Member
Gizmag has an article today on how to buy your next lens for DSLR's or even the micro four-thirds... anything with an interchangeable lens. You can probably pick-up some valuable information. Its well written and easy to understand.
Here's the link...
http://www.gizmag.co...ng-guide/29141/
Active Member
Member
Junior Member
Active Member
New Member
Hi, I am new to photography, outwith the usual family snaps. My daughter bought me a Nikon camera and an 18.55 lens. I would like to take wildlife shots, that need to be taken from afar, so as not to disturb the bird/animal.
What zoom lens is recommended?
Member
That's a very tough question Angelus. It would also help to know what camera your [wonderful] daughter got you. Is it a DSLR, a micro-four-thirds? I am assuming it has interchangeable lens. Also you need to look at how much you wish to spend on the lens.
I was buying a scope for a rifle several years ago, the scope was almost twice the price of the rifle! I asked the sales guy if I should spend more on the scope than on the rifle... he said something so profound, that it carried with me even until today... and its very applicable for this situation. He said, if you can't see it, you can't shoot it!
There are powerful lens out there that'll set you back a couple of mortgage payments, then there are cheap lens. Always remember that with lens, you usually get exactly what you pay for. Buy cheap, get cheap. What does a cheap lens get you? Images that just aren't right. They're just short of spectacular.
Also, if you get a big zoom lens, know that the further you zoom, the more you'll pick-up camera shake--which makes for blurry pics. That doesn't matter if its the least or most expensive glass out there, when you are dealing with zooms, shake is always your enemy.
If you'd like to tell what kind of camera, the "geniuses" on this site will probably be better adept at helping you make the right choice.
If you do have a DX format DSLR, you might want to go with the: AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR II
New Member
Junior Member
You've just been given very good advice there from JRosen. A good start is a 70-200 Nikon with a 1.4 or/and a 1.7converter but your talking a fair bit of money! Add to that a Canon 500D close up lens and you've got an excellent kit for close nature work from plants and insects to small birds and animals of all sizes that will come in close. The whole gear is very portable and produces excellent results. The 70-200 is also good for portraits and great for landscapes. An alernative could be the 80-400 Nikon which I am told is good or the 50-500 Sigma which I used for some years with great results. Some photographers also use a 300 with a teleconverter. If money and weight are no object then how about the 600 or 800? 
The choice is huge. Should you opt for a long telephoto lens then the most important piece of kit is the tripod. Buy the best you can afford and remember you get what you pay for! Buy the best and you'll pay for it once.
I would advise you to research the subject thoroughly before you decide.
Oh yes, and remember, in nature you can wait for creatures to come to you providing you are well hidden and quiet.
Junior Member
Thanku for the article very informative will have some night time reading now lol 
Member
I am thinking of a 35 - 50mm prime, but plain laziness and the ability to use faster ISO means that I haven't done so yet (I use 18 - 135mm zoom).
I know that the optics will (probably) be better, but will I really notice that much difference ?
Can you convince me to buy (or not to buy !) a short prime ?
NB: I don't want to buy one just because it's what I should do ....... I want to make a balanced choice based on what more I might get.
Forum Veteran
Erewgo- primes are amazing lenses. Fast and sharp. They also teach you a TON about composition, DOF, and a host of all the photography basics. Everyone should learn on a prime lens. Zooms are handy but they can make you lazy. Lazy is great for snapshots but not for "real" photos.
I have an intermediate suggestion for you. Try a moderate focal length macro. They are prime lenses with all or most of the benefits of a prime lens and they give you the ability to shoot really really tiny stuff.
The Tamron 60mm f/2 Marco is incredible and inexpensive. The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 a close second.
Active Member
I am thinking of a 35 - 50mm prime, but plain laziness and the ability to use faster ISO means that I haven't done so yet (I use 18 - 135mm zoom).
I know that the optics will (probably) be better, but will I really notice that much difference ?
Can you convince me to buy (or not to buy !) a short prime ?
NB: I don't want to buy one just because it's what I should do ....... I want to make a balanced choice based on what more I might get.
If your shooting DX I would say the 35mm (52.5 mm full frame eqv)FX 50mm as this will give you a similar view optics are better and for lowlight workso much better
Forum Veteran
I've always preferred primes to zooms and prefer to zoom in and out the old fashioned way ... with my feet. Much less time spent cleaning your sensors, too, as prime lenses rarely put dust in there like zooms do. Also, I prefer the speed of primes. People spend over $1,000 on zooms that have a max aperture of f2.8! I would never!
New Member
I shoot mainly wildlife and nature. I bought a Nikon 70-300mmVR for my D90. Whilst i am happy with the lens almost as soon as i bought it i wished i'd saved my money for something longer!! The 300mm is fine for zoos, wildlife parks etc, but out in the field i find myself wishing i had more when shooting small british finches etc. My budget will probably never stretch to big zooms or primes with big apertures, so i will probably consider the Sigma 150-500mm with image stabilizer which should help me out.
So Angelus i would recommend you get the longest you can afford :-)
Member
Forum Veteran
I have the Sigma 50-500 and it's a great lens. You can get some great candid shots with it.
I've also ordered a Sigma 150mm lens and a Kenko 2 x converter (I like Prime lenses too) to test out.
I tried to add a photo I took with the Sigma so you can see what it's like but I don't know if it worked.
Ok, I got it, this first photo is a photo of a Dingo I took with the Sigma 50-500
This 2nd one is an action shot taken with the same lens.
Junior Member
I have the Sigma 50-500 and it's a great lens. You can get some great candid shots with it.
I've also ordered a Sigma 150mm lens and a Kenko 2 x converter (I like Prime lenses too) to test out.
I tried to add a photo I took with the Sigma so you can see what it's like but I don't know if it worked.
Ok, I got it, this first photo is a photo of a Dingo I took with the Sigma 50-500
This 2nd one is an action shot taken with the same lens.
The Sigma 50-500 is a very good lens and works well with the Sigma 1.4x converter too. Used it for many years for wildlife photography, can be used hand held. Sold it and bought the Nikon 200-400. Would not hesitiate to recommend the Sigma to anyone. I look back on it with great fondness. (Would recommend the 200-400 as well of course - it's a cracker but expensive).
I'm glad to hear positive reviews about the Sigma 50-500...it's not so ridiculously far out of my price range. I've been intrigued by it but wasn't sure how sharp it could be. Rocknrumble, both the shots you posted look wonderfully sharp--what focal length were you using when you took them? Were you all the way out to 500mm?
My big issue right now is prioritizing: what kind of lens should I buy next--a macro, a big zoom, a wide angle? I want all of them, of course. Sigh... I know it depends on what I plan to shoot, but you know what? I like to shoot everything. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I like to shoot landscapes, nightscapes, nature, events, lifestyle and environmental portraits, and probably a few other things I'm not thinking about at the moment. It's ridiculous.
So...which lens to buy next? Maybe I need to just flip a coin. Or see how much money I actually have saved up when the rebates start. Urgh.
Forums
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
