So as a beginner photographer I have purchased a used D5300. I have played around a lot with it and decided that I love wildlife photography. Apologies if this should be under a gear section on the forum but I guess it falls into both. Firstly I would like to say that I understand the difficulties of wildlife photography. My main question is what gear should I get to go along with my D5300 for wildlife photography? Ranging from lenses to general accessories? Ideally any responses will include valid reasons as to why different bits of gear are good for my uses. I currently have a 18-55mm kit lens and I have a 50mm prime on the way. So I need something with a bit more length to it obviously but I'm just not sure exactly what... I would like to potentially upgrade my camera in the future but I'm in no rush to, any gear would hopefully be compatible with potential upgrades to my camera if possible. Thanks in advance!
and the site receives a small commission
Beginner D5300 Wildlife Gear?
- Thread starter JayGeeLoL
- Start date
- Messages
- 17,352
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi,
Welcome to TP James.
For wildlife I use a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens. This lens gives good reach for birds and wildlife.
I also use a Lensmaster RH2 Gimbal head on my tripod. This provides good support and manoeuvrability.
Welcome to TP James.
For wildlife I use a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens. This lens gives good reach for birds and wildlife.
I also use a Lensmaster RH2 Gimbal head on my tripod. This provides good support and manoeuvrability.
- Messages
- 4,691
- Name
- Jan
- Edit My Images
- No
The lens Bob's talking about is widely used by those of us who need a 'budget' long lens but the image quality is far from 'budget'. It has a great following and reputation (read the thread on here) as does the equivalent offering from Tamron. However it's not light and the focal length will magnify the slightest movement. Long lenses take a bit of getting used to and at first you may be disappointed with the images you get, but a lot of 'fails' will be due to technique, which will improve with practice. I would reccomend a good sized camera beanbag for those times where using a tripod/monopod isn't practical. Also take a look at the Black Rapid sling type straps. You won't want a camera and long lens hanging round your neck.
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Welcome to TP James.
I'm another Sigma 150-600 C user, infact we have two in our house, the missus was so impressed with mine, she wanted one too!!
In my opinion, value for money, there's nothing better, although I've no experience with the Tamron equivalent.
If money's no object, the decision would be a little harder, if you're using a good gimbal/tripod and sitting in a lot of hides, a 500 prime is the way to go.
I do a lot of walking with mine, think nothing of walking 5/6 miles and like to be more mobile, something I certainly wouldn't do with a 500 prime!
I've been impressed with the Nikon 300mm F4E PF prime, couple that with a 1.4x tele will give around 420mm focal length. Compact and easily carried but short of length by 180mm compared to the Sigma for more than twice the money
A Nikon 300 f2.8 with 2x converter will give you 600mm, but again bulky and a tad dearer
I'm another Sigma 150-600 C user, infact we have two in our house, the missus was so impressed with mine, she wanted one too!!
In my opinion, value for money, there's nothing better, although I've no experience with the Tamron equivalent.
If money's no object, the decision would be a little harder, if you're using a good gimbal/tripod and sitting in a lot of hides, a 500 prime is the way to go.
I do a lot of walking with mine, think nothing of walking 5/6 miles and like to be more mobile, something I certainly wouldn't do with a 500 prime!
I've been impressed with the Nikon 300mm F4E PF prime, couple that with a 1.4x tele will give around 420mm focal length. Compact and easily carried but short of length by 180mm compared to the Sigma for more than twice the money
A Nikon 300 f2.8 with 2x converter will give you 600mm, but again bulky and a tad dearer
money is a bit of an obstacle so a second hand sigma would be more in my range if I could find one. Is it able to auto focus with the d5300? Due to me being fairly new, I'm not sure what does what with which camera xD it's complex this photography lark. Even the sigma looks a little steep. Any other alternatives?Welcome to TP James.
I'm another Sigma 150-600 C user, infact we have two in our house, the missus was so impressed with mine, she wanted one too!!
