Lens Choices for Nature Photography> help me make up my mind.

[elmroc]

One last thing Marko,

 

After reading over your "options" from your original post, the only true Nature/Wildlife option you list is option 1. I base this on the "reach" of the lenses in the other options, again unless you count landscape under the heading of Nature/Wildlife.

 

I'm afraid that if you do, then you should change your options around a bit, and spend the time working with the lenses you have, and fill holes as you go (which i beleive is the best route for you)

 

Again, good luck in your decision

[marko_matic]

Thank you everyone for your input. Ok it looks like the best thing to do is buy a telephoto. Could you suggest which telephoto

to get if the 200-400 is too expensive? Again only the lenses that are currently in the Nikon catalogue. What would have

enough reach ? Would the 300 be insufficient?

[Two23]

Here's how I decide what to buy. I go out and take photos. Every time I think of a photo I want to take but can't because the stuff I have with me doesn't have the capability, I remember that. When I start seeing a pattern of photos I can't take or do very well, I then carefully research what lens/etc. will let me do what I want. I --NEVER-- post on a forum, "I like to take photos, what do I need?" It's always something very specific. Such as, "I like to photo creatures in tide pools and have a D80 body. I have $500 to spend. What would be some choices?" Your photos will tell you what you need. To be blunt, it's clear that you really don't have any idea what you need and you really need to analyze your photos and think hard.

 

--->Always ask, "What will new gear do that I can't do with what I have?"

 

 

Kent in SD

[bruce_margolis]

"Would the 300 be insufficient?"

 

I *thought* I knew what you wanted but now I have to ask, insufficient for WHAT?

 

The 300 f/2.8 is an outstanding lens but even with a t/c, it will be too short for some wildlife. Obviously the smaller the animal/bird and the further away, the more you want a longer lens. FWIW, I use a 300mm with 1.4 t/c for birding and it works but most of my flight shots need to be cropped. Something longer like at least 500mm would be better.

[marko_matic]

hahaha thnx Bruce, I like how you guys make it painfully obvious what is confusing. It makes m think more about what

want it. So it sounds funny to have a different lens for bears, a lens for dogs a lens for swalows and a lens for horses =).

But i suppose its true, you can't do everything with a single lens. So if I got a 500mm prime for small birds I cannot use

it for domesticated chickens running around my feet. What is the most versatile lens for shoting birds, chickens, horses,

bears, kangaroos and lizards? I suppose a fixed focal 500 is not since you need to be way back to shoot a horse. Guys I

am interetsed in versatility. The 200-400 sounds versitile and can shoot both bigger birds and mammals at the 200. if I

want more magnification then add a 1.4tc for even smaller birds =). If th bird is still small. Then try and move in to make

it bigger. If this is impossible then crop the image. With the 300/2.8 it would be too short for shooting birds, but i

presume you could shoot larger animals like dogs and kangaroos. This would be the equivalent of a short end of the 200-

400. Adding a 1.4 TC would give me 420 which I i hope should match the 400 end of the 200-400. Now if I want more

lenght, how about adding a 1.7 to give me 510, would this be sufficient quality and focal lenght for small birds? If not how

much degradation occurs when a 2X tc is added to get a 600mm? Would that be sufficient for small birds?

 

I supose I am trying to get equipment that will be most versitile. Any other suggestions?

[marko_matic]

Could someone tell me what I would need to take images like these

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6930562

[Two23]

Probably:

500mm f4,TC-14E, Gitzo 1548 tripod, Wimberely gimbal head, Nikon SB-800 flash, Better Beamer flash extender. Tripod alone is about $1,000.

 

 

 

Kent in SD

[nick_davis]

Marko Matic , Aug 09, 2008; 09:53 a.m.

 

"Could someone tell me what I would need to take images like these

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6930562"

<hr>

<br>

 

A bird feeder would help. Seriously. I have been able to get goldfinches to come close enough to me to photograph

them with my 300mm f/4 just by sitting still next to small tree near my bird feeder. <br>

 

As to your equipment plans, if you don't already have a good tripod you should buy one before you buy any lenses.

You will need it to do macro work and to support long lenses in the future. If you already have a good solid

tripod, then I would suggest going with a long lens first. I understand how limited a 200mm can be if you want to

do animals. I shot for close to 8 years with only a cheap 35-80mm and my beloved 80-200mm f/2.8D. You will be

limited to large animals that tolerate close approach or just getting lucky like I did when I surprised <a

href="http://geocities.com/nikodemia/racoon.jpg">this guy</a>. Instead of the 200-400mm you may want to consider

saving a boat load of money right now buy going with the 300mm f/4 and TC-17 combo. That is what I use since I

can't afford anything longer. It has the advantage over the 200-400mm of being lighter and easier to hand hold if

necessary. Works great for panning a subject. I shot <a href="http://geocities.com/nikodemia/boat.jpg">this race

boat</a> handheld at 1/125 sec. Something that would have been very difficult with a larger lens. Also, since you

are shooting with a DX format camera the 300mm TC-17 combo is equivalent to 750mm. Maybe you could go that route

and save some money for a bigger 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm prime lens later on.

