Decision help for nature/wildlife photography: go long or quick?

[ripclaw]

Hi all,

I've been crawling dozens of threads and forums but...well you know how it is.

I've recently upgraded from a Nikon D40 to a D90 + 18-105 VR and a 50mm/1.8. Very happy with it so far. However I like shooting wildlife and with the D40 I only had a 200mm for that, which felt limiting (not the least because it was a cheap lens with really ugly bokeh).

So, I decided I need a tele. Now my first two choices were these two:

Nikon 70-300 VR
Sigma 120-400 OS

Both seem to have their pro and cons and I was ready to go for either of the two but then I saw that I can get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 for pretty much the same price as the Sigma. Now I'm wondering whether I should rather go with the heavy Sigma or go for the 2.8 and live with cropping?

From what I found:

Nikon 70-300 VR: quality for the price, soft over 250, ok below, slow'ish
Sigma 120-400 OS: soft over 300, slow'ish as well, build quality questionable?
Tamron 70-200: sharp, slower AF, no VR/OS, quick, "only" 200mm

I know I can't afford a quick 400mm, my budget is around £600. So, I'm curious whether you can help me out here...

Cheers
Michael

 

[Canon Bob]

I can't be specific about the lenses you mention but I'll say that length is everything when shooting wildlife....it'll give you far more options than speed. It's also worth investigating how your proposed lenses will take a T/C.

Bob

 

[Tom-Tec]

Hi ripclaw

Im in the very same boat as yourself and with the same set up and have looked at basically the same lenses as yourself !!

decisions decisions eh !!

I have also thought on how a teleconver 1.4x would work with these lenses

Im kinda drawn to the 70 300 vr for now but that could change in a second

good luck anyway , let me know how you get on eh !

TT

 

[chris321]

What wildlife in particular are you going to be shooting? If it's reasonably large animals ad birds, then 300mm will probably suffice most of the time. If you're planning on shooting little songbirds etc, longer is better! I was out using my 70-300 yesterday, I was pretty much next to the tree this bird was in, and 300mm it is still just a speck! Makes me realise why there are 500, 600, 800mm lenses around!

 

[gemini]

Hi Ripclaw

I too am in almost the same position as you - same camera & lenses and I've got the Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro lens.

I like taking photographs of birds and wildlife as well and am also considering my next lens purchase as I don't find the Sigma 70-300 long enough to get really good details of the birds at longer distances.

I was also considering the Sigma 120-400 but can't seem to find any good reviews of it so now I'm thinking of a choice between the Sigma 50-500, the Sigma 150-500 or a Nikon 300mm f/4 + a 1.4 teleconverter.

Alison

 

[ripclaw]

Hi all,

thanks for the replies, looks like I'm not the only one eh?

As for the 50-500, from what I found it appears to be the weaker choice compared to the 120-400 (again, that's what "they" say, I have not used them myself).

There seems to be a bit of a religious war raging between speed vs. VR and what's more important.

The thing with small songbirds is, as you say...they are small. Plus they often sit in a bush or tree, so the light is probably less than ideal. So in those cases I'd think the faster lens might be nice....only you'll never get close enough to the bird without chasing it away....

My favourite targets are larger birds and birds of prey, as well as fluffy ground dwellers (from squirrels to deer). I know that I lack the funds (and probably the skill) for shooting small, shy animals over a distance.

An example for what I'd use it for:
- shooting in a zoo. for that I'd think even the 200 might be enough already, although I'd tend towards the 70-300 in that case.
- I like hiking and am planning a trip into the mountains and would like to be able to catch for example an ibex climbing or similar animals (or birds of prey circling)
- chances are slim that I will find myself at night in the forest under cover, waiting for a rare critter, but I do shoot in the forest during the day, or on overcast days, so that's why I thought about the f2.8

The opinons about T/Cs seem to be that they are mostly a necessary evil but nothing to write home about. That would probably the solution I'd chose if I went for the 70-200/2.8. I hear the 70-300 VR does not work properly with TCs, and both the Sigma and Nikon would lose speed down to around f8 by using them.