In my opinion, value for money, there's nothing better, although I've no experience with the Tamron equivalent.
If money's no object, the decision would be a little harder, if you're using a good gimbal/tripod and sitting in a lot of hides, a 500 prime is the way to go.
I do a lot of walking with mine, think nothing of walking 5/6 miles and like to be more mobile, something I certainly wouldn't do with a 500 prime!
I've been impressed with the Nikon 300mm F4E PF prime, couple that with a 1.4x tele will give around 420mm focal length. Compact and easily carried but short of length by 180mm compared to the Sigma for more than twice the money
A Nikon 300 f2.8 with 2x converter will give you 600mm, but again bulky and a tad dearer
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, it'll focus on any body, the lens has a built in motor which sigma call a Hyper Sonic Motor or HSM for short
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had the Sigma 150-500 before the 150-600, it was 2nd hand and cost £350. I was happy enough with it, again the key words for me are 'for the money' but I stupidly became obsessed with Long and Short-eared owls.
Birds in flight and low light tracking were ok but and it wasn't long before I was looking for an up-grade!!
- Messages
- 1,764
- Name
- Si
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As others have mentioned, these long zooms do take considerable getting used to and can require improved technique before you'll start to see good results, but they are worth it. I'd see if you can try one, even if only to get an idea of whether the weight/bulk is manageable with and without support. I've also recommend a beanbag and potentially monopod/tripod and a gimbal. I also use the Lensmaster RH-2 and find it really helps with stability. I'm also developing a bit of an owl obsession which is currently driving me mad!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do agree, tracking birds in flight becomes harder the longer the focal length. When the wife bought hers, she struggled a little, I just had her bring it into 500 and she found it easier.
I also find bif easier to track hand held than on a gimbal/tripod but I've also been told they take some getting use to, maybe I just haven't tried hard enough
I also find bif easier to track hand held than on a gimbal/tripod but I've also been told they take some getting use to, maybe I just haven't tried hard enough
- Messages
- 6,401
- Edit My Images
- No
i use the nikon 200-500mm f5/.6 which can be used with the nikon tc1.7
which means the camera body will still focus to f8 which a lot of the 3 rd party lens's wont as they are f6.3 at the long end
nikon lens also its g/teed to work on future nikon cameras which the 3rd party lens company's can't g/tee
its a fantastic lens for wildlife and birding but a gimble may be req due to the weight of it.
which means the camera body will still focus to f8 which a lot of the 3 rd party lens's wont as they are f6.3 at the long end
nikon lens also its g/teed to work on future nikon cameras which the 3rd party lens company's can't g/tee
its a fantastic lens for wildlife and birding but a gimble may be req due to the weight of it.
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've heard good things about the 200-500 but is it really worth the extra £375, based on Wex prices, for 100mm less?, Genuine question when we're talking about buying on a budget
- Messages
- 6,401
- Edit My Images
- No
its worth every penny trust me
its better than my mates sigma 50-500mm
its better than my mates sigma 150-600 mm
also takes the nikon 1.7tc and still use a/f
plus its future proofed for nikon bodies
so its a no brainer
remember the old saying buy cheap buy twice
its better than my mates sigma 50-500mm
its better than my mates sigma 150-600 mm
also takes the nikon 1.7tc and still use a/f
plus its future proofed for nikon bodies
so its a no brainer
remember the old saying buy cheap buy twice
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's a very bold statement, I've noticed in another thread you're not a lover of the Sigma, any reason?
- Messages
- 6,948
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Welcome to the forum. I have one question what wildlife are you thinking of and what kind of budget have you got for a lens?
Wildlife is a big spectrum, we can be talking small birds to large deer so lens choice can differ greatly due to the size of the subject. Distance to the subject is a major point too, the closer you can get the shorter the lens could be. I'm off to Skomer soon and will be using a 70-200 on full frame for puffins, it's the perfect lens for Skomer as I can get within 2-5m very easily. If you are interested in birds it's likely you will need a long lens. Don't forget your D5300 has an effective field of view (EFV) 1.5 times the lens focal length (ie 300mm lens gives a 450mm EFV).
