you considered that the problem may not be in the lens/TC combination but in the atmospheric conditions at the time? When you're doubling the focal length to fill the frame, you're also doubling the soup through which you shoot.. When it's hazy, not only contrast suffers in the picture, but the AF gets a harder job as well. I'd say, give it another workout in clear weather before you give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 The 200mm/f4 is mainly a news and sports lens, especially for indoors. I don't have one but while I probably wouldn't mind putting a 2X TC on it occasionally, it is still going to degrade the overall image quality quite a bit, as 2X TCs always do. In most situations, 400mm is certainly not long enough for birds, which is your primary subject. 500mm is probably not long enough too. Expect to add a 1.4x TC to any 500mm. And that explains why the 200-400 is not recommended for your purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk_hui Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Even 600 is not enough for birds ... 500/4 with 1.4x would be your standard outfit. TC20E is not a good match for AF-S 500/4. Also, VR is not necessary if you shoot mainly flight shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 In addition to your lens, either the 500mm f 4.0 af-s II or the 600mm AF-S II, you will need at least one tc, the 14 B II and a good tripod like the Gitzo 1325 or 1548, a gimbal head from Wimberley and the Gitzo level base, 1321 for the tripod. Then you will have to master long lens technique and how to make the right slections on your camera body among custom settings, etc. Joe Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 There is, at least, one photographer I know who used the 200/2VR without a TC for eagles at Homer, AK. Are eagles there so approachable? Is this *only* a special case? BTW, those are the sharpest eagles in flight images I have ever seen! http://www.pbase.com/a5m/eagles_of_alaska_2006 Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Arthur: The Sigma 300-800 has excellent optical quality. I don't have one but there's a bird shooter in the Phillipines -- Romy Ocon -- who uses it and gets superb results. Nevertheless, it's huge. For a while I had the Sigma 800/5.6, which is a bit smaller and lighter than the 300-800, and it was simply too big for easy use: sharp enough if it could be held steady, but that was very challenging (here, stabilization is a big help). As Joseph says, budget in a big, solid tripod and a Wimberley or other good gimbal head if you want to use a 500 or 600. <P> If you want to shoot birds in flight, the 500/4 is about as big as I'd recommend, and in the Canon world the 400/5.6 is the default 'flight lens'. 600/4s are quite a bit largerand heavier than 500/4s and unless you're Godzilla they're simply too big to hand-hold. You can use them on a tripod with a gimbal head, but I find that much less effective for my<A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/flyingindex.html"> flight shots</a> than hand-holding a 500/4. YMMV.<P> The Homer eagles are indeed a special case. They're habituated to people so one can get very close (like, < 20 feet). Typical wild birds are a far different story and even when working at 1000 mm (500+2X) on a sub-frame DSLR, very often I can't get close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 27, 2007 Author Share Posted February 27, 2007 Thanks, Mark! I will certainly look into it. Wildlife photography is almost like the real estate market: location, location, location! Looks like some of the eagles in Homer has *only* a 5ft comfort-circle! http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00K7ol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryberkins Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 IMHO your best bet is the 200mm f/2 + 2 x converter + D2Xs HSC. thats an 800mm f/4 with VR, that focusses to 6.6 feet. and is light enough to hand hold, and with VR, it makes it easier. i dont know why we dont see this setup more often. it makes so much sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 <I. i dont know why we dont see this setup more often. it makes so much sense....</i><P> Because a 400 mm is not long enough for a lot of wildlife work, especially birds. There are good reasons that most bird photographers have 500 or 600 mm lenses and use them with converters and sub-frame DSLRs. Besides, the image of a subject at a given distance isn't any bigger with HSC than it is in 'regular' mode (pseudo-800 mm regardless): you've just thrown a lot of pixels away from the edge of the image in order to get a faster frame rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now