lens help

R

reedwarbler

Messages
192
Name
garry
Edit My Images
Yes
hi what would be the minimum size lens for wildlife and birds,and at a reasonable price for a beginner,i have a nikon d90,thank you in advance. p.s.preferebly hand held.
 
Last edited:
If you quote your budget, you'll get a better reply.
 
At reasonable prices perhaps the Nikon 70-300mm VR about £300 SH £390ish new, good lens IQ and but limited in terms of DOF with f 5.6 at 300mm difficult to get the background out of focus. Whatever you choose if you are hand held then VR is a must.
 
300mm is the minimum I would say. VR/OS/VC helps, but only if your subject is keeping still.

This was with the Nikon 300mm f4 with a Kenko Pro DG 1.4 TC handheld at about 10-15m.


Robin by jomike, on Flickr
Camera Nikon D90
Exposure 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 420 mm
ISO Speed 200
 
For birding, you can never have too long a lens. For small garden birds, even with 300mm you have to get amazingly close - like under ten feet. 70-300 VR sounds good for reasonable cost.

It's one of the areas where there's no substite for spending a bit of money. And even then you have to work on your field craft, get the subject closer to you, or you to the subject, or both. And patience ;)
 
i have been reading up on a few lenses,the nikon 70-300 vr was going to be my first choice,but a lot of people say it is not long enough,so do you think it would be better to buy a 300mm f4 with a teleconvertor? which works out to be quite expensive. or maybe a sigma, has anyone any info on these?
 
Well you said reasonable a 300mm f4 Nikon will set you bac £750 ish SH or nearly a grand new then filters and a TC at £250+ Perhaps the Sigma 150-500mm could be an option at £750 new. As with all things photographic the skys the limit reasonable rarely comes into it.
 
reedwarbler said:
i have been reading up on a few lenses,the nikon 70-300 vr was going to be my first choice,but a lot of people say it is not long enough,so do you think it would be better to buy a 300mm f4 with a teleconvertor? which works out to be quite expensive. or maybe a sigma, has anyone any info on these?
Click to expand...

You're getting the hang of it ;) You can spend as much as you like, and it will make life easier, but the price sky-rockets quickly. The trick is to make up the ground with fieldcraft and there are guys on here that get amazing results from much shorter lenses - but you have to sit in a hide for a week with a bag of peanuts dangling from the end of your lens.

TBH, unless you are very confident of where you're going with this and bearing in mind that few of us can afford to make too many mistakes, I would go for the 70-300 VR and see how you get on. It's also a very good and versatile lens for all sorts of other things. It will sell on very easily for good money (use the classified section here, it's excellent) and if you start by buying a good used lens, then you could upgrade later without losing a penny.
 
There is no substitute for focal length with birds, even 500mm is too short sometimes. The Sigma 150-500 offers the best range and value for money in the birding stakes. It also has an awesome OS system. Not cheap but the cheapest reasonable option, there is also the Sigma 120-400 which is a fraction cheaper. Setting up a hide or some camo and sitting still and quiet is also a required skill, patience is needed at this game.

Sigma 150-500 @500mm 1/250 f6.3 ISO800
http://SPAM/c3whur/Birds/Img_1230.jpg
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
You're getting the hang of it ;) You can spend as much as you like, and it will make life easier, but the price sky-rockets quickly. The trick is to make up the ground with fieldcraft and there are guys on here that get amazing results from much shorter lenses - but you have to sit in a hide for a week with a bag of peanuts dangling from the end of your lens.

TBH, unless you are very confident of where you're going with this and bearing in mind that few of us can afford to make too many mistakes, I would go for the 70-300 VR and see how you get on. It's also a very good and versatile lens for all sorts of other things. It will sell on very easily for good money (use the classified section here, it's excellent) and if you start by buying a good used lens, then you could upgrade later without losing a penny.
Click to expand...

I would endorse Hoppys view of the 70-300mm but out of interest have you seen this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=290697 it has some good bird shots taken with the Sigma.
 
it looks like i am going to have to get cammoed up and start creeping about,or spend some money,ah ah,thanks for all the replies,by the way cracking pictures,i might have to have a look at the sigma now,me heads hurting:help:seriously i might go for my first choice and see how i get on with that then maybe at a later date upgrade,cheers everyone.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
For birding, you can never have too long a lens. For small garden birds, even with 300mm you have to get amazingly close - like under ten feet. 70-300 VR sounds good for reasonable cost.

It's one of the areas where there's no substite for spending a bit of money. And even then you have to work on your field craft, get the subject closer to you, or you to the subject, or both. And patience ;)
Click to expand...

i might be a bit thick here but i was thinking that using a long lens was for taking shots of a subject at a distance,why to you have to get so close?
 
Because a blue tit even at 300mm is still pretty small in the frame, and you'd need to crop pretty heavilly.
If we could all afford 1200mm F/2.8 lenses we could all sit on the couch watching TV at the same time, but sadly lens prices rocket over 300mm.
Most birds dont tend to hang around when they see movement, so you have two options. A very expensive, very long lens, or a less expensive shorter lens, but take the time to build a hide and spend the time in it for maybe nothing, or maybe the shot of the century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top