Another common "what lens" question (sorry, it's long)

[kier_gigeroff]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I'm one of those who has "lurked" the forums for a long time, but this is my first post here. Please forgive the considerable length of my post, that's just my way (I'm picking up some Charles Darwin habits, I think.)<br>

I'm looking for opinions on a telephoto lens for Nature Photography. I am an amateur who has been into digital photography for nearly three years. I'm more of a landscape type shooter than a wildlife shooter, but I do enjoy wildlife photography, mainly birds.<br>

My current kit: Nikon D200 + MB-D200 and a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG (and 5 other lenses that don't have anything to do with this article, the 70-300 is the weak point).<br>

I'm thinking of upgrading that lens. First, here's some camera settings info for you to chew on: I generally stop-down to maximize the quality of the pictures (I find f/8 to be the best on my sample for sharpness and light falloff), shoot in RAW and maximize settings to provide as much room to pull-back data with Capture NX2. Here are my problems when photographing birds:<br>

1: The lens is painfully slow to focus. Not only that, I find it misses focus a bit.<br>

2: Chromatic aberations are obvious and offensive, and frequently difficult to remove.<br>

3: Softness. The lens, plain and simple, isn't sharp. Not surprising for the price, I guess. Even with sharpening in NX2 it's still obviously soft.<br>

4: (obviously) range. 300mm isn't enough. This is a problem easy to tackle with the good 'ol wallet. I'd like to avoid that if at all possible, but I'll get to that in a moment.<br>

I hope you can see my troubles. What I'm considering is the differences between some slightly-less-flexible Nikkors and third-party options. I'm trying to shoot for around $1000, more or less. I could go a little over if need-be.<br>

I should also note three more things: I don't use a tripod. VR isn't very important for me (neither is weight - I'm a tall young guy), and build quality <em>is</em> important, since I'll be hauling it through backwoods New Brunswick (Canada) which is hard on camera gear, especially in winter. My 70-300mm nearly died on more than one occasion last winter (as did various other bits of camera gear that don't like -40 celsius or 5 feet of snow).<br>

I've considered the Nikkor 70-300mm VR. Would mostly fix problems #1, 2, and 3. However it certainly won't get past problem #4. I've also considered the AF-S 300mm f/4D + 1.4 or 1.7 TCs. That should take care of pretty much everything except zoom convenience (and I'd be pushing my wallet). I've also considered the 80-400mm VR, except AF speed is important for me - what is your opinion on the AF of this lens?<br>

I've considered older lens options (i.e. AF 300mm f/4). I could go with a manual-focus Nikkor, but AF is important in my shooting. I've also looked at some of the Sigma zooms and primes, and have read mixed opinions, and would like to know what you think on the sharpness and AF performance of the "big" zooms, i.e. 170-500mm etc. I just don't what to waste $$$ on more poor optics, so I'm cautious about expensive 3rd party lenses.<br>

What would you guys and girls recommend? I'd also be interested to know your opinions on tripods with bird photography. I don't use one as I'm a very mobile shooter.<br>

I'd be grateful for any help in my decision.<br>

Kier<br>

PS: I don't intend to go FX any time soon, unless I sell off pretty much all my current gear and start fresh.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The one thing you say that just struck me... [i don't use a tripod. VR isn't very important for me] diametrically opposed. Get some VR or OS kind of deal.</p>

<p>How big do you print? If you don't print above 8 x 10, it seems to me that a better 70-300 with VR, cropped when necessary, might do it.</p>

[tedms gallery]

<p>I have this lens as well. If you're using it at 300mm, you can get less CA by closing down a stop from wide open, if possible (almost will always need a tripod with this non VR lens). The Nikon 70-300 VR is better, but still a slow lens. The 300/2.8 is nice, but costs about 30x the price of the Sigma. Some folks get less CA from the $50 more APO version of the Sigma lens, but with the many issues of the lens, even the slow Nikon zooms that get to 300mm are a bargain. Use a tripod or monopod whenever possible on any lens.</p>

[kier_gigeroff]

<p>Hi Peter,<br /> Thanks for your advice.<br /> I'm curious as to your reason that VR is essential. I just don't feel I need it since I usually shoot from a location with the lens supported by something (not a tripod - usually a branch, rock, friend, Labrador Retriever etc - Anything that doesn't take time to set up). I usually shoot at high-shutter speeds (sometimes below 1/500th, but not often. Usually above). I'm just not fully convinced that it will really improve things that much. I realize that it will help with the viewfinder view - how important is this in your opinion? Since I haven't really used VR I don't really know. I have used it (IS) on Canon Powershots before, although I understand that they are a different kettle of fish, they are small light little things with stubby lenses that fit into your pocket.<br /> I usually print at 8x10, sometimes 8x12, and rarely above.<br>

