200mm vs 300mm for wildlife?
- Thread starter rosecitybeaver
- Start date
- Status
gymak90
Senior Member
I would say 300mm. Not all animals are big. If you talk about wildlife, it can be birds, snakes etc..
So don't restrict yourself to 200mm if you can get 300mm. Better still 400mm :bsmilie:
Sigma version is decent if you're on tight budget. I'm using a nikkor 70-300D ED. I believe the quality is close to the sigma's.
So don't restrict yourself to 200mm if you can get 300mm. Better still 400mm :bsmilie:
Sigma version is decent if you're on tight budget. I'm using a nikkor 70-300D ED. I believe the quality is close to the sigma's.
rosecitybeaver
New Member
Thanks everyone. It seems like most people recommend the 70-300 VR. I can probably afford to get that one instead of the 55-200VR. I doubt that I can convince my wife to drop a couple hundred dollars on renting a lens, but I might look into it. Are there any other brands of lens that are good? I found these is a quick search that I think are compatible:
Quantaray 70-300 mm DI f/4-5.6 Digital Series AF Zoom Lens for Nikon ($149 usd)
Tamron 28-300 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD ASP AF Lens f/Nikon ($399 usd)
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO for Nikon ($210 usd)
Quantaray 70-300 mm DI f/4-5.6 Digital Series AF Zoom Lens for Nikon ($149 usd)
Tamron 28-300 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD ASP AF Lens f/Nikon ($399 usd)
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO for Nikon ($210 usd)
desertstrike
Senior Member
hmm... do u think without VR will be an issue when zooming out to 200-300mm?
rosecitybeaver
New Member
Hey desertstrike. That was one of my problems with the off brand lens (non are VR). But I've never used it so I don't know how much of a problem it would be.
What do people think about getting a the nikon 55-200mm VR lens and a 1.5x or 2.0x converter? You'd get the focal length but does the picture quality go way down?
What do people think about getting a the nikon 55-200mm VR lens and a 1.5x or 2.0x converter? You'd get the focal length but does the picture quality go way down?
jnet6
Senior Member
A joke for 55-200 + TC.. it will hunt you for the rest of yr life... :bsmilie:
Serious- If u add TC to 55-200 you may not be able to AF unless the situation is very bright.
Daedalus Trent
Senior Member
Yea, afraid that won't work
As jnet6 mentioned, it'll hunt unless your in a really really brightly lit area. At 200mm, the 55-200 will be wide open at f5.6. Pop on a 1.5X TC and it'll be wide open at f8! Your camera'll be struggling to focus! :bsmilie:
Another thing jnet6 didn't mention is Image quality. Generally, TCs should only be used on prime lenses or high-quality zoom lenses (say, the Nikkor AF-S 70-200?). If you use a TC on lenses like the 55-200VR, you'll be getting pretty crappy IQ :sweat:
On another note, have you considered getting 2nd-hand lenses? I got my second hand Sigma 70-200 for less than US$560. Pop on a 2X TC and that's a budgeted 140-400mm lens for you
You really can't go wrong with the AFS 70-300mm VR at this price range (S$800+). The VR really works, IQ is good and the only downside is the small aperture (you can't have it all)
. Forget about the other zooms at this focal length. Unless you're shooting really small stuff (birds); in which case you'll need something in the 500-600mm range. Tele-converters are primarily designed to work with fast glass (f2.8/4) so have rather limited use with consumer zooms.
. Forget about the other zooms at this focal length. Unless you're shooting really small stuff (birds); in which case you'll need something in the 500-600mm range. Tele-converters are primarily designed to work with fast glass (f2.8/4) so have rather limited use with consumer zooms.psychobiologist
Senior Member
ah no. you cant use these. you have to get the HSM version of the Sigma or Quantaray..
optically isnt as good as the 70-300 VR
and yes, dont bother renting a huge lens.. its really hard to travel with it, and getting it cleared at the customs sometimes..
gymak90
Senior Member
The tamron and sigma version is pretty crap. Havent heard of quantaray though.
Like most have said, get the Nikkor 70-300VR.
If you don't have much money, settle for something less, e.g. Nikkor 70-300D ED.
At least the 70-300D ED performs similarly to 55-200 VR, but without VR.
Like most have said, get the Nikkor 70-300VR.
If you don't have much money, settle for something less, e.g. Nikkor 70-300D ED.
At least the 70-300D ED performs similarly to 55-200 VR, but without VR.
chisiang
Senior Member
whatever you will be getting or renting, the bottom line is... have fun! Don't bog yourself down with all these worries about gear. Gonna spoil your holiday with your wife if half the time you thinking about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, VR :bsmilie:
Take more photos of your wife (and family) is more important. It's about capturing moments! Not showcasing animals.
Take more photos of your wife (and family) is more important. It's about capturing moments! Not showcasing animals.
La Fontaine
New Member
Not sure if TS has got any experience handling a dSLR. More so with handling a long lens in the tune of 300mm (eq 450mm).
I guess it cost quite a sum to go all the way to Africa. And then, getting all new gear and with little experience with them.
Just one suggestion - have lots of practice shooting in the local zoo, to be familiar with the gear, with the setting, the distance to the subject, holding and shooting, lighting conditions and a host of other issues.
Expectations: do not expect to get pictures that resembles those you see in Nat Geo or some other mag or famed photogs.
I guess it cost quite a sum to go all the way to Africa. And then, getting all new gear and with little experience with them.
Just one suggestion - have lots of practice shooting in the local zoo, to be familiar with the gear, with the setting, the distance to the subject, holding and shooting, lighting conditions and a host of other issues.
Expectations: do not expect to get pictures that resembles those you see in Nat Geo or some other mag or famed photogs.
David Kwok
Senior Member
If you can afford it, I would say go with the 70- 300mm lens. When you get out into the open spaces, a 200mm lens is not really that long. On a DX sensor you get the same as a 450mm lens. If the 55- 200mm was a faster lens (like a f/2.8) then the decision would be a bit harder but it is not a faster lens. The image quality of the 70- 300mm is excellent.
This is from the zoo- not the wild:
Nice pic u got there. The colour mood looks like erm... The Beast in X-men
rosecitybeaver
New Member
Hey guys,
seems like pretty much everyone is voting for the 70-300VR (which is what I was leaning towards, but wanted input). As for practicing and all that, trip is in july so I've got lots of time...
Thanks everyone, I'll post pictures when I get back.
seems like pretty much everyone is voting for the 70-300VR (which is what I was leaning towards, but wanted input). As for practicing and all that, trip is in july so I've got lots of time...
Thanks everyone, I'll post pictures when I get back.
rosecitybeaver
New Member
I would love one, but they seem to be way out of my budget...
Thank you David for the comment on my picture.
As for a prime lens, yes it will be better quality but you are also looking at much higher cost and more bulk and weight to carry around. If you are a professional wildlife photographer you may want to do that but for some good vacation pictures I would rather carry something like the 70-300mm VR around. Less worry about the gear and more time enjoying the experience. Travelling light is better in my book. Plus more versatility so more photo opportunities using it. Just my opinion.
As for a prime lens, yes it will be better quality but you are also looking at much higher cost and more bulk and weight to carry around. If you are a professional wildlife photographer you may want to do that but for some good vacation pictures I would rather carry something like the 70-300mm VR around. Less worry about the gear and more time enjoying the experience. Travelling light is better in my book. Plus more versatility so more photo opportunities using it. Just my opinion.
In that case I might even go for the Tamron 18-270. ;p
- Status
