Lens with long reach help

T

timbo2410

Suspended / Banned
Messages
221
Edit My Images
No
Ok, I was out on the weekend and took my Nikon D7100 and Nikon 70-300mm along the cliffs and got some great shots (well for me that is). Struggling a bit with range. Now I have a Nikon 600mm f5.6 (from the early 1980's) but I am useless with anything fast moving. What would be the best way of getting greater reach (with VR) .. 300mm with teleconverter? .. 80-400 ... 200-500 ... also bare in mind that I'm still possibly looking at going the Nikon D810 path so a FX lens suggestion might be handy ..
 
Fast moving subjects need fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur. VR only helps with 'camera shake'. If you are going for D810 then you will need good glass, and if shooting fast moving objects that glass has to be fast to allow for higher shutter speed. I would suggest Nikon 200-400 f4 and use a monopod or tripod to help with panning.
 
I thought maybee a 300 f2.8 with teleconverter might be ok ... will look up your suggestion:-)
 
Tough call... The 200-500 is the most versatile and very good overall.
The 300/2.8 w/ TC has the ability to be 300/2.8, 420/4, 600/5.6. It will be better at 300mm, and probably not terribly worse at 600mm.

FWIW, I use a 400/2.8 +TC's on FF...
 
oh and it appears that the 200-400 can have a teleconverter to increase range as well ... hmmmm 200-500 ... more reading to do :-)
 
I didn't have my tripod on the day but I have a Manfrotto MT057C3 and a CB Gimbal for my 600mm (I take a lot of photos of the Bluetits and Robins in the garden).
 
yeah i find that with the 600 .. I have the 1.5 and 2.0 converters and it has to be a bright day to get detail ..
 
Do I have camera envy now ? ... is a camera and lens a phallic symbol or something ... am I reaching a mid life crisis ...
 
Nikon 200-500mm, Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, Sigma 150-600mm S.

Depending on who you speak to, what you read etc etc there are varying thoughts on which lens is best between the Nikon, Tamron and Sigma C. From reading around I've found that that general consensus is that the Tamron is arguably the sharpest in the centre at the tele end, but suffers more in the edges (less important in super teles), but a close call with the Sigma. The Nikon is the best at shorter focal lengths.

With there not being any real discernable difference between the Nikon, Tamron and Sigma C it begs the question why you would pay £1150 for the Nikon when the Tamron and Sigma are £739, especially as the Nikon weighs 2.3kg vs 1.9kg for the Tamron and Sigma. I have the Tamron and it's great, although if I was buying now I would buy the Sigma C so that I could use the dock with it (Tamron was £200 cheaper than the sigma when I go mine). I find the Tamron 150-600mm on my D750 perfectly useable hand held.

Then there's the Sigma S, built like a tank and optically the best, but costs £1200 and weighs 2.9kg. It would be up to the individual as to whether these sacrifices are worth the 5% improvement in IQ.

All have IS (VR, VC, OS) but as mentioned above, at fast shutter speeds IS isn't needed and in fact some people say it can be a hindrance.
 
Last edited:
this is what I took a photo of on the weekend .. that was at max zoom on the 70-300 .. can i do better (apart from my skills) ..
 

Attachments

  • DSC_5356 - Copy.jpg
    DSC_5356 - Copy.jpg
    207.7 KB · Views: 43
timbo2410 said:
this is what I took a photo of on the weekend .. that was at max zoom on the 70-300 .. can i do better (apart from my skills) ..
Click to expand...
What do you call better? Obviously with a longer lens the bird would fill more of the frame and therefore have more detail, I'd call this better ;)
 
really .. what are the practical differences between the D810, D500 and my poor old D7100 ? If I were to take the same camera out and shoot the same scene would I notice any difference ? Not being silly but there is a lot of difference in cost .. would I see returns with upgrading ?? Learning all the time so show me ..
 
All 3 of them will get you good pictures of BIF.

The D810 is a great all rounder.
The D500 auto focuses like nothing I have ever used before and just keeps on rattling shots off
The D7100 will do the trick but is limited on buffer size and will not match the other 2 for focus speed, but will do the job.

If I was only shooting BIF then the D500 would be my choice.

One from each camera:
Hunting LEO by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

White Tailed Sea Eagle by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

Heron on final approach by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Can't see either image?
 
Maybe it's my phone, I'll have a look on a proper computer in a sec...
 
I took the D7100 to Mull as a backup then dropped my D810 and broke the lens mount :(

The D7100 was fine but I had to shoot in jpg to give me enough buffer to get the WTE shots.

