£2k wildlife budget

P

PonderStibbons

Messages
5
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all, i am new here and hoping to tap into some equipment savvy advice.

Birds are my main target with an awakening interest in macro too. I have an old D300 that i love. My research has led me to a D500, a sigma 300mm f2.8 and a Tokina100mm f2.8 macro. I already have a 18-105 kit lens.

Obviously this is used kit i have in mind, I am used to the Nikon layout but not welded to it. Could i do better for the budget?

Any thoughts and ideas appreciated.
 
300mm is too short for birds most of the time, especially if you want to photograph them in flight. Personally I would be looking at a used Nikon 200-500mm or Sigma 150-600mm C. D500 is an excellent wildlife body and to be honest you can't really get a bad macro lens these days so get whatever is within your budget after the body and telephoto.

I had the D500 and 150-600mm Sport for a while and they make a great combination but I think every bird shot I took was at 600mm.


Wren by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr


Kingfisher by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

Macro on D500 with a Nikon 105mm


Butterfly by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Unless of course you're shooting with MFT's (y)
Click to expand...

USED:

EM1 MkII and 300mm F/4 IS Pro with close focus of 1.4m for close-up work from MPB for a shade over £2k

If you sell your gear you could get the EM1 MkIII or EM1X for another £500.

Later you can add the Olympus MC-1.4x teleconverter if you feel you need more reach.

If you want a dedicated macro lens the Olympus 60mm F/2.8 is available for around £300
 
moggi1964 said:
USED:

EM1 MkII and 300mm F/4 IS Pro with close focus of 1.4m for close-up work from MPB for a shade over £2k

If you sell your gear you could get the EM1 MkIII or EM1X for another £500.

Later you can add the Olympus MC-1.4x teleconverter if you feel you need more reach.

If you want a dedicated macro lens the Olympus 60mm F/2.8 is available for around £300
Click to expand...

Good for sure, but I think you can do pretty with a Panasonic G9 / Panasonic GH5 and the Power OIS 100-300.
 
Thank you all for the thoughtful replies so quickly. I have some research and thinking ahead of me. I had assumed an FX 300 lens giving a DX450 was enough, i may need to think again.

I can hear that wren Mike.P, lovely.
 
the olympus omd1-mkiii plus a 100-400 lens 200-800 equiv in FF terms comes in if you shop sensibly at just over 2K thats brand new with 3 year warranty from the likes of h.dew . plenty of macro lens variants available for the system to .
the advantages being you get a good image with lightweight gear the body and lens combo above weigh 2 kilos combined and the i.s system means you can dispose of tripods and gimbals etc plus being water resistant to a high degree means going walkabout without the need for covers or backpacks either ,total freedom
 
the black fox said:
the olympus omd1-mkiii plus a 100-400 lens 200-800 equiv in FF terms comes in if you shop sensibly at just over 2K thats brand new with 3 year warranty from the likes of h.dew . plenty of macro lens variants available for the system to .
the advantages being you get a good image with lightweight gear the body and lens combo above weigh 2 kilos combined and the i.s system means you can dispose of tripods and gimbals etc plus being water resistant to a high degree means going walkabout without the need for covers or backpacks either ,total freedom
Click to expand...
I had forgotten about the 100-400mm. Great choice.
 
Sony A9 and a 200-600mm would be ideal, but would push the budget To more like 2.5k used. I swapped from a Fuji kit to those two items to focus on wildlife.
20fps silent shooting with no blackout in the viewfinder is a must for birds in flight, matched with autofocus that can track a fly against the sky!

4BA5B099-1D4E-44D2-92D7-5494D2C3DE8D.jpegFA00A925-D526-42AE-8F22-BC765872FA84.jpegE472293E-F16B-488E-885D-6362B6F07CAE.jpeg
 
PonderStibbons said:
My research has led me to a D500, a sigma 300mm f2.8...
Click to expand...
If you can get that kit on budget then I would; and also add a 1.4/2x TC for the lens. A 300/2.8 with TC's on APS is a very versatile combination and very similar to what I use a lot (400/2.8 + TCs on FF). The 300/2.8 has the advantage of being able to do 300mm @ f/2.8 and no other choice is going to be able to match that... it's also pretty light/compact.

Many get caught up with filling the frame using really long FL's with wildlife/birds; *and then they tend to take the same kinds of pictures everyone else does... there are other options.


*you'll notice I didn't link to examples of my wildlife photography ;)
 
Last edited:
My recommendation would be D500 (or D7500) and the Nikkor 200-500.

BUT... have the ability to try out the camera/lens combination before buying. And, I mean try, Not just handling in a shop.

Reason? I can vouch for the Nikon combination. My other half uses Canon and bought the C150-600 to use in Costa Rica on the basis she thought she was at a disadvantage compared to me with my 200-500 with her Canon 100-400. It felt great in the shop - we took it outside - and we liked it. Fast forward to our San Jose hotel it felt rather unwieldy after a while. Suffice to say it was sold on quickly once we returned to the UK; neither of us could get on with it. I had the 150-500 Sigma in K-mount - to be replaced by an as yet to be purchased Pentax 150-450 - it was great for social distancing, people knew to step away when you were panning. I don't want to put you off Sigma, Mike P in his images can show what the 150-600 is capable of.

The budget of £2k, does that stretch to a Sigma 300/2.8 with OS? something to bear in mind. If it has using it with a Sigma 1.4 TC would give you a nice 420/4 or in 35mm terms 630/5.6.

