nikon 5200 best budget wildlife lens

gaddypaid

gaddypaid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
87
Name
gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay guys I see if I want beter picture I need a better lens. I just bought the d5200 which cost 4 hundred quid and know I need a nice budget 300 or 400 mm lens since my camera took a lot of my funds. But I didn't wanna waste money on lenses that will give me soft images and need some feedback from you guys.
 
you need big $$$'s if you want to fulfil the above.

Or lookout for an older manual lens.
 
Last edited:
Depends on your budget. 300mm can be had for sensible money provided you don't want anything too fast like f2.8 but after that prices start to creep. The sigma 50-500mm is cheapish just depends what you want to spend.
 
:agree:
For the money it's a great lens, especially pre-owned if you can find a minter. (on your crop sensor it's equivalent to a 105-450mm)

What's your budget?

The relatively new Tamron 150-600mm isn't too bad.
 
sigma 150-500 , but its about £700 new so not exactly budget. You can get an older non os version(170-500) for a couple of hundred quid second hand , or the 135-400 for similar money, but personally i'd save up for the new one
 
Having had both, I can echo Pete's suggestion to save for the 150-500 rather than save a few quid and going for the older 170-500. Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the older lens is HSM so (if it isn't) you'll lose auto-focus. There are plenty of options for the shorter 70-300 (or even greater ranges such as 18-300) with the best of the bunch probably being Nikon's own 70-300 VR.
 
Depends what sort of wildlife you are shooting, i was in the same boat about a year ago, i had a Nikon D300 and bought the cheap Tamron 70-300mm (non stabilised) it was pretty poor to be fair, very soft at the long end, but at only £100 new it was ok i suppose, i quickly upgraded to the £300 Tamron 70-300mm (stabilised) which is a totally different beast, sharp as you like and still good value

It was only then that i started to get into Bird In Flight (BIF) photography and found the limitations of a Tele-Zoom, relatively slow autofocus, this lens was just not quick enough to keep focus on fast moving birds/wildlife, so i saved up for the Nikon 300mm f4 prime lens (£1000), but it is in a totally different league to the tele-zoom, it also allows me to fit tele converters too so i can extend my reach even further

As for the Tamron 150-600mm, my friend has had one from new and he really doesn't rate it, too soft at the long end and too slow autofocus, he is now looking for a semi-fast long prime (Canon 400mm f5.6)
 
imo not getting birds in flight sharp with a zoom is user error , not a lens problem - I never had any problem with my old 170-500 (including one shot that wound up in the front cover of bird watching magazine).
 
big soft moose said:
imo not getting birds in flight sharp with a zoom is user error , not a lens problem - I never had any problem with my old 170-500 (including one shot that wound up in the front cover of bird watching magazine).
Click to expand...
Codswallop. Super zooms are simply not as fast to focus as primes Pete, hence why people buy primes for wildlife/sports etc.

I`m 90% sure you posted that for a bite, if not, then you are a buffoon of epic proportions.....;)
 
fracster said:
Codswallop. Super zooms are simply not as fast to focus as primes Pete, hence why people buy primes for wildlife/sports etc.

I`m 90% sure you posted that for a bite, if not, then you are a buffoon of epic proportions.....;)
Click to expand...

Precisely, there is always going to be a compromise when it comes to zooms, and since i only ever used the 70-300mm i had at anything less than 300mm about 2% of the time it made perfect sense to buy a prime and have a much faster zooming and much sharper lens all round

Also note that the Tamron 70-300mm VR isn't known as a particularly fast zooming lens either, it is more regarded in its sharpness
 
Nod said:
Having had both, I can echo Pete's suggestion to save for the 150-500 rather than save a few quid and going for the older 170-500. Quite apart from anything else, I'm not sure the older lens is HSM so (if it isn't) you'll lose auto-focus. There are plenty of options for the shorter 70-300 (or even greater ranges such as 18-300) with the best of the bunch probably being Nikon's own 70-300 VR.
Click to expand...