I don't know how badly you want the tilt-shift lenses but I, personally, would forget about them for now. They

are special purpose lenses and many fine 35mm landscape photographers do wonderful work without them. Also, the

24mm f/2.8 (not the PC-E one) is a fantastically usefull lens for landscapes but I find that it is not wide

enough on the DX format. Your 18-200 would prove more useful. However, if you find yourself using the 18-200 at

the 18mm end quite often I would suggest finding a wide andle prime lens to use for better sharpness. The 20mm

f/2.8 would probably be the least expensive option or, if you've got the dough, go with the 14mm. Just make sure

you don't let the longing for new equipment keep you from trying with the lenses you already own. I know someone

who worked with nothing more than the 200mm Micro for 2 years and she made many great photos with it.

[Two23]

The 200-400mm is going to be more versatile than a 500mm f4, naturally. There's another factor involved you aren't thinking of and that's convenience/useability. While a 200-400mm f4 is a stop faster and gives a bit better image quality, the thing is very large. It's almost like carrying a bag full of bricks around. For photos at a zoo or in a barn yard it would be overkill. A more compact lens such as Nikon 80-400mm VR, Sigma 120-400mm OS would be much more compact and portable. However, they are f5.6 and the autofocus on the Nikon is fairly slow. When I go hiking in the mountains or have to pack light for a trip I usually take my 80-400mm VR. While it has its flaws (f5.6, slow AF) it is sharp and easy to pack & carry. I have a Nikon TC-17e (1.7x) which I now use on my 70-200mm f2.8. I will likely end up replacing my 80-400mm VR with a Nikon 300mm f4 VR (you listening, Nikon?) and use the 1.7x on it. I'm not really a small bird photographer though. For me, lightness, compactness and ease of carry is a consideration. Every choice involves compromises.

 

Below photo I used Nikon 70-200mm VR + TC-17E + Nikon SB-800. Flash was used off camera in CLS (held by my wife.) I was able to get pretty close to the bird. While this is far from the ideal "bird" lens, it is the ideal lens for hiking up and down Yosemite mountains all day. Well, maybe that would have been the even lighter 70-300mm VR, LOL!

 

 

Kent in SD<div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

"Could someone tell me what I would need to take images like these"

 

I would add a few things to Kent's excellent list.....

 

The first is understanding lighting. Is it a bright day or overcast day? Is the sun in front of you or behind you? Are

there shadows that will impact your photo and change exposure? You get the idea.

 

Also, understanding what you are photographing is quite helpful. Knowing their nature and patterns helps to

anticipate where the next photo op will be.

 

And the other thing you need is lots of experience. I have yet to meet someone who just bought a camera with a

500mm lens and began getting excellent photos.

 

If you like that photographer's work, contact him and ask what gear he uses. Most people at photo.net are pretty

nice about sharing info. Also, pick up a couple books about wildlife photography. There are many to choose from.

 

Lastly, check out some wildlife photographers online. Again there are many but the one who comes to my mind first

is Moose Peterson. While he has all the big Nikon lenses, it seems his favorite is the 600VR. Some of his work is

stunning but again, he has knowledge, experience, and all the gear. You might even want to consider one of his

workshops.

[craig_gillette]

You've got 2 200mm lenses. That should tell if 200 is too short for you now. So the 70-200, even with a TC may not make you happy if looking to birds and animals. Within Nikon, the 300/4 is popular and can be used with a 1.4 tc for substantially less money than the 200-400. The 80-400 is getting long in the tooth and a replacement may be on the horizon. However, while it may or may not be fast enough for very fast moving subjects, it's optical quality is pretty good. It also is a lot less expensive than the 200-400 - at over $5000..

 

It really does help to settle in on the specifics of what you can't do now that you want to do.

 

For example, is the 200mm macro not meeting your macro needs?

 

The problem with "general nature" is that usually does mean long lenses, the longer the better. But good long lenses means a lot to move around, a lot to support with tripods, good tripods and heads, and a lot less money in your wallet.

 

If budget limited, then there may be some suitable solutions with good but heavier tripods and slower but pretty good longer lenses.

[Mary Doo]

Marko,

 

The photos from the link you showed has beautiful shots from macro thru tele. If that's what you are looking for, and

based on the options you listed and the lenses you already have, it seems your Option 1 is the logical choice - 200-

400 with TCs. If you add on Option 2 in the future, you would have a focal range of some of Nikon's best; keeping the

18-200 as a general-purpose walk-around lens.

 

Having said that, I suspect many of the shots from that link were set up by the bird feeder, as the setting is just so

perfect! :) I am sure you know already that such impactful photography takes much more than just the right

equipment.