Michael

 

[ripclaw]

Oh something I forgot to mention, sharpness is of importance for me. If I take shots of larger animals I like to focus on their face and see details in the fur or feathers, so that is another worry. For those of you using either of these lenses, how are they towards the end of their focal length (because I want to be honest, I'm not buying a 70-300 to shoot at 70, the 300 part is the interesting one)

 

[purpleclouds]

This depends on how much time and effort you want to put into your photos! There is absolutely no reason on this Earth why you can't go getting kingfisher pictures with your 50mm....obviously a lot of time will be spent researching, finding perches, setting up a remote trigger and so on...(as an example)

If you can't afford the time to do this, then length is your friend...it's swings and roundabouts!

There are of course some species which do require the length though, namely the rarer species that are fewer and far between (and therefore more difficult to access)...although as a beginner, I doubt you would be focussing on these just yet

 

[ripclaw]

You're right, I'm not going for the rare species just yet Still.... to get the kingfisher with the 50mm I'd probably have to nail it to the ground first

The thing is, sometimes like in my moutain example or with circling birds it's just physically impossible to get closer. But then I look at this comparison here http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm and wonder is it even worth it to lug around a less sharp 400mm or should I get a sharper 200m and crop?

What are your experiences with cropping and would for that a fast or a VR lens be better?

Edit: Also, what lens did you use for e.g. your Waxwings shot?

 

[purpleclouds]

I shoot with my 70-200 2.8 IS, and occasionally with a 2x extender if I'm at a reserve with fixed hides etc...or feeling lazy

I can crop fairly well from the 70-200, but once I add on the 2x extender, I do have to be filling the frame with the shot to retain details, otherwise it isn't fantastic (but still useable).

If I remember correctly, most of the waxwings were shot with just the 200mm...they are quite approachable where I shot them, I was stood directly under the tree they were flying into and out of!

I think it might be worth looking at getting the 70-200 2.8, and then possibly saving up a little more for a 1.4x or 2x extender. At least then you have the fast aperture if you are capable of getting close, but also have up to potentially 400 f5.6 should you want to go for something a bit rarer Obviously, it won't be as good as a dedicated 400mm lens, but it'll be a good site cheaper.

 

[mikeyb]

Hi,

for wildlife Canon is King, there are far more lens choices out there and it was the primary reason I went Canon in the first place as the longer Nikon Telephoto's were just too expensive, we are spoilt with Canon as we have the 300mm F4 L IS, 10-400 L IS, 400mm F5.6L and so on, if you are seriously wanting to do wildlife shooting then you might be cheaper in the long run to consider going Canon, if you buy either of the lenses you mentioned you will be disappointed with them and will ultimately have to upgrade them and there aren't really any cheap Nikon Primes.

However you might consider the Sigma 100-300 F4 which is a goody and takes a TC ok, or a 500mm F4.5 prime which are harder to come by and about £2000 used.

This is similar advice that I gave to my brother before he bought a DSLR and he didn't listen and ended up with a D80 and a 70-300VR but he sold the lens only a few weeks later as he discovered a: it wasn't long enough and b: it was soft at 300mm.

My advice to him was buy a used 30D or 40D ( 50D if he could afford it ) and a Canon 100-400 IS or the 400mm prime, total cost used at current prices would be around £900 - £1200 if buying the 30D plus a lens and about £1300 - £1600 if buying the 50D plus a lens.

Don't get me wrong I like the look and handling of Nikon bodies and they produce great images, but the ( less expensive ) lens choice is poorer than Canon and in the end it's what made the decision for me.

Mike.

 

[ripclaw]

I agree about the Canon lens choice, it's bugging me a bit at the moment. The main reason I went for Nikon was the feel of it, my experience with Nikon so far (good) and the fact that most of my friends use Nikon too, which makes exchanging experiences etc. easier. Not sure I want to change to Canon just yet... (but I see your point).

Btw., a used Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 is now on my list as well.

 

[Martyn...]

Hi,

for wildlife Canon is King, there are far more lens choices out there and it was the primary reason I went Canon in the first place as the longer Nikon Telephoto's were just too expensive, we are spoilt with Canon as we have the 300mm F4 L IS, 10-400 L IS, 400mm F5.6L and so on, if you are seriously wanting to do wildlife shooting then you might be cheaper in the long run to consider going Canon,

Mike.

