Long, older lenses

[phil_burt]

<p>Hello to all on this wonderful Sunday,<br>

Yesterday I attended a photography seminar .... I though it was on wildlife ( foxes, squirrels, other small animals) like that and when I got there it was about Birding. OK, after the class I'm not ready to give up what I love best in photography but I would like to explore this in a reasonable way. Who knows maybe I will like it enough to get into it, but I am one that likes to walk before running. It was a fun class with a field trip but of course I was limited.<br>

OK, I have a D90 and my longest lens is a Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 .... I love this lens for what I normally do but it isn't even close to what is needed for this type of photography.<br>

So my question is this: To just taste the tip of this what length should I go for and is there some old lenses that I could try to find that would work with my D90. I do have a good tripod and head for it.<br>

I am not interested in buying new as my budget is going to be small ....... actually I don't know what it is as I have no knowledge what would be out there that would accommodate my little whim here.<br>

Any help will be greatly appreciated.<br>

Thanks in advance! <br>

Phil b</p>

[akshun]

<p>hmmmm, im not sure if they make a tele-converter for that lens, but if they do, it would be your cheapest route.'<br>

Id also ask myself, how often do i want to do pics of birds or wildlife, although very nice, it gets boring very quickly.<br>

Other than that, i have the nikon 70-300vr, which is very sharp, but you have to get alittle closer to the subject, and in this case, you might scare the little birds away.</p>

[scott_ditzel1]

<p>You need at least a 400mm lens...When you start getting up to 300mm & longer, the prices go up drastically...Older AF lenses will work with your D90 with both metering & focusing. Older manual focus lenses will neither AF (of course) nor meter. That being said, it's not hard to "guess" exposure by using the old "Sunny 15" rule from film days along with your LCD/histogram..While not speedy for action shots, it will work well in many situations. The added bonus is that the older MF lenses can be had at a fraction of the cost of newer AF ones. I moderate a group on Flickr devoted to using older MF non metering lenses on Nikon DSLR's & there are lots of shots of birds & other wildlife taken this way...Bottom line is if you want to save some $$$, consider the older glass. If you want the more up to date features & have the $$$, then go for the latest & greatest.</p>

[ussorca]

<p>Phil, there is a Tokina AT-X 840 AF 80-400, for Nikon on Ebay. It's a refurb and auction opens at $179.<br>

The "Buy it now" is $369. Auction closes at 18:42 PDT on 4/24. I'm toying with the same idea as you, and came across this.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[scott_ditzel1]

<p> </p>

<h1 >That must be for the slower F4.5-5.6 version & not the F2.8 one at that price</h1>

[steve_levine]

<p>The 300/F4.5 AI (ED-IF) lens with or without a 1.4X converter is a great lens. It equals a 630MM angle of view on a crop camera, or a 420MM on a FX camera. It ain't AF, but both can be had for a song.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>There are a lot of good used AF 400 f/5.6 lenses around. I used a Sigma APO for some years and was well pleased with the results. It did not lend itself to a teleconverter however, as it was too slow (both optically and focusing).</p>

[mizore]

<p>I have a Nikon manual 400mm f/5.6 which cost less than $700. Samples up in my gallery. I use it on a D300. ED IF, sharp wide open. It's fairly light for a 400mm and needs a very stable tripod (end up spending more on the tripod than the lens.</p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>The best lens I can think of is the Nikkor 400MM f3.5 AIS. Its a long and fast telephoto, with not too much weight. Focus is so buttery smooth you will hardly miss AF at all. This lens is also great with teleconverters.<br>

I don't think it will meter with the D90, but since you will use this lens wide open of just one stop down, it does not make a difference. <br>

Find one on Ebay, and you will be very happy.<br>

Anthony</p>

<p><br /></p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have used a Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF with a D200. A bit short sometimes but light and cheap (for tele's) with good sharpness at f5.6</p>

[kenray]

<p>I like wildlife and bird photography and while a long lense is desirable I shoot an awful lot of good images with my old 80-200 2.8 push-pull Nikkor. On a Dx body that gives the equivalent of a 300 2.8 and that's not too shabby. I have a Sigma 120-400 and use it quite often also, but find myself using the 80-200 more and more dependent on exactly where I'm shooting. I live in southern Arizona and the birding here is terrific. I found myself easily within 3ft last week of Acorn Woodpeckers,Mexican Jays and Common Nuthaches and that is not unusual. Sometimes too close to actually focus the 80-200. A little care,time,and patience and stalking does a pretty good job even with a shorter lense.The Desert Museum has a walkin Hummingbird avairy and I find myself using a Sigma 105 2.8 macro quite often. This does not in any way diminsh the need for a longer lense for quite a few shots,but I find with the longer the lense the slower the speed unless funds are unlimited (for me they are quite restriced) and with the slower lense speed goes the requirement to use a good tripod. Even with OS on the 120-400 I find my ability to handhold is restriced in any but the best of lighting. I'm toying with saving for a 300mm f4 older Nikkor. They have excellant image quality and with a 1.4TC still give reasonably good autofocus. With the Dx body that gives you a 450mm f4 and add a 1.4TC and it gets even better. KEH usually has the older ones in excellant condition for around $500. Since Ihave the 120-400 and it gives reasonable quality images at 400mm I probably will continue to use it and forgo the 300. I am 76years of age and the thought of carrying a 500/600 lense of any reasonale speed ,plus tripod is not an inviting picture even if I was in a financial position to purchase one. I am fortunate to live here in So. Arizona where I am able to drive to many wonderful birding spots with parking in close proxmity to viewing areas. Just my thoughts on the subject and I'm sure others have just as compelling reason to reccomend other options.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>pics of birds or wildlife, although very nice, it gets boring very quickly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That depends, for some people it stays interesting... but the point that you may want to check first if it's really for you is a valid one. Sigma does have TC's compatible with the 70-200, and that may be the cheapest route. With a 2x TC you reach 400 f/5.6, which is long enoug most of the time. But how good the quality will be with a 2x TC is another question. However, at a budget it may be a nice first step, and see how you like it. If you really like it, you can start saving up for the bigger guns.<br>

