Beginner Help with lens purchase

pipgyp

pipgyp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
59
Name
hazel
Edit My Images
No
I am very new to photography and i am totally confused about the lens i should purchase.
I have a nikon d80, and i am hoping to try and do wildlife and bird photography.
I have not got a massive budget, can any one help me
thank you in advance
 
lol he moans alot, but what starts out has i need a lens, turns quickly into make sure you get what you need, hence i thought if maybe someone can help me , the more i read the more confused i get
so i dont want to get something and it be wrong
 
OK, well a decent budget then! You should get plenty of replies from folks with far more experience of wildlife photography than I (I do mostly macro) but I'll try to put forward a couple of suggestions based on lenses I've used myself in the past. Are you planning to use these in a garden, zoo, confined space or really out in the wild?
 
we go down in the new forest a lot, so a bit wild, deer, nut hatches ect hawks
 
pipgyp said:
we go down in the new forest a lot, so a bit wild, deer, nut hatches ect hawks
Click to expand...

OK, you'll undoubtedly get loads of suggestions. You can basically use all AF-D and G lenses with your D80 if I'm not mistaken. An obvious choice might be the 80-400 VR. It's a chunky lens but delivers good image quality and can be used with a converter for extra reach. You could also look at a 70-200 2.8 plus converter. I'm thinking zoom as they are more flexible than a prime and when you have different aims with a single lens they'll probably be of more use to you. The older 80-200 AF-S is also a great performer and again can be paired with a converter.
 
thank you for your help and i will now have a look round for those lenses, can i use converters with any lens?
 
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Len F4.5-5.6
is this the one i want?
 
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens
 
if i put a converter on this would there be enough light,? i say that but do not really know what i am talking about lol
 
pipgyp said:
if i put a converter on this would there be enough light,? i say that but do not really know what i am talking about lol
Click to expand...

It'll lose you about 1 stop of light. If you're going to be in the middle of the woods in lower light then obviously the lens which allows the most light will be important. It's always a trade off at this point. Better reach or better light? Next you move to primes. A 400mm AF-S f/2.8 is a brilliant lens for this kind of photography but you'd need to seriously up your budget. A Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm 2.8 ED is within budget and will do well with converters but if you're fairly new to this and wanting a fairly flexible lens then I'd probably be looking at a zoom. Sigma do a EX 120-300mm F2.8 APO DG lens which I've heard good things about but have not used it myself.
 
pipgyp said:
which one would you buy?
Click to expand...

Good question. I don't do a lot of nature photography but when I did, reach was always the frustration. If you're after shooting small birds at any distance then you need to get into 500mm territory. 200mm with a 2x converter plus your crop sensor gets you just about there. So from a 70-200 AF-S VR you could get into the kind of territory you need. But.. remove the converter and you have a lens which will do portraits and many other kind of shots for you, all with superb image quality and plenty of light. So, I'd probably go the 70-200 route.
 
smudgie49 said:
I'm not a bird specialist but I've heard good reports about both the Nikon 200-500mm and the Sigma 150-600mm both within your budget.....
Click to expand...

Yup. I have no experience of those two but hopefully others will come along with some more input. Hope that helps some, Hazel.
 
With that budget, the Sigma 150-600 Sport. If you want something lighter buy the Contemporary version.
 
thank you, will that be ok with the low light which is often in woods?
 
pipgyp said:
thank you, will that be ok with the low light which is often in woods?
Click to expand...
It's not the fastest lens in the world, but it's about the most popular choice nowadays amongst wildlife shooters.
 
Before you go shopping - and Phil's choice is a good one before you read any further! - you might want to look at a prime lens, perhaps with a converter. The reason is the image quality is usually better than on a variable zoom lens. Granted there is more restriction in cropping an image so when a subject is close to you, you'll want to zoom out and when it's far away you'll want to zoom in but after a few weeks you might want something better.