Canon 300f4 £1000 v Nikon 300 f4 £900
Canon 100-400 £1200 v Nikon 80-400 £1050
Canon 500 f4 £5000 v Nikon 500 f4 £5350

The OP's budget is around £600, none of the above Nikon or Canon are within it, and as you see there is not a vast difference in price between either system.

It is an expensive pursuit whichever way you go.

 

[gemini]

Canon 300f4 £1000 v Nikon 300 f4 £900
Canon 100-400 £1200 v Nikon 80-400 £1050
Canon 500 f4 £5000 v Nikon 500 f4 £5350

The OP's budget is around £600, none of the above Nikon or Canon are within it, and as you see there is not a vast difference in price between either system.

That's what I was thinking as well Martyn

Alison

 

[Martyn...]

That's what I was thinking as well Martyn

Alison

There used to be in fairness to mikeyb, but the differences have eroded over the past twelve months.

 

[mikeyb]

Canon 300f4 £1000 v Nikon 300 f4 £900
Canon 100-400 £1200 v Nikon 80-400 £1050
Canon 500 f4 £5000 v Nikon 500 f4 £5350

The OP's budget is around £600, none of the above Nikon or Canon are within it, and as you see there is not a vast difference in price between either system.

It is an expensive pursuit whichever way you go.

Hi,

I was referring to used market and prices and availability, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Nikon 300 F4 and an 80-400 ( which is so-so compared to the Canon 100-400 IS ) for sale S/H and the Canon 500mm goes for around £3500 to £4000 used just now. A Canon 300 F4 IS sold for £600 here last week and there is a 400mm F5.6 for sale on the Canon Forums right now for £625

Agree on the expense bit though :bang: I see your point on new prices mind you not a lot of difference.

Mike.

 

[mikeyb]

Hi,

just like to add that my original post was meant to be more about choice than price

Mike.

 

[Martyn...]

Hi,

I was referring to used market and prices and availability, and I can't remember the last time I saw a Nikon 300 F4 and an 80-400 ( which is so-so compared to the Canon 100-400 IS ) for sale S/H and the Canon 500mm goes for around £3500 to £4000 used just now. A Canon 300 F4 IS sold for £600 here last week and there is a 400mm F5.6 for sale on the Canon Forums right now for £625

Agree on the expense bit though :bang: I see your pint on new prices mind you not a lot of difference.

Mike.

That is another problem with the Nikon stuff, availability or lack of, I think the demand for the D3 surprised Nikon, I doubt they expected there would be the number of Pro users who switched system, and with it the demand for the longer glass.

For the record I owned a Sigma 500 f4.5 not impressed one little bit, sorry to say, optically disappointing which was a shame because its build quality was pretty good, I would not recommend one.

 

[mikeyb]

For the record I owned a Sigma 500 f4.5 not impressed one little bit, sorry to say, optically disappointing which was a shame because its build quality was pretty good, I would not recommend one.

Hi,

your one must have been a bad copy as the one I had was superb and it's gets great reviews, did you ever have it checked?

It's up there with the Canon 500mm F4, only drawback is the lack of IS system.

Mike.

PS: maybe the Nikon version not so good?

 

[Martyn...]

Hi,

just like to add that my original post was meant to be more about choice than price

Mike.

Yes fair comment

Now where's my 200-400VR and 1.7TC

 

[Martyn...]

Hi,

your one must have been a bad copy as the one I had was superb and it's gets great reviews, did you ever have it checked?

It's up there with the Canon 500mm F4, only drawback is the lack of IS system.

Mike.

PS: maybe the Nikon version not so good?

Nikon / Canon no difference optically, it was soft until f7.1, had it checked no better, ended up part ex for the 200-400VR, much happier bunny

 

[mikeyb]

Nikon / Canon no difference optically, it was soft until f7.1, had it checked no better, ended up part ex for the 200-400VR, much happier bunny

Nice......

Mike.

 

[markyboy.1967]

Have you considered the Nikon 300 f4 either AFD or AFS and buy a 1.4tc. I had this combo and it was good for the money.