Else, indeed, MF lenses are the only cheap way, I think. But the quoted 400 f/3.5 for example is already quite an expensive lens, the f/5.6 is quite affordable indeed.<br>

Sigma 120-400 or 150-500 are reasonable priced, and should autofocus fairly fast. I would save up longer, and try to get the AF-S 300 f/4 with the Nikon 1.4x TC - optically an excellent pair and pretty good AF speed. With birds in flight, a bit of AF comes in very very handy :-)</p>

<p>In all cases, except the TC, also consider that you need something to carry around the stuff - none of these lenses are small either. A good large bag typically doesn't come cheap either.</p>

[mizore]

<p>For carrying, I recommend a large day pack from a camping supply store. I got a Kelty Redwing on sale from REI for considerably less than a dedicated photo back pack. Hanging a 400mm f/5.6 off the side of a Think Tank Speed Freak is doable, but not comfortable.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Have a look on Bjorn Rorslett's site for lens evaluations. You have to be careful with some of the MF lenses on digital bodies as they don't perform the same some times.<br>

Years ago I had the 500 f4P and on an F5 it was gorgeous, but on a D200 it was horrible. Also had an old 600 f4 Ai-s and that was really soft.<br>

You can pick up the Nikon 400 f3.5 Ai for really cheap these days and that's a solid performer and relatively compact.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[andy_smothers]

<p>I can recommend the following from ownership & experience in the field:(this list excludes my costly newer AF-S models)</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon 500mm f/4 P - MF but works great on D2Xs & one of the best lenses ever made. $$$</li>

<li>Sigma 100-300 f/4 - EX HSM - great lens and can use 1.4TC if needed. $$</li>

<li>Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 - the best lens that Sigma has ever made IMHO. $$$</li>

<li>Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF push-pull - so many versions, might be hard to find a keeper. $</li>

<li>Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM - you know it! Great lens! $</li>

</ol>

<p>All in all, you didn't really provide a budget for your requests but assuming with your D90, you want to keep the price somewhat reasonable. Using a f/2.8 with a TC (recommend the SIGMA EX series for best results on your 70-200mm) - Get the 1.4x TC and see if you are still interested after a month or so, if you still have the "wildlife" bug, then I would start saving as there are few cheap roads to high-quality long lenses, new or old. :)<br>

Cheers,<br>

Andy</p>

 

[rick_keir]

<p>If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't buy a lense, I'd rent it. Birding needs BIG lenses according to every enthusiast I've ever talked to, and if you're like me you won't use a big lense or carry it on every week (I live in a city). I need big glass maybe 1, 2 weeks a year when I'm someplace like Point Reyes, the rest of the time it would just sit around.<br>

A site like lensrentals or rentglass will have an assortment of lenses you can use. For example, one of them has the Nikon 300mm f4.0 for $81 for a week, insured. There are other choices.<br>

If you're working out of a car weight won't be much of an issue but if you are hiking a big lense on top the weight of camera, tripod etc. can be annoying, so look at that factor too when you choose lenses to try.</p>

[michael_deeley]

<p>For someone on a limited budget who does not know whether he will stay interested in bird photography, I agree with those who have suggested a x1.4 converter for his Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens as a starting point. Not often stated is the fact that there are different applications involved in bird photography. Shore birds, wading birds and ducks are often at distance in poor light where a longer lens with tripod is required. He can try his Sigma with a TC. and only lose one stop of light. Or he can purchase a decent 300 or 400mm MF prime lens with a TC. Generally, rapid movement is not an issue with these birds. Song birds are another matter especially in areas where they migrate and return annually as in Ontario. These small birds rarely stay still for a second as they hop from branch to branch, twig to twig to avoid predators and often obscured by foliage. You will be hand-holding your lens and fast AF with the ability to MF in the AF mode will be very helpful; Nikon's AF-s lenses for example. If you like it enough to invest in a fast 500mm or 600mm lens at a later date then you will be in business.; </p>

<p> </p>