wildlife lenses
- Thread starter slimboy
- Start date
I'm a canon user, so I cannot recommend a lens, as I do not know the range of lenses for Nikon, but a minimum would be 300mm. The faster the better, so the speed will depend on your budget. I'm guessing you already know this.
If you are going to be shooting at wildlife parks, etc.. then ypu could get away with a 400m lens, if in the wild then you may be looking at 600mm plus teleconvertors. Which is go9ing to be mighty expensive.
Some else will be alone I expect with the individual lenses that are out there.
Gerald
If you are going to be shooting at wildlife parks, etc.. then ypu could get away with a 400m lens, if in the wild then you may be looking at 600mm plus teleconvertors. Which is go9ing to be mighty expensive.
Some else will be alone I expect with the individual lenses that are out there.
Gerald
puddleduck
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do you have enough wildlife opportunities to justify such a lens?
What sort of wildlife? How close can you get to it?
What sort of wildlife? How close can you get to it?
I tried with a 70-300VR and while it's a good lens I found I needed faster glass to photograph wildlife as they are often in shadows, under trees or on the edges of undergrowth at waters edge. Be aware also that this lens won't take a TC and longer reach is definitely worth trying for. In the end I got frustrated at the number of shots not open to me and tried a few more lenses.
I bought a 2nd hand Sigma400mm f5.6 which was good stopped down to f11, but that was too slow for me. I persevered only for a few weeks before I splashed out on a 300f2.8 Nikon again 2nd hand but out of your budget but what a lens
In your position I would either save for something suitable or get the 70-300VR and accept its limitations.
Kev
I bought a 2nd hand Sigma400mm f5.6 which was good stopped down to f11, but that was too slow for me. I persevered only for a few weeks before I splashed out on a 300f2.8 Nikon again 2nd hand but out of your budget but what a lens
In your position I would either save for something suitable or get the 70-300VR and accept its limitations.
Kev
hunter20ga
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,777
- Name
- Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wildlife photography, as a genre, is an expensive hobby requiring fast and long glass. But, don't despair. There are ways us normal folk can play this game.
For example...set up a bird feeder and a blind. You can arrange things so you're close enough and the birds are in good light...and a 70-300 VR will do the trick for you very well.
Or opt for the really small wildlife (insects and such). You could get a Tamron or Sigma macro lens (90 mm or 105 mm, respectively) and a tripod, and go in search of the chitinous creatures.
Zoos and animal parks offer the photographer opportunities, as well, where the 70-300 would turn the trick.
Whatever your choice, one thing for sure...wildlife photography takes patience. All God's creatures seem to have one thing in common...they are elusive and camera shy!
Best wishes!
For example...set up a bird feeder and a blind. You can arrange things so you're close enough and the birds are in good light...and a 70-300 VR will do the trick for you very well.
Or opt for the really small wildlife (insects and such). You could get a Tamron or Sigma macro lens (90 mm or 105 mm, respectively) and a tripod, and go in search of the chitinous creatures.
Zoos and animal parks offer the photographer opportunities, as well, where the 70-300 would turn the trick.
Whatever your choice, one thing for sure...wildlife photography takes patience. All God's creatures seem to have one thing in common...they are elusive and camera shy!
Best wishes!