 

[gemini]

Have you considered the Nikon 300 f4 either AFD or AFS and buy a 1.4tc. I had this combo and it was good for the money.

That's the option I was going to go for, have you got any examples you could show us please?

Not meaning to steal your thread Ripclaw just trying to get us some help

Alison

 

[Martyn...]

That's the option I was going to go for, have you got any examples you could show us please?

Not meaning to steal your thread Ripclaw just trying to get us some help

Alison

Here you go, just click on the thumbnails


Nikkor 300 AF-S f4 (1/400 @ f4)



Nikkor 300 AF-S f4 + TC14EII (1/500 @f7.1)

 

[StewartR]

for wildlife Canon is King, there are far more lens choices out there and it was the primary reason I went Canon in the first place as the longer Nikon Telephoto's were just too expensive, we are spoilt with Canon as we have the 300mm F4 L IS, 10-400 L IS, 400mm F5.6L and so on

Canon 300f4 £1000 v Nikon 300 f4 £900

But the Canon lens has IS and the Nikon doesn't have VR. I think £100 is a pretty decent price to pay for IS. Judging from the prices of the various Canon 70-200s (with and without IS), pro-spec IS adds at least £300 to the price.

Canon 100-400 £1200 v Nikon 80-400 £1050

Have you ever compared these two lenses? You really should. The focal length and aperture range are similar, and they're both decent optically, but that's where the similarities end. The Canon is hugely superior in ergonomics, AF speed, etc. The Nikon is probably the biggest embarrassment of their entire range.


And you forgot ... Canon 400mm f/5.6 v Nikon .... oh, there isn't one.

Though to be fair, for peeople with £4000 to spend , the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR is a superb lens, by all accounts, and one with which Canon currently don't compete.

 

[gemini]

Here you go, just click on the thumbnails


Nikkor 300 AF-S f4 (1/400 @ f4)



Nikkor 300 AF-S f4 + TC14EII (1/500 @f7.1)

Thanks for those Martyn

Alison

 

[Martyn...]

But the Canon lens has IS and the Nikon doesn't have VR. I think £100 is a pretty decent price to pay for IS. Judging from the prices of the various Canon 70-200s (with and without IS), pro-spec IS adds at least £300 to the price.

Did you click on my thumbnails Stewart, not bad for a 2nd rate lens no VR but to be honest I have no need for it on this focal length, would only make it bulkier, and loose its appeal to me.

Have you ever compared these two lenses? You really should. The focal length and aperture range are similar, and they're both decent optically, but that's where the similarities end. The Canon is hugely superior in ergonomics, AF speed, etc. The Nikon is probably the biggest embarrassment of their entire range.

You fail to mention that the Canon 100-400 comes in for plenty of stick from within your own ranks, as does the Nikkor 80-400, but in the right hands they both produce superb images. I'm sure I have some samples I could post in my archives somewhere, if proof is needed.

And you forgot ... Canon 400mm f/5.6 v Nikon .... oh, there isn't one.

No they dont (shame that its a fine lens), but I can make one with the 1.4TC, see my other thumbnail.

To be honest this Nikon dont make one is a strange tack to take, because there is stuff that Nikon make, that Canon dont, like the really useful TC17EII teleconverter.

Though to be fair, for peeople with £4000 to spend , the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR is a superb lens, by all accounts, and one with which Canon currently don't compete.

Yes indeed it is, if you do not believe the accounts, please check out my Gallery

Stewart there is more to it than a list of lenses, Canon had the lion share for years, and their production would be far greater than Nikon, so I would expect them to have a longer list of lenses.

It makes no difference to be honest what system is used, a good photographer will get exceptional results with either, what it boils down to is what system they are comfortable using, I can change anything I want on my Nikon without taking my eye from the viewfinder, and I can achieve exceptional results from it. I expect that the likes of CT on here are the same with their Canon system, they must be I have seen the results.

Dont take this as a dig at Canon, I really do not care what system someone chooses, if you check my posts on here you will find I am willing to help out anyone with an issue, irrespective of what system they are using

 

[ripclaw]

Well, the more I read (I really shouldn't...) the more I keep on bumping up my budget. Not sure if I could justify the money on the 300/f4 (unless used) as I'm not sure if I wouldn't miss the range around 200mm. How often do you run in situations where 300mm is just too close?

