mike_vine Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Hi - I am looking for more reach than my current set-up provides and seem to have two options. My current set-up is a D7000 with a 70- 300VR for reach.... I would like more reach for bird photography In particular. Options seems to be either: 1. A longer lens on the D7000 - looking at the Sigma 150-500 (with OS) based on Thomas Hogan's review.... This option would give all the benefits of the D7000 (AF etc) but the lens is very large and costs £650 at least. 2 A D3200 with 24MP to give more MP for closer cropping - can use existing 70-300 lens and only costs £300 (plus get an additional compact body for back-up and general use) but have reduced functionality compared to the D7000 plus needing to learn a new camera. Options based on simple logic that need about 6MP for a decent A4 print, i.e. a one third crop on D7000 and one quarter crop on a D3200.... All advice gratefully received. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 One option is the D5200, which has 24MP, better high ISO than D3200, and the autofocus sensor from the D7000 (alas, without focus fine tune). Personally I think AF performance and viewfinder clarity are more important than the increase from 16 to 24MP in DX format. Neither D5200 nor D3200 has a particularly good optical viewfinder, whereas the D7000 vf is high quality. What you probably need is a better quality long lens. Unfortunately apart from the 300/4 AF-S, which is the lens I recommend here, Nikon's high quality long lens options are expensive (they are good and have large maximum apertures in return, but that doesn't help if one is on a budget. I hope Nikon updates the 80-400 soon, and introduces an AF-S VR 400/4.5 or similar lens that could be in the 3000 EUR ball park. However the current 300/4 is optically excellent and would give you more detailed images than the 70-300 so you can do some tighter crops if you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_stephan2 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p>I'd go for the excellent Sigma 150-500 OS for more reach. Your D7000 is a perfect match for the Siggy. I use it with my D300s and D2x. If you wait for a Nikon AFS 300 f/4 VR or 80-400 VR you're in for a long wait.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p>I am afraid that the 24MP on either the D3200 or D5200 is going to out-resolve the 300mm end of the 70-300mm AF-S VR. You may have more pixels, but you won't have more real information to capture the details on the birds. Those extra pixels will merely take up more space in the memory cards and hard drives.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p>I have the D7000 (two of them, for use at events) and I think you would make your bird photography more difficult with the lesser autofocus and viewfinder of the D3200 or D5200.</p> <p>Hogan says that the 150-500 performs well only to 400mm, which suggests another possibility, combining the superb Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S with the Nikon 1.4X teleconverter, for 420mm at f/5.6. A little quality is lost with the teleconverter, but it's still a very sharp combination. I have this, like it, but have no way of comparing it to the Sigma.</p> <p>Another alternative is to wait for the D7000 replacement which is expected soon. It may well have a version of the 24 MP sensor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gideon_kok Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have the D3200 and 70-300vr and have been chasing the Zululand birdlife around for a few attempts. Nice combination when you get close. However going to extreme crops I do not think the D3200 would give that much better crops than the D7000. This lens at 300 mm gives less than 6mp perceived resolution on the D7000 (according to DXO mark). The extra resolution will not give you significant more cropping potential because your combination is mostly lens limited to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p><em>'</em><em>the excellent Sigma 150-500"</em> hmmmmm...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p>I bought a better and longer telephoto first, and then ended up buying a better body too.<br /> You might see what you can do with lightly used examples, especially for a not-quite-the-latest-thing camera body. Benefit from the tragedy of "must have the latest thing" shooters.