I'm not saying "Don't go for Phil's recommendation" but suggesting you pause and do a little more research. For example a 300mm prime with a 2x converter will give you 600mm and arguably a better image quality.

The reason I say this is I was eager for the same thing a couple of years ago and bought a 150-500mm Sigma lens - it's brilliant but I have noticed that there is a fair amount of "noise" and I'm wondering if I shouldn't have gone for a 300mm with a 1.4x converter giving 420mm focal length, which isn't a million miles away from 500mm. And the image quality is so much better from what I have seen from others' photographs.

There is also a Tamron 150-600mm - I've no idea how this compares to the Sigma 150-600mm though. Once you start looking, especially with your generous budget, there is a fair choice out there.
 
Also, what do you want out of the images? If you're looking for good images to record your travels, holidays, trips etc.. and are planning to make small prints or post 1000 pixel wide images on the internet then much of what we've said above is irrelevant as you won't really notice a great deal of difference in IQ.
 
yes too much choice lol that is why i am confused, i have at the moment a tamron 18-250 lens that came with the camera
i am wanting to take nice pics that one day maybe enter a couple of photo comps, i also work my dogs in obedience , and usually take pics there as well
 
also can i use teleconverters with sigma and tamron lenses, i have read i should not do this and should use nikon les and nikon teleconverter???
 
The latest 150-600mm's and indeed the Nikon 200-500 all sound great but since they're all relatively narrow aperture lenses, you'll likely be looking at quite high ISO to achieve usable shutter speeds, especially in woods with less ambient light. I've not used one, but I assume the D80 is going to struggle at anything north of ISO 800? I could see that combo being an issue but maybe somebody who has more experience of that type of set up can comment. I think with your budget and usage, I'd leaning towards a 2.8 lens. Any of the 70-200 contenders will work well but there is also the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 to consider. And not that I would normally recommend switching bodies, you could swap to a D7000 quite cheaply which would probably work far better with the narrower aperture teles.
 
As a start for wildlife lenses on Nikon bodies, the lens mostly recommended is the 300mm Prime f4 AFS which can be had for around £500 secondhand (£900 new UK model) and it works very well with the 1.4 teleconverter which can be had for around £180 secondhand. There is a newer version 300mm f4 lens and teleconverter which came out last year and is half the weight, but expensive at present. The main benefit for the newer lens is the reduced weight, it has VR, newer design and coatings. As for weight, it's going to be around 755gms versus upto 2000 > 3000gms over the longer Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses.

Nikon 300mm f4 AFS lens. > http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/9997/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=300mm AF-S f/4 D IF-ED&gclid=CPSV_8nS5csCFUO3GwodLg0F1g

Nikon 1.4ii Teleconverter >http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...=w27xtnnk_dc&gclid=coytypjs5cscftaz0wodasqcig

Newer Nikon 300mm PF prime lens. > http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/95246/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR NIKKOR Lens&gclid=COOfrJXT5csCFUO3GwodLg0F1g

Newer Nikon 1.4iii Teleconverter > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...match=&plid=&gclid=cloq6mzt5cscfdw4gwodmesabw
 
Do try some experiments to find what weight you're prepared to carry around in the woods. You may need to consider a better shoulder strap and a monopod. There's a lot of variation in the weight of these lenses and some are very heavy. I sometimes go out on wildlife photowalks with photographers who I know have a good big wildlife lens, but never bring it with them on these walks because it's too heavy. They only use the big lens for photographs which are near a car park. I have a cheaper lighter 500mm which I always take on wildlife walks. It hasn't the image quality or low light capability of theirs. But it's better than a lens that got left at home because it's so heavy. And with careful use of a braced monopod I can get down to low shutter speeds and low ISOs for stationary birds. No deficit in IQ if I can do that. There are more ways of dealing with low light than having a big wide aperture.
 
Hazel, forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but it kind of reads like you want to get a good camera and lens to take great wildlife pictures when out walking the dog.