It's worth remembering that whilst several photographers may all say they do wildlife photography their methods may differ greatly. Some wildlife photographers specialise on birds, maybe small and large, and both static and in flight and will need fast(ish) long lenses, whilst others like myself specialise in wildlife where you can get closer and more intimate portraits. Both of these methods will deploy very different lenses and technics. It's worth remembering wildlife photography can be taken with any lens from 14mm to 800mm, the situation/location usually dictates the equipment used. I'm starting to really enjoy wide angle remote wildlife photography due to the different view it gives. It's also very cheap to get into, your current camera and kit lens along with a cheap remote trigger like the Yongnuo RF-603NII that are about £20.
To start wildlife photography all you need is a lens and a willingness to get out in the mornings and evenings (most wildlife is more active at these times and the light is much better too). You don't really need tripods, camo, hides or anything else to start with, those come later as and when you find out you need them. A dull coloured coat can help along with waterproofs, hat and gloves, and walking boats or maybe wellies. If you are warm and dry you will be happier and stay out longer.
If I was to suggest a starter wildlife lens It would be a used Nikon 70-300 VR. They are quite cheap (can be picked up used for around £200-250) and the image quality is quite impressive, and auto focus is reasonable (on par with anything else in the £200-500 range, the except being the Nikon 300mm f4 af-s non VR). Whilst it doesn't have as long a focal length of say a 150-600 it's much lighter than the 150-600 lenses that weigh in at around 2kg.300mm on a crop camera is still a reasonable focal length unless small birds are your subject. Lightweight is a real bonus when starting wildlife as you are going to be doing plenty of walking and there is no point having a lens that just gets left at home never used because of weight (that does happen). The other benefit is if you purchase a good used copy you could likely sell it at very little loss. Let's be honest your first wildlife lens will likely be upgraded in the future to something more suitable once you find out what sub genre of wildlife you like and more about photography. Buying at the right price means little loss when you upgrade in the future, and you will upgrade trust me. Whilst there is the old saying "buy cheap buy twice" there is good reason why people new to wildlife photography shouldn't go out and buy top of the range gitzo tripods and 600mm f4 primes lenses. There is the other point where you may buy the best lens you can afford using this saying but is it the right lens for you? If it isn't surely its a waste of money too (we could change the saying to "buy wrong buy twice!").
Purchase-wise the most important thing is to get out and see some of these lenses in the flesh before you make a decision. When you see and hold lenses it can make you mind up. The problem when asking for advice on what lens to get you will get people say what they use (which isn't a bad thing) but remember they may or may not be suitable for your needs.
Wildlife is a big spectrum, we can be talking small birds to large deer so lens choice can differ greatly due to the size of the subject. Distance to the subject is a major point too, the closer you can get the shorter the lens could be. I'm off to Skomer soon and will be using a 70-200 on full frame for puffins, it's the perfect lens for Skomer as I can get within 2-5m very easily. If you are interested in birds it's likely you will need a long lens. Don't forget your D5300 has an effective field of view (EFV) 1.5 times the lens focal length (ie 300mm lens gives a 450mm EFV).
It's worth remembering that whilst several photographers may all say they do wildlife photography their methods may differ greatly. Some wildlife photographers specialise on birds, maybe small and large, and both static and in flight and will need fast(ish) long lenses, whilst others like myself specialise in wildlife where you can get closer and more intimate portraits. Both of these methods will deploy very different lenses and technics. It's worth remembering wildlife photography can be taken with any lens from 14mm to 800mm, the situation/location usually dictates the equipment used. I'm starting to really enjoy wide angle remote wildlife photography due to the different view it gives. It's also very cheap to get into, your current camera and kit lens along with a cheap remote trigger like the Yongnuo RF-603NII that are about £20.
