Long lens for beginning nature photographer - advice please

[lbi115l]

I'm posting this question for a friend. He is a fellow high school

student and just bought a new Nikon N90s and some lenses including a

new 35-70 f/2.8. He is looking to get into nature photography and

wants to get a good long lens for it. I would appreciate it if you

would provide some advice for me to pass on to him. How long a lens

do you think a beginner needs, and how large a maximum aperature? Is

autofocus really needed, or will most stuff be at infinity and

therefore fine to manually focus? How does weight and size affect

use? What about lenses that need a support? Also, what is the

consensus on catadripotic (mirror) lenses? He wants to use it for

isolated landscapes or full-frame shots of animals.

 

Bottom line - what lenses would you recommend for a beginning nature

photographer for Nikon AF? AF or MF? What focal length and maximum

aperature are needed? Nikon or third-party? Assuming used or new,

what is a good price range?

[lawrence_palumbo]

i would suggest to get a used zoom up to 300mm and probably fairly slow like f5.6, and probably 3rd party. basically something cheap. i would use this lens for a few months, see if i still liked stalking animals and making photographs of them. see if i was creating good interesting compositions. most importantly, i would see if my heart was still in it, and try to determine if it would be in it for awhile. then i would consider dropping some more serious bucks for a prime nikon lens, something in the 400mm range f4 range. i dont know what nikon makes because i shoot minolta. but before spending the big bucks shoot awhile to see if its something you will do for a long time or if its just a passing phase. if you determine you will be a nature photographer for a while, get your money ready, because the good big lenses dont come cheap. good luck. larry

[Two23]

Whether or not he is a "beginnnig" photographer, he'll still need at least a 400mm lens, and longer is better. Assuming you have a limited budget, I would sugget the following:

 

1) Sigma 400mm f5.6 (that takes the -->77mm filter, NOT 72mm). Add a Tamron SP 1.4x APO converter to it ($170). Total cost is around $650.

 

2) Sigma 50-500mm f6.3 (about a thousand bucks.)

 

3) Used Tamron or Tokina manual focus 300mm f2.8 with Tamron SP 2x. (Total cost is about $1,200)

 

4) Used Nikkor 400mm f3.5 AIS lens, with Tamron SP 1.4x (Total: ~$2,000)

 

5) The Nikkor 100-400mm f5.6 VR would work, but the N90s does not support the VR (the reason I switched from the N90s to the N80 BTW.) Add a Tamron SP 1.4x, total ~$1,500.

 

 

These are the cheap ways to do "nature" photography. The better lenses are the 500mm f4 type, and start with the Sigma at $3,500. Forget mirror lenses.

 

PS--

Get a damned good tripod or you're wasting your time.

 

Kent in SD

[ShunCheung]

What type of subjects your friend is interested in shooting and what is his/her bugget? If all he/she has is a 35-70mm zoom, I would start with something like a 80-200 zoom or 70-300 zoom; some of those can be very affordable. I wouldn't jump into 400mm and above until you are more familiar with the short telephotos. If the interest is landscape, 300mm is probably more than sufficient.

[greg s]

*) or a used Nikon AF ED 70-300mm, which will cost $200 or so.

 

It's a nice lens for the money that he will want to keep even if he upgrades later.

[alex_lofquist]

My first foray into SLR photography, from 35mm RF cameras, was a trip to Africa. I had been there before, so I knew what I wanted in a lens.

At that time, the AF Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 was getting great reviews and was not too expensive. This turned out to be a godsend for those leopard in the tree shots, head shots of large animals, and some birds and small mammals. No, it isn't the "big glass" that every big game photographer envies, but still a pretty good start.

 

Alex

[erick_lamontagne]

If landscape is his priority, a 70-210/4, 80-200/2.8 or 75-300 zoom would do. If the main goal is wildlife, then follow Kent's suggestion to which I would add a used 300/4 ED IF (about 500$) and a 1.4X TC.

[john_burnley1]

To add to the 35-70 he has: 200mm f4.0 (newer compact model) Nikkor and 400mm f5.6 Nikkor (any model of this is very sharp). IF carefully searching on ebay one can find bargains on the latter if patient ($300-400). Stay away from the zooms, they almost uniformly have mediocre sharpness.

[lee_shively]

Nikon 80-200/2.8 zoom would be the first choice. A couple of teleconverters to go along with it and a Nikon 20-35/2.8 zoom for those expansive scenics. That oughta do it. Definitely Nikon lenses and teleconverters. AF preferred.

[vince]

<p>Your friend has a lot of questions Jason. It might help him to further define <i>nature photography</i> because there are some fundamental differences between isolated landscapes and animal shots. You can usually zoom up on landscapes with your feet, but animals tend to run away. Here are my answers and some personal spin.<br>

<ul>

<li>Focal length is much less of a determining factor than aperture. Since your friend is a beginner and a high school student, I'm guessing price is an issue. Length really does matter when you're trying to capture birds or animals that could kill you. I love my 70-300 AF-D because it weighs almost nothing yet brings the world in tight at 300 mm. It would also share filters with your friend's 35-70/2.8. At f/5.6 on the long end, it's no slower than other options and anything faster will cost more than your car. I also love my Tokina 400/5.6, but mostly because I feel more serious when using it. Those extra hundred millimeters could make the difference between an A and a B though. Shop carefully and you can find 400/5.6 lenses in the sub-$300 range.