It's not that easy and wildlife is one of the most demanding subjects. Good wildlife photographers are experienced and knowledgeable, both of photography and field craft. They have a lot of very expensive equipment and think nothing of driving 100 miles to sit in a hide for hours... and still come back with nothing worth looking at.

All the lenses being suggested are big, heavy and not easy to use well. They're not the kind of thing you want to lug around on the off-chance, and you can't realistically hand-hold a huge 600mm lens for long, so you'll need a monopod too.

With that reality check, I really hope you go for it - the rewards will be worth the effort :) But meanwhile, suggest you hire something and see how you get on. Try it on your dog obedience thing. I'd suggest getting two to try - Nikon 80-400 VR which is a great lens and relatively manageable, and Sigma 150-600 Sports which is the best of the bunch of similar zooms from Nikon, Sigma and Tamron. It's also a monster ;)

Edit: Good place to hire (y) http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/search
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your very good advice, i have just ordered myself a nikon d7100 camera body, someone above said that it might be a good idea,
then i am going to go into a camera shop and try the various lenses that have been suggested on here, and i have noticed that jessops hire lenses out so another option, dont know how much they charge
 
pipgyp said:
Thank you all for your very good advice, i have just ordered myself a nikon d7100 camera body, someone above said that it might be a good idea,
then i am going to go into a camera shop and try the various lenses that have been suggested on here, and i have noticed that jessops hire lenses out so another option, dont know how much they charge
Click to expand...

Phone ahead before setting off Hazel. Unless its a big specialist place like say WEX in Norwich or Park Cameras in Burgess Hill etc, most local camera shops will not have this kind of specialist kit in stock. Say whereabouts you are and someone will be able to suggest.
 
There is some good advice on here. One thing to think about is size/weight and how you are going to use it. If you are going to be sitting in a hide all day a 2-3kg lens isn't so bad, if walking about it can soon wear you down to the point you don't go out with it. Dont forget if you can't hand hold a 2-3kg well it means you need to add a monopod or tripod (more weight to carry).

Swanseajack said:
As a start for wildlife lenses on Nikon bodies, the lens mostly recommended is the 300mm Prime f4 AFS which can be had for around £500 secondhand (£900 new UK model) and it works very well with the 1.4 teleconverter which can be had for around £180 secondhand. There is a newer version 300mm f4 lens and teleconverter which came out last year and is half the weight, but expensive at present. The main benefit for the newer lens is the reduced weight, it has VR, newer design and coatings. As for weight, it's going to be around 755gms versus upto 2000 > 3000gms over the longer Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses.

Nikon 300mm f4 AFS lens. > http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/9997/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=300mm AF-S f/4 D IF-ED&gclid=CPSV_8nS5csCFUO3GwodLg0F1g

Nikon 1.4ii Teleconverter >http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...=w27xtnnk_dc&gclid=coytypjs5cscftaz0wodasqcig

Newer Nikon 300mm PF prime lens. > http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/95246/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR NIKKOR Lens&gclid=COOfrJXT5csCFUO3GwodLg0F1g

Newer Nikon 1.4iii Teleconverter > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...match=&plid=&gclid=cloq6mzt5cscfdw4gwodmesabw
Click to expand...
My first 'proper' wildlife lens was a 300mm f4 non vr. It's a great lens and one I've thought of buying again as a walk about lens when I want to carry less weight. It works well with a 1.4 Teleconverter. One thing it does better than the 150-600 or 200-500 zoom is a wider aperture, sometimes a f4 aperture can be very useful to keep ISO down. It does come at the expense of the versatility of a zoom, it all depends what's most important to you. You can have both zoom and f4 aperture cost then becomes the problem as you would be looking at £2-3k for a used one. I've not personally used a 80-400 vr G version (newest version) but I can understand how it could be a useful zoom range.

If you are not sure if wildlife is for you a nikon 70-300 vr is a great low cost introduction. They can be had for around £200 used and are very good considering their cost. Image quality and focus speed is pretty good for the cost outlay.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top