Before the advent of the more affordable Superzooms I think most amateur photographers coped with a 300/4 or 70-300/4,5-5,6

Another option to consider is the Nikkor 80-400 G.
 
sk66 said:
If you can get that kit on budget then I would; and also add a 1.4/2x TC for the lens. A 300/2.8 with TC's on APS is a very versatile combination and very similar to what I use a lot (400/2.8 + TCs on FF). The 300/2.8 has the advantage of being able to do 300mm @ f/2.8 and no other choice is going to be able to match that... it's also pretty light/compact.

Many get caught up with filling the frame using really long FL's with wildlife/birds; *and then they tend to take the same kinds of pictures everyone else does... there are other options.


*you'll notice I didn't link to examples of my wildlife photography ;)
Click to expand...
The one really good thing about a 2,8 lens is how it makes the subject pop out of the background....5.6/6.3 lenses just tend to resolve too much detail sometimes.

I sold 2 300/4 lenses recently, mainly because of overlap, with a view to getting a 300 or 400/2.8, but now will only rent them out.
 
I'm of a way of thinking, that with wildlife and birds in particular, reach is important. I have the Sigma 150-600C, that I use on a 5Div and also, on an M5. On the M5, the lens is 960mm equivalent at it's longest.

I say reach is important, I used to think it was everything but it's not. In all honesty, after the last year's experience of birding, I'm begining to realise that light is just as important. I really wish I had bigger apertures than f6.3 (on the Sigma @600mm) more often than not these days. Living in Ayrshire, light can be a struggle as it's prone to being dull and grey here.

My thoughts and feelings now are that reach is handy, very handy but it isn't everything, I now believe that aperture, in our climate at least, is as or maybe even more important. Don't get me wrong though, I love the Sigma, it is a superb lens for the money and sharp too, I cant see me parting with it any time soon.

If it were me now and money was no object, I'd be getting at least an f4 or even better, an f2.8 prime. My budget would dictate the focal length and I'd buy the longest I could afford but it would be the aperture I'd consider first, for what I do. Despite loving the Sigma, it would be Canon L, as I think the 5D's sensor deserves it more than 3rd party glass. I have some L glass but nothing over 400mm and f5.6, although I do have the 2x mkiii TC. These days, I find myself worrying about the aperture over focal length. For sure, you need reach ( aboslute minimum of 300mm and a TC when needed) but overall, I think it's a balance between aperture, focal length and budget.

I'm curently mulling over my options ready for next year, so many lenses make sense but at a minimum, it would be the 300 f2.8, with my TC, which would become 600 f5.6. Ideally though, the 400 2.8, 500f4 or the 600f4 but any of those would have to be early versions and used, as £13k for a lens is difficult for me to justify, let alone afford.

Also, getting closer to the subject physically, whilst challenging (but part of the fun), can be done and can buy you more than any amount of reach. They also don't have to be frame fillers.

I appreciate your budget though and that might limit your options as a second hand prime alone could easily swallow £2k.
 
Last edited:
So as you can see from above, it's a total waste of time asking for opinions on a gear forum because everyone will have one, very few will agree (usually it's in favour of what they are using) and you will probably end up more confused than you were to begin with :thinking:

Best of luck with whatever you get and don't forget to post some pictures on the forum when you do decide.
 
Last edited:
Try asking Red Robin who is a member on here.
If I remember correctly he moved from a big long heavy set up to the Olympus kit mentioned above by Jeff.

I must say, if I wasn't so heavily into Nikon I would seriously consider the Olympus option. (I've never used one mind).
 
welshwizard645 said:
The one really good thing about a 2,8 lens is how it makes the subject pop out of the background....5.6/6.3 lenses just tend to resolve too much detail sometimes.
Click to expand...
FWIW, my most used lens this last year was my Sigma 60-600/4.5-6.3; and usually at 600/6.3... I don't usually have a big problem with BG separation because I choose the BG, and I usually work at shorter distances.
But that doesn't change my recommendation for the f/2.8 prime +TCs as being more versatile/useful. For instance, with my 400/2.8 I can crop to 600mm and have more light per image area remaining than if I had used 600/6.3 instead (600/4.5 equivalent crop with better IQ). Plus, with the 1.4x my 400/2.8 is very nearly a 600/4 (560/4) and with a 2x it's equivalent to 800/5.6... TBF, the dedicated primes are sharper in bench type tests; but I choose the ability to use wider/faster as being more valuable (and I have owned the others; I don't anymore).
 
Last edited:
I am taken aback at not only the responses to my thinly veiled cry for help but also the enthusiasm! Thank you all very much indeed.

A fast prime tele' lens was always something i lusted for back in the film days, reinforced perhaps by my D300 experiences these last few months and it's poor high ISO (what happened to ASA?) performance. I think i am still leaning that way with the 1.4 TC that sk66 recommended though TCR 4x4 really opened the mirrorless wormhole, i had assumed that level of dark magic was in the far future for me.

More research and 'net rabbit holes await me, especially the zoom options mentioned and i must look at the Olympus option too. I probably wrongly dismissed a smaller sensor without really knowing why..
 
D500, with 200-500 is a very good outfit for wildlife, but you will generally be shooting at the 'long' end.

Of course, there is no substitute for getting closer to your subject..........so invest in a decent portable hide!

Good luck with whatever you choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top