 

Good luck,

Mary

[carl_becker2]

I recently purchased an old Nikkor 500mm f4 P. I am interested in small birds. I am having better success over a 400mm f5.6. If you want to capture these small birds I believe focal length and lots of it will help. You don't need speed for landscape so I would just use the 18-200 there. The PC E lenses are pretty pricey for something that might not get a lot of use but I am sure they can come in handy. Do you often require more DoF?

[pbizarro]

Have a look at John Shaw's several books, they were an eye opener to me in terms of technique and equipment for nature and landscape photography. Very useful.

[marko_matic]

I am quite moved to the response of this thread. I want to thank everyone who contributed. It has made me think

in a different way.

 

Well the whole point here was that I have an opportunity to buy some nikon gear at a price which most likely will

never present it self to me again. My budget is about 5000 AUD and with the equipment that I have I was wondering

what would be the best option next. I know it depends on what you shoot, but I am willing to give anything a go.

Animals and macro is what I like, but I dont mind lanscape, I just dont get out enough for it. Just wondering

what people would do in my situation. I suppose I am trying to get the most use for my buck, because I am not

rockerfeller. =)

[joemikel1]

I´m just a begginer like you, and also interested in nature. My choice was a used (but like new) nikkor 80-400 VR (about 1200$ on e-bay) , I´m very happy with it, as I can walk arround and get good shots without tripod. I know it´s not the fastest lens, but it´s lowweigth and let you walk for miles and use it handheld. (wich gives me lots of opportunities of great subjects). As I said my personal choice, adapted to my own way of shoting.....

Hope it helps you....

[Ed_Ingold]

Rather than the bag full of lenses in your list, I'd start by scrapping the D200 for a D700, equipped with a 24-70/2.8 AFS. The focal length would handle about 80% of landscapes and nature photography, as well as walk-about photography. The image quality is +2G beyond the D200 - equal to the D3.

 

After that, decide if you want to go wide or long. For landscapes, a 17-35/2.8 AFS would make sense - the 14-24/2.8 is a niche lens. The overlap between 35mm and 24mm would prove highly useful in the field to mitigate the number of lens changes. Lenses longer than 105mm aren't used all that much for landscapes, but are handy for events and action shots. Wildlife lenses start at about 400mm and go up from there - and come with coupons for a 2nd mortgage and a back brace.

 

For real closups (not just the 1:4 shots allowed by the 24-70), I'd get a 55/2.8 AIS Micro, or possibly a 105/2.8 AFS VR. The former is so cheap these days it is practically a throw-away - but has outstanding performance, resistance to flare and nearly zero chromatic aberation.

[bob_bill]

I agree with Bruce, take a look at Petersons 2 classes on Scott Kelby on line. You might start by looking at your images' metadata to see which area you use most and maybe where you feel you needed different glass. If you are satisfied with the 18-200, you might want that 200-400 which at the 1.5 d200 factor is an equivalent 500 mm and might be able to be used with a 1.4 or 2 x TC. It depends on how much you shoot or want to shoot that way. A 12-24 gives nice w/a in that effective 18-25 range I find useful for landscape. Its non vr, but usually am on tripod for landscapes anyway, and hand holding at 20 mm is doable at lower speeds. Remember, you can stitch several images from a longer lens in PS if want more panorama. At the long end, remember thats expensive, heavy glass. Might want to rent before buying to know what you really need or want. Hey, I think everyone is trying to get that bang for a buck, especially with the fast evolving digital technology. The 50 1.8 is a great low light lens,small and light, probably a Nikon best buy at 100 bucks. Unless you have a bearer, someone has to carry all this stuff and as its been said, if its back in the studio and you need it, you'll miss it. So many lenses, so little time(and so much money and weight). Enjoy the new lenses and the images you produce.

[Two23]

Keeping in mind that you like to photo bugs and animals, I assume in Australia, I'll take a shot and say buy a Nikon 105mm VR micro and a 200-400mm VR--if it HAS to be new Nikon stuff. Otherwise, I would say a used Nikon 500mm f4 P (manual lens), budget $1,500 for top notch carbon fiber tripod and Wimberly sidekick plus a $300 ballhead, and you might have enough left over for either the Nikon 105mm VR micro or even better the Sigma 150mm (or 180mm) f2.8 macro. Yes, the tripod is that important.

 

 

Kent in SD

[pankaj purohit]

I am happy and thankfull with my Nikon F/75, 50-1.8, 70-300-4-5.6, 28-80G.

 

Just searching for one more wide angle low cost prime, which I need for interiors and sharp landscapes.

 

I know what I need, than I discuss here with my friends, and pleased with the response of so many others who are far better experienced and talented than me.

 

Marco, I would suggest you to go with Shun's first advice.

[pankaj purohit]

Oops... let me correct : ".....go with Shun's Second advice."

 

You will definitely be in better situation to select right one or more.

[ShunCheung]

This thread is closed because the original poster has admitted that he has no idea what he wants.

As some of us mentioned earlier, one should buy additional equipment based on need.

If you are buying solely for the sake of buying, you clearly will have no idea what to buy.

 

http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QTJI