35 replies to this topic

[meganhaderphotography]

My husband surprised me last April with a D3200 that I had been looking at for months.  I love my camera and I think I'm getting pretty good at mastering all of it's functions.  However, I am wanting to save up for a new lens and I have a question about the zoom function.  My camera came with both a 18-55mm lens and a 50-200mm lens and I'm wanting to get one that will zoom in more but my big question is, without spending a ton of money to rent one, is there a formula for figuring out how far in miles that a lens will zoom in?  My real passion has become nature photography and I would love to be able to get more photographs of deer and birds in my backyard without getting too close to them. Thanks for the advice!!

[Upham]

There are Field of View calculators online, this one for example 

http://www.howardedi...ticles/fov.html

 

Maybe instead of a lens you are cheaper of with a tele-converter

[Daniel]

I would go with a 55-300mm or 70-300. I have the Nikon 70-300mm and I think its a good lens. 

[alden]

I have the 55-300. It's an excellent lens for a beginner to use. 

 

I find it to be sharpest at the lower magnifications. I have gotten some really good sharp pictures at 55-200 range. When I get above 200 it starts to fall off a bit, but it's still perfectly acceptable.

[TBonz]

If you have a shop to rent from locally, you can probably rent for about $40-$75 per day.  Borrowlenses.Com rents for a minimum of 3 days I think.  You can also rent Teleconverters.  Some shops will also give you a portion of your rental fee towards a lens purchase if you make the purchase within a period of time from the rental.  All that considered, it really doesn't cost too much if it helps you decide an expensive lens will do what you need.

 

No need to limit yourself to zooms.  Long primes might be more expensive than the zooms, but you may end up with a better image.  Depends on the specific lenses.  If you are thinking about going the teleconverter route, make sure the teleconverter you are considering will work with the lens(es) you would use it with. 

 

There are times you can get close enough to use your longer zoom, but you will likely want something 300mm or more...

[Afterimage]

I really like (maybe love) the Tamron 70-300. it's equivalent focal range is 450mms and it's certainly sharp all the way out to the far end. For $399 (maybe less?) It's a fantastic piece of glass. 

[Russ]

I have the 70-300 VR Nikon, I am often surprised with how sharp it is. If you want any more reach that that, or better quality, you are going to have to spend some serious money.

[Upham]

But is it worth getting a 70-300 if she already has a 50-200?

[Russ]

Who knows except the OP? It will get her 50% more magnification, it depends how much that is valued.

[Upham]

Actually is it more of a 36% magnification, because focal lengths work logarithmic.

e.g. the magnification between 50mm and 100mm is bigger than between 200mm and 250mm, even thought in both cases the difference is 50mm

 

 

I've also found this fun little tool

http://imaging.nikon...lens/simulator/

[Russ]

I was going from 200mm (current lens) to 300mm (proposed lens),  how much is that and how to work it out?

[Upham]

I'm not a math wizard so i could be wrong, but based on the Nikkor lens simulator

on DX a 200mm has a angle of view of 8°10' and a 300mm has a angle of 5°20' which is a difference of 2°90'

so 2.90/8.10 x 100 = 35.8%

 

 

If focal lengths went linear at a certain point it would reach a angle of view of 0 

[Russ]

Hmm, no idea if you're right or wrong, but the difference is 2°50' (2.8333333°). Those are minutes of arc (60 in a degree), not decimals. So your equation comes to 34.7%.

 

BUT - I just found this: Lens Magnification and Depth of Field Calculator

200mm lens at 100m gives a magnification of 1 : 498.0

300mm lens at 100m gives a magnification of 1 : 331.3

 

498/331.3 = 150%, so that's the extra 50% I mentioned.

 

See this for the theory: Lens Magnification

 

I always thought (without really thinking about it) that the ratio of FLs gave the increase/decrease in magnification, so like you say it would never be 0 as it is based on ratios, not linear.

 

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it all check out this: Vieille Photo - Le passé et le présent de la photographie (not for the faint-of-heart)

[TBonz]

Don't forget to multiply by the crop factor...and then, if you take the gross national product for Belize, subtract the total number of surf boards sold in Australia during the 1980s, divide by the average cost of a bottle of French wine, subtract the cost of a pint of stout in Ireland and finally add in the total number of players currently on a Major League Baseball roster.  Take that number and multiply by the number of useful politicians in Washington, DC.  That will give you the percentage chance that the ratio matters in the final images produced by the two lenses! 

 

In my opinion, you will want a lens (ignoring crop factor) of at least 300mm.  Your best bet is to visit a shop to at least look through the lenses at something a reasonable distance away if you can't rent one.

