Lens for wildlife

Ceege

Ceege

Suspended / Banned
Messages
169
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

Ok I know you'll all enjoy this but I want your advice on how to spend my money!

As you may have seen from a few of my earlier posts, I'm a keen happy snapper of birds and wildlife when I get the time. I have a D200 with an 18-200VR lens which I'm still learning to use, and still have a long way to go but I'd like to get a more apt "wildlife" lens to aid me out a bit.

I am seriously considering the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which looks like a good balance of a nice quick lens with the added ability of a handy zoom range. I would almost certainly buy a TC to go with it to add a little top end reach but understand that each extra TC extension adds a further stop to the combo.

I assume I'll need a filter to go with it.

I'd also want to get a monopod as I don't have treetrunk forearms. Bear in mind that the monopod would be used mostly for wildlife shots.

So I guess what I'm asking your valued opinions on are...

Go for a Sigma 120-300 or is there anything else you'd suggest?

Filter - which one?
Also as a sidenote the UV filter that came with my 18-200 made all the shots I took with it blurry. Once I took it off again everything was ok. Should I get a new one or do I need to change any settings on the camera to use the current one?

Which TC? Sigma 1.4 or higher? (I've heard stories about the 2.0 giving soft images)

Which monopod? I was dazzled by science and the Manfrotto range in Cardiff on Saturday!

Which monopod accessories would I need (i.e. plates, heads etc. - help me out here, I don't know all the gizmo names!)

What are next weeks lottery numbers so I can pay for all this?

As for a budget, assume I have enough dosh to get the lens and can probably stretch to a decent monopod etc.

That should keep you going for a bit! Please use as many laymans terms as you like as I can handle things at that level!!!

Thanks in advance.
 
I'll leave the lens bits to other's more experienced in the 'art' ... but you will need a tripod rather than a monopod Ceege ... a monopod will have fairly limited application in proper wildlife 'tography imo ... :shrug:

And you will not necessarily need a filter ... depends on many factors including the finished photograph you are after ... :thinking:

For me ... budget unlimited ... go for a dedicated manufacturer telephoto of the longest reach you can afford ... anything 400mm to 600mm ... and the fastest available lens to boot ... :eek: ... mega-dosh but you did allow plenty of latitude in the question ... :D








:p
 
UV filters are actually redundant on modern multi-coated lenses. Any half decent lens will have UV coatings on the elements. That said, many people choose to use one for protection of the front element on the assumption that it actually has no effect on the shots. Unfortunately sticking a real cheapo filter in front of expensive muti-coated glass is likely to have an adverse effect on the lens you paid all that wonga for. The better filters have glass of similar quality to the lens and high quality coatings, but they come at a price!

Sticking any filter on the front of your lens puts a large flat piece of glass right on the front of the lens, where it's ideally placed to catch stray light and reflections so a lens hood becomes really vital. I prefer the protection of a lens hood to that of a filter anyway, just have to be a careful with your kit. :)

The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 sounds OK and will still be pretty quick with a TC. I have to agree with Ven though, you just can't go long enough and fast enough with wildlife lenses, and you'd be surprised how close you still need to get to little birds particularly, even with 500 -600mm lenses for real quality shots. Image stabilisation is also a huge advantage, even when tripod mounted. You'll no doubt have some successes with a monopod but you really need a good solid tripod.
 
My 'bird' experience leads to me agree with my learned colleagues above.

Sadly, British birdies are too damn small for anything but very very long lenses, or sitting in hides for hours on end in hope. You certainly can't 'hunt' Blue Tits etc. with a lens long enough or light enough IMExp

Go for a 600-1500mm f2.8 zoom (which no-one makes and no-one but the CIA could afford anyway), or move abroad to where Pelicans, Flamingos etc. are common.

For England though, 600mm & as wide as you can buy, then you need another £400+ for the tripod and head! And £50 per sess. with the Chiropractor afterwards

Anyone hazard a guess why I quickly gave up shooting birds?:lol:
 
I have the 120-300 2.8, and while I rarely use it for wildlife I'd say it was a great lens.

It works well with the 1.4tc, but I havent tried the 2x. I have only heard negative things about IQ with the 2x though.

I wouldnt bother with a filter, the lens hood is pretty substantial. There are very few filters available anyway, as the filter size is 105mm. The onyl ones I could find are Sigmas own, which start at £120 for a UV.

For the money, its pretty much unbeatable imo.

HTH
 
Money is no object: Nikkor 200-400 F4 VR.

Money is an object: Sigma 120 - 300 + 1.4 TC.

That's about what I would do tbh.
 
Hi again. Just a quick bump of this thread as I've now got the Sigma and am still wondering about a platform for it.

My "style" tends to be walk a bit, stop look and listen at a tree/bush/plastic bag, then walk a bit more and do the same. My wife has adapted well to my way of walking, having been a much more serious hiker to appreciating the little fluffy bits and bobs that I tend to pause for.

So, one of the things I'm wondering is, should I get a monopod as this, I'd imagine, is quicker to set up than a tripod, to allow me to get a shot away of the tree/bush/plastic bag hiding the little fluffy bits and bobs that I'm interested in.

I've seen the Manfrotto 682 has a self standing base, I'd imagine it isn't the worlds most stable base but would it, or another similar gadget, be a good compromise for my "style"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top