All 3 cameras will do the job.
 
Dave Semmens said:
All 3 of them will get you good pictures of BIF.

The D810 is a great all rounder.
The D500 auto focuses like nothing I have ever used before and just keeps on rattling shots off
The D7100 will do the trick but is limited on buffer size and will not match the other 2 for focus speed, but will do the job.

If I was only shooting BIF then the D500 would be my choice.

One from each camera:
Hunting LEO by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

DX1_0706 by Dave Semmens, on Flickr

Heron on final approach by Dave Semmens, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely images, you just can't beat a tele prime lens can you.

Timbo, to give some idea of what to expect from the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm's I mentioned above here's a couple of bird pics I took recently. Clearly they can't compete with the 500mm f4, or with Dave's skill (I am not a bird photographer) but hopefully gives you some idea nonetheless.


DSC_1293 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_1386 by TDG-77, on Flickr

As for the camera's Dave's kind of summed it up really. I have a D750 which is a great all rounder, but money no object I would get the D500 for wildlife. I have actually been contemplating trading my D750 against a D810 to 'artificially' gain some reach by cropping but I'm still undecided. Plus I'd be introducing more noise. And that's another thing, I'm not sure which images would look cleaner for you, a D810 in DX mode (or cropped to DX size) or the D500 as I believe pixel size is pretty similar.

As for the D7100 I'm not sure you'd notice a huge improvement on AF performance if you got the D500 tbh. Yes there'd be some, but enough to justify an upgrade? Obviously there's the buffer issue but tbh I'm not a machine gunner as I don't like having too many files to sift through if I can help it so not really the best person to advise whether the buffer size is an issue or not ;)
 
The D500 autofocus has to be seen to be believed. I tried it against the D810 in the same conditions with same lens and on same tripod.

The subject was an owl - flying over long grass in reasonably poor light - hence me trying to switch over to the full frame D810.

D500 was almost 100% hit rate but the D810 was hard work and hit a lot less.
 
so I gather then that the general opinion is the D500 and good glass ?
 
timbo2410 said:
so I gather then that the general opinion is the D500 and good glass ?
Click to expand...
IMO, the D500 is currently the best there is for long reach/wildlife photography. And good glass always helps. But that doesn't mean it will automatically generate great results.

You didn't give any information on the shots you posted (settings/technique); I have a feeling that they could be better w/ the gear you have...
 
Well there's not really a consensus ;) :p But if you don't have a budget then a D500 with a 500/600mm prime would be hard to beat for birding.
 
Micro 4 thirds format (small sensor, compact system cameras from Olympus and Panasonic). They give increased reach compared to APS-C/DX and FX. A 90-300mm zoom (180-600 equivalent) is relatively inexpensive, but you won't find lenses in the same class as a top Nikon or Canon prime for this kind of work.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Micro 4 thirds format (small sensor, compact system cameras from Olympus and Panasonic). They give increased reach compared to APS-C/DX and FX. A 90-300mm zoom (180-600 equivalent) is relatively inexpensive, but you won't find lenses in the same class as a top Nikon or Canon prime for this kind of work.
Click to expand...
Nor autofocus systems.
 
timbo2410 said:
so I gather then that the general opinion is the D500 and good glass ?
Click to expand...

Depends how much you want to spend. I have d500 and 500mm plus a 1.4tc and I'm getting beautiful images now...but that comes at a high cost!
 
timbo2410 said:
really .. what are the practical differences between the D810, D500 and my poor old D7100 ? If I were to take the same camera out and shoot the same scene would I notice any difference?
Click to expand...
You'd certainly notice that, with the D810, the birds would be much smaller in the frame. And if you cropped the image so that they were the same size in the frame as they are on the other cameras, you'd only have 16 megapixels compared with 21 megapixels on the D500 and 24 megapixels on your D7100.

The D810 is a fine camera but really not suited to bird photography. If you need state-of-the-art autofocus, a blazingly high frame rate and a huge buffer, then the D500 would be a good choice. But I suspect you probably don't *need* those things. The D7200 might be a more cost-effective upgrade for you.
 
So if I remain with my D7100 for the time being .. perhaps get a AF lens that reaches to 600mm and continue to learn .. no way I can get anything Nikon at that length though .. perhaps the Sigma 150-600 as it seems to have a better rating than the Tamron .. then down the track look at getting a more dedicated camera for wildlife/birds .. at least with the D7100 I can do most things reasonably well (or learn to) ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top