 

For anyone trying to actually do the math above, here's a hint...there are zero useful politicians in Washington, DC

 

At least the second paragraph with my opinion was sincere...all the rest was just in fun!!!

[Upham]

My head hurts from all this math, lets just visualise it.

 

 

But another thing would be the massive overlap between the 50-200mm and 70-300mm

[Ron]

Figuring things like this can indeed make your head hurt. The visualization posted Upham makes it much easier to decide if the added reach will be useful. It's not perfect but it's better than looking at a bunch of numbers.  

 

In any case, the 70~300 ends up being a 450mm equivalent lens at the long end. If you're shooting birds or other wildlife that extra reach can come in handy.  

 

The OP has already stated that she wants more reach than her 55~200 can give her. Without going to some really exotic and expensive glass the Nikkor 70~300AFS VR or a similar offering from one of the aftermarket lens makers is about it. 

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

With wildlife - animals, reptiles or birds - it is very rare to be "too close" to get a good photo.  Even with a 300mm or 400mm prime, you probably won't have that issue very often.  If you are using a zoom, you can always back out if you needed to.  I would also suggest having a look at the 80-400 Nikon.  It is an excellent lens if you can deal with the available light.  I think the aperture is about the same as many of the other lenses mentioned here, so that shouldn't be an issue between it and the other lenses. 

 

Getting anything with a faster aperture than the 80-400 or those zooms mentioned above is possible, but you will start to get in to significant cost and / or big, heavy lenses that most folks don't want to deal with.  Not suggesting that any of these are cheap  According to the Nikon USA site, the 70-300 is around $600, the 300 f/4 around $1500 and the older 80-400 is around $1900.  To get a faster lens that long or longer, you can at least double that.  The 300 f/2.8 is around $5900 (and they go up from there!).

[Ron]

I tend to think of the 80~400 as being expensive. Maybe it's just me.

 

I'm sure it's a nice lens though. Perhaps the OP would want to rent both the 70~300AFS and the 80~400 and try them out before deciding whether the extra reach provided by either of these lenses is worth the expense. Of course there's always the used market and aftermarket lensmakers who may have less expensive glass in the 400mm and up range.

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

I tend to think of the 80~400 as being expensive. Maybe it's just me.

 

I'm sure it's a nice lens though. Perhaps the OP would want to rent both the 70~300AFS and the 80~400 and try them out before deciding whether the extra reach provided by either of these lenses is worth the expense. Of course there's always the used market and aftermarket lensmakers who may have less expensive glass in the 400mm and up range.

 

--Ron

 

That's why I said:

 

Not suggesting that any of these are cheap

 

I don't think I'd even classify the 70-300 as inexpensive, but it is certainly less than the 80-400...

 

Unless you are sure of what you want, renting or borrowing a lens is your best bet to see if it will work in the situations where you will use it.  There isn't a lens out there that is perfect for everyone when you include all of the variables (price, size, features) and what the person wants to shoot, let alone where they will be shooting with it.  I had an 80-400 lens and got some great photos with it.  I really liked its size and features and the price was acceptable to me for what I got out of it...But, it was not right for most of the photography I did because of the aperture.  Shooting sports on poorly lit fields requires a wider aperture.  So, for quite some time, I stuck with the 70-200 and missed some photos that I wanted (or needed) to get.  I spent several months renting various lenses and trying them in different situation where I would use them...I rented each of those I was considering on at least 2 different occasions and tried to use them in multiple situations each time. 

 

What I said above was made very obvious during that time.  Anything that has a wider aperture at the longer end of the zoom which I needed for the lower light was larger and more expensive than the 80-400.  That is where it becomes much more of a personal decision.  In my case, I felt I needed to bite the bullet in order to progress.  I just had to determine which bullet I wanted to bite...After the rentals, I ended up choosing the 200-400 f/4.  It was a compromise decision in that it cost me one stop (f/4 vs. f/2.8), but it gave me the flexibility of the zoom that covered the range for a touch more money than the 300 f/2.8 and well less than the 400 f/2.8.  Eventually, I'd like to get both of the others AND the 200 but that won't happen until I win the lottery or I'm forced to make the change.  I've used the lens several times - including at some of the worst lit fields - and it is performing exactly as I'd hoped.  I haven't needed it during the winter for the indoor sports, but barring bad weather, I'll be back outside shooting with it again later this month and can't wait!

[Upham]

Or you could wait for the Tamron 150-600mm to be released

http://dustinabbott....-vc-usd-review/