Told myself i would not do it, but, HELP

[Lunaticsamurai]

Ok,so i told myself that i was going to do specific things when i got back into photography,

1; Don't buy kit that you dont use just for the sake of having it.. So i opted out of a 200-300mm lens, as i have had them before but rarely used them, maybe the odd shot on holiday to get some wildlife.

Now on a recent trip out to a country park i missed, getting a wagtail a warbler and a family of ducks with one baby yellow, (ugly duckling)

So does anyone have any recommendations for a lens where i can pitch camp and get some bird, fox, wildlife shots?

Any help is greatly appreciated, not too sure on budget at the moment, just cant go too expensive.

 

[Kaouthia]

It depends a little on your budget, and how you define "too expensive".

There's the 200-400 f/4 VR for about £5000, or the less expensive 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR, the 300mm f/4 AF-S for a similar price, or 70-200 f/2.8VR (the first one, not the VR2) for about a grand a piece (plus a TC fo the 70-200).

Or there are more low budget alternatives like the various 70-300mm f/4-5.6 types for a couple of hundred quid.

But, you generally get what you pay for on this kinda stuff.

 

[danbroad]

or, the 55-200 for ultra inexpensive kicks without too much commitment? Personally, I'd spring the extra for a 70-300VR, but I like a cheap thrill..

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Ok, so i have been looking at the ones suggested, ie, the cheaper Sigma/Tamron 70-300mm, has anyone got any image samples of birds or the like, just so i can guage the IQ..

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tractor Boy]

If you don't want to spend too much but want some decent IQ then I would suggest the 70-300 AF-S VR. It is a cracking lens and will take the Kenko 1.4x tc without any real issues.

This was taken with the above lens and a 1.4tc:

And this was taken without the tc:

HTH

Nick

 

[littlemonster]

There's also the sigma options, 135-400 or newer 120-400, or the 50-500 or 150-500. Not the best IQ for 100% or close crops, but if you're mostly going to be viewing smaller sizes they're still take 1/2 decent pics.

Unless you have thousands you have to decide where IQ and length are in importance, balanced with price.

 

[CJS]

I have gone the other way, one body one general lens, D5000/Nikon 18-70, so I loose a few shots, but the lens is good enough to crop tight if I need be???

However, KR, love him/hate him!!! gives a good insight into the Nikon 70-300:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

CJS

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Ok, just to throw something else into the mix, IQ on a 55-200vr with 2x convertor compared to a dedicated 400mm lens, is there going to be much difference.?

 

[TriggerHappy]

Ok, just to throw something else into the mix, IQ on a 55-200vr with 2x convertor compared to a dedicated 400mm lens, is there going to be much difference.?

Massive. Most lenses don't respond well to a 2x TC let alone the 55-200 which, going by price, won't be stellar. I wouldn't put a 2x TC on my 300mm f/4 which is well regarded as being a sharp prime telephoto. Zooms are almost always softer and a TC can only exaggerate that. Forget TC's for the time being and buy the best lens at the longest focal length you can afford.

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Massive. Most lenses don't respond well to a 2x TC let alone the 55-200 which, going by price, won't be stellar. I wouldn't put a 2x TC on my 300mm f/4 which is well regarded as being a sharp prime telephoto. Zooms are almost always softer and a TC can only exaggerate that. Forget TC's for the time being and buy the best lens at the longest focal length you can afford.

Thanks,