Also regarding the selection in my first posts I tend towards spending some more and going for a f2.8 lens, possibly the nikon 70/80-200mm as from what I have read so far you can't go wrong with that one (and then hope the sharpness at 200mm is good enough to crop).

Also saw a used 180mm/2.8 for £400 which felt like a good price, but that may be a bit limiting? (though with a T/C....)

Too many choices. But in any case I'm moving away from the cheap and cheerful sigma or tamron which would probably make me unhappy in the long run.

 

[Martyn...]

Well, the more I read (I really shouldn't...) the more I keep on bumping up my budget. Not sure if I could justify the money on the 300/f4 (unless used) as I'm not sure if I wouldn't miss the range around 200mm. How often do you run in situations where 300mm is just too close?

It will focus as close as 5 feet, so never really, but then again I would only have it mounted when shooting birds, and the like. However if you get far enough away it is an outstanding portrait lens, and it has its uses as a landscape lens.

Also regarding the selection in my first posts I tend towards spending some more and going for a f2.8 lens, possibly the nikon 70/80-200mm as from what I have read so far you can't go wrong with that one (and then hope the sharpness at 200mm is good enough to crop).

Not long enough for small birds really, both are great optically, I would say that the 80-200 is better value for money, however it will not take the newer Nikon TC (not sure on the older TC's or Kenko ones), the 70-200 will take the NikonTC

Also saw a used 180mm/2.8 for £400 which felt like a good price, but that may be a bit limiting? (though with a T/C....)

I have one of these, no good for birding but exceptional lens, will not take the newer Nikon TC (unless you modify the TC, grind a tab off) I paid £250 for a brand new MOD surplus one a couple of years ago.

In your situation a waste of money if I must be honest, better going for one of the other options.

Too many choices. But in any case I'm moving away from the cheap and cheerful sigma or tamron which would probably make me unhappy in the long run.

It is worth saving a bit more, and going for the Nikon, if you buy it used, you can always sell it on for what you paid for it.

Purely birding I would say the 300 f4 AF-S, you can add a TC14EII later to give 420mm, and it is still sharp wide open.

For flexibility with regard to other subjects the 70/80 - 200 again adding a TC, but you are going to miss those mm, but it will have plenty of other uses.

Only you know how much use will be for the birding, in my case around 80% if not more so it was a no brainer for me, adding the 200-400VR took a bit longer to justify, but you only live once

 

[ripclaw]

It will focus as close as 5 feet, so never really, but then again I would only have it mounted when shooting birds, and the like. However if you get far enough away it is an outstanding portrait lens, and it has its uses as a landscape lens.

How about using it handheld? I'm not going after birds primarily, if I find them I'd also go after bigger animals (though birds tbh. are probably easier to find here in the UK).

My fear is that in closer situations e.g. Zoo or other enclosed situations it may be too close already and all I get is the sparkle in that bears eye...

I have one of these, no good for birding but exceptional lens, will not take the newer Nikon TC (unless you modify the TC, grind a tab off) I paid £250 for a brand new MOD surplus one a couple of years ago.

That's a damn good price... but yeah, I agree it's probably not ideal for my situation. Will rather wait for a price like yours to pop up somewhere.

For flexibility with regard to other subjects the 70/80 - 200 again adding a TC, but you are going to miss those mm, but it will have plenty of other uses.

Only you know how much use will be for the birding, in my case around 80% if not more so it was a no brainer for me, adding the 200-400VR took a bit longer to justify, but you only live once

Birds are not necessarily my primary target, so I'd say more towards 30%, the rest other (probably larger) animals, portrait, landscape and general utility.

From the pictures I've seen the sharpness of the 300/f4 is absolutely fantastic (I'd probably try to get the AF one used, not the AF-S), that kind of sharpness is exactly what I would like (well, I suppose everyone likes it) in terms of fur/feather resolution.

Looks like I'll have to sell that kidney after all...

 

[Martyn...]

300 f4 can be handheld providing you have good technique, free standing I can get away with 1/250s, although 1/400sec is my preferred minimum, which is easy to achieve when ISO 3200 is not a problem.