+1 on the 150-500. I've been using one for the last couple of years and it does perform really well. Although they are about £700 new, if you check out the second hand market you may be able to pick one up close to your budget
 
The OP need to define a budget for said lens, that would help, second would the OP consider buying secondhand, that would help if the budget limited. As for a wildlife lens, anything from 200mm - 800mm but the bigger the lens the more its going to cost. Zooms v Primes, Primes are better in most cases, sharper faster, but fixed, zooms give you more flexibility. If 99% of the time you're taking images at 300, there a prime lens like the 300mm f4 that would meet your needs, add a 1.4x or 1.7x TC and you'll have extra reach. If your taking images at varied focal ranges, then a zoom probably more to your needs. On a budget sigma or tamron zooms would hit the mark but you're talking closer to £1000/1500 rather than £100. Sigma 50-500mm OS, 150-500mm OS, 150-600mm OS or Tamron 150-600mm, but these ain't fast lenses, but in good light should meet all your needs. And last the weight of the lens, can you handle 1-3kgs of lens (on average) on top of the weight of your camera.
 
fracster said:
Codswallop. Super zooms are simply not as fast to focus as primes Pete, hence why people buy primes for wildlife/sports etc.

I`m 90% sure you posted that for a bite, if not, then you are a buffoon of epic proportions.....;)
Click to expand...

i didnt say they were - I said that zooms like the 170-500 focus on birds in flight perfectly adequately as i've demonstrated more than once, even on fast moving birds like diving gannets and puffins , (incidentally talking of buffonery long zooms arent super zooms - that appelation belngs to zooms with a long range like the 18-300). Its quite possible that a long prime would have been even faster - but ive never chosen to use one for BiF because if you are in a Rhib for example you don't want to be messing about changing lenses if you need to change focal length.

so i stand by what i said originally - if you can't get the autofocus to lock on to a bird in flight then either yur lens is defective (unlikely) or its operator error , generally as a result of expecting too much of tracking autofocus , combined with poor technique.

so per the OP as he's on a budget he'd be better off with a zoom as he won't run to a set of primes to cover the same focal lengths even if that were his prefered option in an ideal world, and advising that a telezoom isnt fast enough to keep track of fast moving birds or animals is terrible advice because it just isnt true if you know what you are doing (which includes knowing enough about your quarry to have a reasonable idea what its going to do next.

(incidentally the other reason people buy primes for sport and wildlife is the big max apperture - as hardly any zooms are a constant F4 (apart fromthe 200-400 f4), and I can't think of any over 300m that offer a constant f2.8 - this feature in primes both allows shallow dof and also allows you to combine them with a TC for evenlonger reach - however this is irrelevant to the OP as all the f4 and f2.8 long primes are significatly out of his price bracket)
 
My choice would be in order of price (highest to lowest):
Used 300mm f/4 +1.4x TC (D5200 won't work well above f/5.6)
Tamron 150-600mm
Used Sigma 50-500
Sigma 150-500 (new/used)
Used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I +TC's (1.4/2x)
Nikon 70-300mm

Of the lot my preference would be for the 300mm +TC.
 
thanks for all your pointers but have gone for the 70-300 dx model seemed the best all rounder for my budget any top on using the lens . With the crop factor it will make it into a 400mm i have read.
 
gaddypaid said:
thanks for all your pointers but have gone for the 70-300 dx model seemed the best all rounder for my budget any top on using the lens . With the crop factor it will make it into a 400mm i have read.
Click to expand...

Assume you don't mean 'dx'? If it's the 70-300 vr, it's a very nice lens indeed. Fast, quiet, sharp and the VR is handy too. In terms of tips, my only one would be that it's not at its best wide open at 300mm. If I can I try to stop mine down a little, maybe f/6.3 or so or f/7.1.

To answer your last question, It's still a 300mm lens but the field of view will be similar to a 450mm lens on a full frame camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top