<br /> I have personally found the Photozone.de reviews to be useful for lens comparisons (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests">link</a>) [when they get to it, anyhow]<br> For the Sigma see Hogan's review: http://www.bythom.com/sigma-150-500mm-lens-review.htm </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_weller Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Please excuse the giant paragraph - Its and ipad thing. Once you are finished with your research, I believe you will find that the D7000 with 300 f/4 and 1.4 tc is the best solution for your needs. Birds - You want every last ounce of high quality reach you can get. This give you 630 full frame equivalent. It's relatiely inexpensive for what you get. It's lighter than the 150-500, noticably better IQ. I would not consider any body that doesn't have af fine tune. It's critical in getting the best images on DX bodies with long lenses. Plus you want every last bit of FPS speed you can get. So this rules out the D5200, in my opinion. I've used this combo for over 2 years. It's no hasle to carry, it's relatively fast fps and the quality is as good as your going to get for less than $5,000 in equipment. It has no gotacha's or significant weaknesses. Satisfactory experiences are often limited by the weakest link in the image chain whether it be a bad uv filter or converter or lack of af fine tune or poor autofocus etc....this combo matches everything up well, and provides the highest, most even floor of performance. You could put a 150-500 on a D4, but it would be a waste because the 150-500 is a far weaker solution than the D4 deserves. That lens is designed more for those who need the most possible reach and do not have highly discerning tastes for quality. I personally don't see the point of going through all the expense and work of capturing bird images and not have them be of gallery quality. Some birders are fine with simplly documenting a bird and for them the 150-500 would be fine (acutally far better than fine, but not in the same league as the 300 f/4). It is similar to what Shun said above; the new 24 mp dx sensors will outresolve the 70-300, making the extra mp essentially useless or even negative. The same holds true for every aspect of the image chain. D7000, 300 f/4 wtih 1.4 tc (nikon only please) - You won't be disappointed. One last thing....be sure to af fine tune and stop down to 7.1 or 8.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_bouknight1 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 <p>I will defer to some of you birding experts out there, but I have seen good looking examples of the 500/f4 AF lenses go for reasonable money on the big auction site lately. More than the OP's budget, maybe., but it ought to be super if supported well.<br> Otherwise, go for the 300/4/AFS+1.4TC+D7000 as others have stated well. I have compared recently, the 300/4 is a quantum improvement vs the 70-300VR at 300mm. For best results, support the lens or keep the shutter speeds well up there, stop down a little.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_vine Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hi - thank you all very much for your guidance. The 300mm AF-S with TC seems to be the way to go - though funding will be the issue.... By any chance is the earlier AF version an option worth considering - that would put it in budget right away and my local camera shop has one in stock.... Thanks again, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 <p>A bit belatedly (so I'm glad everyone's advice agrees with mine), I wanted to confirm my experience that a 150-500 is not a good way to get to 500mm. There essentially doesn't seem to be a cheap way to achieve 500mm. It's not sharp at 500mm even on a D700; there's no way it would be on a D3200. If you want a long lens, please don't buy one (unless you want to take mine off my hands...)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_vine Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 <p>Hi again - really appreciate all your feed-back and would be very grateful for any comments on 300 AF as opposed to 300 AF-S as an option. Many Thanks, Mike</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 <p>Hi Mike. I can't vouch for the performance of the AF lens, though its optical formula is different from the AF-S (some AF-S conversions are effectively the same lens, which makes it easier to comment). Bjørn Rørslett says good things about the older one (although not of its focus ring position), and also pans the tripod collar quality of the new one (which may bother you if you're shooting in the 1s-1/60s range and haven't replaced it). Thom Hogan likes both versions, but notes that the near focus distance of the AF version (8') is a bit limiting and it might not take teleconverters as well as the AF-S (and, of course, won't autofocus with the new ones). I'm pretty happy with my brief experience of my 300 f/4 AF-S on my D800, for what it's worth - especially since there's a really big difference in prices between some on-line retailers, at least where I am.<br /> <br /> My understanding, therefore, is that with the older lens you lose out on near(er) focus distance, teleconverted image quality and support for systems (including the newer teleconverters and cameras like the D3200/D5200) which need AF-S lenses. You might get a better tripod collar for your (lack of) money, though. Or you could wait and see whether a VR version gets released, in which case the price on the current AF-S might drop - but people have been waiting quite a long time for the VR update to happen.</p> 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