EDIT: just posted this and saw Ted's response. I usually shoot at f8 or so, it does improve CA a bit. I think the upgrade to APO would be pretty small. And I'd love the 300/2.8, but it's out of my price range.<br>

I intend to try a monopod with my current kit.<br>

Thanks for the pointers.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Kier, buying a long "slower" lens without VR just seems like a no-no... there will come a time when you will not have your tripod and not have the greatest support, and not the greatest light, and you'll miss the shot. VR works pretty well with a monopod, too. It might open you up to some stuff you wouldn't get otherwise...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Can't comment on the Sigma. The 300/4 AF-S with a TC-14E/EII and/or TC-17EII certainly pushes your budget by around 50%. An alternative that is within your budget is the 300/4 AF IF-ED. It is very robust (metal) and the somewhat slow AF speed can be compensated for by the nicely adjustable focus limiter. It can be combined with a third party 1.4x TC without much ado. The 80-400 VR will also push your budget - and whether or not the AF is too slow depends on what and when you are shooting; I would consider its AF speed about par to the 300/4 AF IF-ED. <br>

Very often, people complain about the lack of AF speed and think AF-S is the solution when on quite a few occasions, improving ones focusing technique is all that is necessary. I owned a Tokina 400/5.6 for a short while - now that is a lens with slow AF - even in good light and with a clean background, it wouldn't acquire focus. It you want a zoom, you may also want to look at the Sigma 100-300/4.<br>

BTW, it is not often that I can shoot birds at f8 and still have a decently fast shutter speed (and haven't pushed ISO all too much). </p>

[luca_m.]

<p>I was in a similar situation, and ended up buying a 300mm F/4. This lens would solve your 1, 2 and 3 problems right away. Maybe later you can add a TC and fix # 4 as well. I have the 1.4 TC, and it seems to detract very little from image quality, providing there is enough light. Maybe a used 300 F/4, if you can find one?</p>

[william_saywell]

<p>I looked at the Sigma 150-500 and was impressed by the IQ and focussing speed - but it was just too heavy for me. I bought the Nikon 80-400 instead. I'm happy with its IQ, and although it's a bit slow to focus, it isn't too bad.<br>

I suggest you look hard at the sigma.</p>

<p>William</p>

[SCL]

<p>Typically a prime lens at longer focal lengths will show less chromatic aberation than a zoom. While I've used AF for nature work, especially bird shots, I've found that manual focus lenses work better for me most of the time. The upside is that there are a lot of 400mm or longer lenses which do an outstanding job, of course each has its downside as well. In recent years I switched from a Nikon 80-400 AF lens to a much older Leica Telyt 400/f6.3 with a shoulder pod (which I use on my Nikon, Leica and Canon gear), and found that my percentage of keepers improved substantially. Downside....low light, manual focus; Upside.... lower weight, sharper center rendition and lower CA. On my Canon gear I switched to L glass in the 300mm range and got an excellent 1.4 extender. I also purchased a Wemberly Sidekick to use with my tripod (when I use one) and find it to be incredibly helpful in reducing camera shake with longer lenses. I don't necessarily suggest you follow my path....merely that you do a lot of research in your area of principal photography and see how others have found paths to incrementally improving their output. It can save you a lot of money and frustration in the long run.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>How important is point #4 really? When I used my 70-300, I wanted to replace it with something better. Got a 80-200 f/2.8, and still felt like something was missing. That something turned out to be that last 100mm... For nature/wildlife, to me, the 80-200 hardly sees use because it's somehow always further away.<br>

So, I'm guessing, in the end it's about the 300mm side of things. The 70-250mm part simply does not matter that much. To get good 300mm, and beyond, I can wholeheartedly recommend the 300 f/4 with 1,4x TC (I also have the 1,7, and while not bad, it's not great either). It's a rather expensive combination (exceeding your budget I think), quite heavy, but it just delivers and the feel of the lens makes me happy every time again.<br>

A lot of people also seem to like the newer Sigma HSM 120-400 and 150-500, and the photos I've seen with these lenses do look good. They're affordable, and the HSM should mean decent AF performance. But no first-hand use.</p>

[snommisbor]

<p>I use the 80-400 VR for wildlife. I have taken it to Africa twice and use it all the time at home for wildlife. I have gotten many shots of birds in flight and everything else from Elephants to Lions and Impala and many more from walking and riding around and the focus, while not blazing fast, it has gotten me the great shots of wildlife I have blown up and framed on my wall.</p>

[snommisbor]

<p>Here are 2 examples with the 80-400</p><div></div>

[snommisbor]

<p>and one more</p><div></div>

[kier_gigeroff]

<p>Thanks for all of your comments. I'll update with what I decide on (if anything). I don't think a zoom is that important, just for some photos. I could always keep the Sigma I have now for those times.<br>

Cheers - Kier</p>