This was the 300 hand held (click the thumbnail)



The thing is when birding I will either have a monopod, or more usually a tripod (always with the 200-400), but that is more to do with having the camera horizontal ready to shoot, the act of raising the camera from a resting handheld position will spook most birds.

If you went with the 300, you still have the 18-105 to take on the Zoo trips as well, easy enough to change over if the 300 was too long.

Tough choice, which only you can make, good luck

 

[ripclaw]

I've been looking around this evening but couldn't find too many used ones of either, what would you think would be a good price for the 300/f4? I found one for £600 (AF, not AF-S) and I found the 80-200/2.8 AF-D ranging from £500-600...

 

[gemini]

I've been looking around this evening but couldn't find too many used ones of either, what would you think would be a good price for the 300/f4? I found one for £600 (AF, not AF-S) and I found the 80-200/2.8 AF-D ranging from £500-600...

Sounds like that's 2 of us looking to get the 300mm f/4 then

If you have a look on camerapricebuster the best price for a new one is £904 at the moment. I believe that they don't come up for sale secondhand very often

Alison

 

[Jo]

Can I just say, this has been an interesting read *she says whilst stroking her Canon 400m Prime*.

I hope you find what you're looking for guys and gals. I would definitely say long is better over zoom though. I've had both and the difference in IQ is something else. I imagine it's the same for Nikon lenses.

 

[Martyn...]

I've been looking around this evening but couldn't find too many used ones of either, what would you think would be a good price for the 300/f4? I found one for £600 (AF, not AF-S) and I found the 80-200/2.8 AF-D ranging from £500-600...

£600 for the AF appears a bit on the high side, the last AFS was around £800 on here. Onestop (Hong Kong) have new AFS ones listed at £799.99 incl delivery.

That 80-200 looks about right.

 

[gembobs]

I have the tamron 70-200 (canon fit), and I really like it. It has its limitations as you have said in your first post, but for me it works as a general zoom. I have found that it is fine for large birds like swans and tame ducks etc, but for the small flighty ones, it is just not long enough. I have managed to get a shot of a heron in flight with it, it was underexposed (my error), but after playing with it and a massive crop (about 50%), the heron is in focus.

I am planning on getting a 300 f4 L IS and a couple of tc's too (1.4x and 2x) for when I want to shoot wildlife and birds as this will give me the length I want / need and also decent IQ too.

For me I needed a long lens, and I also wanted an every day zoom, so the big zooms like Sigma's and the 100-400 are just too big for what I needed for everyday stuff hence why I have opted for a two lens set up.

 

[Martyn...]

I am planning on getting a 300 f4 L IS and a couple of tc's too (1.4x and 2x) for when I want to shoot wildlife and birds as this will give me the length I want / need and also decent IQ too.

Gem the 2xTC will stop your 300 f4 auto focusing, I am sure Canon lenses will not AF past f5.6, a 2xTC will increase your f4 by 2 stops, plus your IQ would really suffer, stick to the 1.4xTC.

 

[Messiah Khan]

Purely birding I would say the 300 f4 AF-S, you can add a TC14EII later to give 420mm, and it is still sharp wide open.

I would agree with this combo. I use a second hand Sigma 300mm f2.8 (picked up for £850 second hand) with a 1.4x TC and it's a great combo. Im really happy with what I paid and the results I get. Don't think I could have got a better setup for the price. Having said that, the price I paid was low, so if you can't find a 2.8 for a similar price, then the Nikon 300mm f4 would also make a great setup.

 

[ripclaw]

£600 for the AF appears a bit on the high side, the last AFS was around £800 on here. Onestop (Hong Kong) have new AFS ones listed at £799.99 incl delivery.

That 80-200 looks about right.

I've been calling some of the used equipment dealers and at least from the the going rate for the AF 300/4 seems to range between £550 and £600, while the AF-D 80-200 actually is more often sold for £750-800. Will have to find that one for £600 again...

About Hong Kong: I wouldn't have any ethical problem with that, but I'm wondering how it would go with warranty and also import taxes. Don't they slap something like 20% on top of it?