To start wildlife photography all you need is a lens and a willingness to get out in the mornings and evenings (most wildlife is more active at these times and the light is much better too). You don't really need tripods, camo, hides or anything else to start with, those come later as and when you find out you need them. A dull coloured coat can help along with waterproofs, hat and gloves, and walking boats or maybe wellies. If you are warm and dry you will be happier and stay out longer.
If I was to suggest a starter wildlife lens It would be a used Nikon 70-300 VR. They are quite cheap (can be picked up used for around £200-250) and the image quality is quite impressive, and auto focus is reasonable (on par with anything else in the £200-500 range, the except being the Nikon 300mm f4 af-s non VR). Whilst it doesn't have as long a focal length of say a 150-600 it's much lighter than the 150-600 lenses that weigh in at around 2kg.300mm on a crop camera is still a reasonable focal length unless small birds are your subject. Lightweight is a real bonus when starting wildlife as you are going to be doing plenty of walking and there is no point having a lens that just gets left at home never used because of weight (that does happen). The other benefit is if you purchase a good used copy you could likely sell it at very little loss. Let's be honest your first wildlife lens will likely be upgraded in the future to something more suitable once you find out what sub genre of wildlife you like and more about photography. Buying at the right price means little loss when you upgrade in the future, and you will upgrade trust me. Whilst there is the old saying "buy cheap buy twice" there is good reason why people new to wildlife photography shouldn't go out and buy top of the range gitzo tripods and 600mm f4 primes lenses. There is the other point where you may buy the best lens you can afford using this saying but is it the right lens for you? If it isn't surely its a waste of money too (we could change the saying to "buy wrong buy twice!").
Purchase-wise the most important thing is to get out and see some of these lenses in the flesh before you make a decision. When you see and hold lenses it can make you mind up. The problem when asking for advice on what lens to get you will get people say what they use (which isn't a bad thing) but remember they may or may not be suitable for your needs.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 87
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rather than buy cheap or buy twice, I would prefer buy nice or buy twice.
Note nice doesn't mean expensive it just means a good quality thats right for the job.
Note nice doesn't mean expensive it just means a good quality thats right for the job.
Today I purchased myself a Nikon 70-300 VR second hand. It seemed to be the best choice for me as it was cheap enough but from what I can tell, it provides sharp enough images for what I'm after. I don't see much point spending any more than that because I feel like the 70-300 is a very good hobby lens but for me, £1000 is just far too much to spend for both my level and use. Thanks to everyone for the input.
- Messages
- 104
- Name
- lisa
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Im a beginner too.ive got a nikon d3200 with the kit lens 18-55mm.and im also really struggeling with the lens.since we do alot of game drives here(i live in kenya) but most of the time the animals are just too far away.or too danderous to get close enough to get a somehow decent photo.so i was advised to buy the nikkor 200--500mm lens.can anyone advice if this will be the right thing.i really have no idea
I've got a 70-300 and it's great for wildlife as long as it's not too far away (but it's small and light). Still gives great photos but won't break the budget. I've also got the Sigma 150-600 sport and the Nikon 300 f2.8 vrii and Nikon 600mm and the easiest to carry is the Nikon 300mm with teleconverter .. the Sigma and 600 are very heavy .. and expensive .. now if you want to shoot long distance then the cheaper way to go is the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 .. yes the build quality is lower than a big prime or even the Sigma 150-600 sport .. but if your on a budget then it can be difficult .. what distance do you want to shoot at, what do you want to shoot and what sort of light will you be shooting? A 70-300 will not take a teleconverter well .. Nikon 300mm f2.8 can cost a pretty packet got mine used from LCE at over a grand and a half cheaper .. Sigma sport is a lot of money but good reach (although heavy) .. a Nikon 200-500 might be just the shot .. I don't know if it will take a teleconverter but it might be worth looking into
.. Sigma sport is a lot of money but good reach (although heavy) .. a Nikon 200-500 might be just the shot .. I don't know if it will take a teleconverter but it might be worth looking into