<li>How large a maximum aperture (<i>please</i> don't spell it "aperature") is a question that has long haunted mankind. My take is that slower is better. I know it's counter-current, but read on. Long, fast glass weighs a ton and unless you're shooting chipmunks in your back yard, carrying that fast glass should be left to professionals who either have a porter to lug it for them or are paid to lug it themselves. Besides, like an earlier post pointed out, your friend should be spending a few hundred dollars on a dead, dead, dead tripod anyway. Do some shopping, I'll bet you discover that f/5.6 is fast enough.

<li>Autofocus really isn't needed. I traded my faithful old Canon A1 on an N80 and in many ways wish I had the manual focus back (although I'm now a Nikon guy and don't plan to go back). I know I can manually focus AF lenses, but even expensive ones feel cheap compared to the quality feel of well damped MF lenses. Autofocus sucks in poor light. Unfortunately, that's when film excels. See the conflict? Most subjects being at the infinity end of your focus range doesn't help either. Just when that jaguar turns to sneer at you, your AF will hunt all the way from infinity to 5 feet and back. By then the jaguar is long gone.

<li>One of the things I love about my Tokina 400/5.6 (other than that I could afford it) is the tripod mount. Tilting the ballhead over just sucks compared to rotating the lens in its own tripod mount. I wish I had bought the older Nikkor 75-300 for that very reason, although it weighs <i>a lot</i> more than the 70-300. If your friend values his sanity, having lenses with their own tripod mount also means he'll have to invest in a quick release system.

<li>Cat lenses are cool if you like the donut shaped effect on out of focus stuff. Shots of distant mountains would be fine, as long as there's nothing in the foreground. Image quality is pretty poor too. And there's the limitation of a fixed f/8. Your friend's N90s won't have a problem with it, but my N80 won't meter with a fixed aperture lens. I lusted after one for a long time until the negative traits piled up too high.

<li>One item you didn't mention is the value of internal focusing. Any outdoor photographer will eventually become fed up with realigning ND Grads and polarizers after the subject moves. Try to stick with lenses that have fixed front elements.</ul>

 

<p>Here's my recommendation. If you really want to shoot birds or animals that could kill you, troll eBay or KEH's used pages until you find a Tokina 400/5.6. I've owned both that lens and Sigma's 400/5.6 and the Tokina focuses much quicker and is both smaller and lighter. If the animals you seek are more than a short walk from the parking lot, buy a backpack to carry your camera/lens instead of a shoulder bag. While you're waiting for UPS to deliver the lens, buy one of the Bogen 3001 outfits that <a href="http://www.stores.ebay.com/id=3344887">Henry's</a> always has on eBay for $125. It's a good fundamental tripod/ballhead/quick release combo and you'll probably still own the legs in 10 years. Good luck.</p>

[jim_bridges1]

I would suggest your friend buy John Shaw's "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide To Professional Field Techniques". All his questions will be answered except for prices of equipment.

[cliffcalhoun]

I second the comment to get John Shaw's "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide To Professional Field Techniques". Most, if not all, of the answers to your friends questions will be there.

[pvp]

I agree with most of the suggestions given, with the exception of Vince's recommendation as to lens speed. IMO, there is no subsitute for a fast lens. A 300mm f/2.8 can be mated to either a 1.4X to give 420mm f/4, or 2X for 600mm f/5.6, still with excellent results possible, plus you now have a choice of focal lengths. If you purchase such a lens used you shouldn't lose anything should you decide to resell it. Also, if you're trying to photograph wildlife in their natural habitat, you will be shooting early in the morning and late in the evening; an extra stop or two might make all the difference in whether or not you even get the photo. Finally, there ain't nuthin' like an f/2.8 telephoto when it comes to ease of focusing; there is <EM>absolutely</EM> no question as to when it's focused. <P>All of the preceding represents my opinions; your mileage may vary.

[leif_goodwin8]

The suggestion to buy John Shaw's books is spot on. I wish I could suggest an English author who writes better but I can't. Damn! All of his books are A+. I especially like his one on macro photography.

 

Nature photography covers a wide range of techniques. His 35-70mm lens is a real nice one and will cover him for photographing plants in situ.

 

A macro lens is always nice. I have Nikon 60mm, 105mm and 200mm. For macro work AF is not needed though matrix metering is nice. The Tamron 90mm macro is a nice lens, used by many pros and well priced. Used it is a bargain. It will do for plants and fungi.

 

A 200mm macro lens is needed for drangonflies and other easily scared insects. An ordinary used non-macro 200mm lens with a Nikon 2 element (achromatic) close up lens will do a decent job for much less money. Not as good as the macro but your friend will need very very good technique to tell the difference.

 

The series E 75-150mm AIS lens is available used at very low prices and performs well.

 

Longer focal lengths are needed for birds and the like. As someone who owns a Nikon 400mm F5.6, I agree with the suggestion to buy a cheap 3'rd party lens. I wish I had. Get something like the Sigma 400mm APO macro used. It is a decent performer and does not cost much. Your friend can then work out if he has the patience and determination to use such a lens in anger. It will take him quite a while to develop his technique to an extend that the quality of the lens is holding him back. If he gets bored, well he has not wasted much money. If he gets hooked, he might trade the lens but as it did not cost much he will not lose much. Incidentally for bird photography he will need to do some fancy work such as setting up bird feeders and a hide in his garden.

 

Above all avoid cheap 3'rd party do it all lenses such as 28-200mm ones. They have small apertures, and low contrast.

 

Finally you did not mention a tripod. A good solid tripod and head is as important as a good lens. And he will need to learn about flash and damping vibrations.

 

It's quite a journey!