I currently have a Nikon d3300 camera, I would like a 300mm lens to photograph wildlife (birds). I currently have an 18-200 but it doesn't get close enough. I have read bad reviews on the 18-300mm, and the 70-300 reviews say it does not do well in low light. (I am a newbie at this) any suggestions would be much appreciated.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
#1
Posted 11 October 2016 - 11:04 PM
#2
Posted 13 October 2016 - 02:58 AM
For birding, one of the 150-600 lenses from either Tamron or Sigma or the 200-500 from Nikon are the best relatively affordable options.
The old FX 70-300 works well in low light, but it *does* get soft at the tele end. I haven't tried the new AF-P DX lenses yet. They are all a bit on the short side for birds as well.
#3
Posted 13 October 2016 - 10:31 AM
I agree with the recommendation...birds and other wildlife get pretty small pretty fast without quite a bit of reach...Of course, it depends on how large the wildlife is and how close you are able to get to them. If you are 30 feet from an eagle, you obviously wouldn't require as much reach as being 60 feet from a hummingbird. Whatever you end up going with (including the 150-600 or the 200-500), you are going to encounter times where you will wish you had more reach, better low light or something else. I'm not saying that to suggest you give up the idea or spend $17000 on Nikon's 800mm. Rather I am suggesting that you might want to rent some of the lenses you are interested in and / or investigate the options from a cost / benefit point of view to narrow down your choice. As you look towards longer lenses, the weight typically goes up. That might not be an issue while shooting if you expect to use a tripod or a monopod, but it will mean more weight you have to carry to wherever you are taking the photos. The 70-300 is manageable hand-holding for images. The 150-600 and 200-500, you will probably want either a monopod or tripod when you are shooting - especially if you are shooting over a period of time. All that said, the best bet from my point of view would be to rent the 70-300 and another maybe an 80-400 or one of the lenses that Peter recommended and see what works best for you. You might find the 70-300 just right for what you want to do. Or, by using it, you may find that you really do want more reach.
#4
Posted 13 October 2016 - 11:41 AM
With D3300.... I'd actually go for 55-300 DX....
Considering the price of the body, the fact that its DX and the difference in the results you'll acheive..
Sure 150-600 is a good option, but its much more expensive.
D3300 is a fairly cheap camera, the 150-600 is slightly overkill in my opinion.
#5
Posted 13 October 2016 - 12:15 PM
I was looking at the 18-300 also, but I have been reading not so good reviews on it. Would like a good walk around lens, nothing over 1000.00 and not a fixed lens.
#6
Posted 13 October 2016 - 12:33 PM
The 150-600 is close to 2kg, while the 55-300 is 530 gram - I guess that has a 'slight' impact on the walk around aspect.
The 55-300 isnt great, far from, but it all depends
you cannot get:
Great
Light
Cheap
For high focal, they are expensive and fairly heavy.
Cheap, light and less great is a good starting point, atleast you'll get some of the extra reach.
#7
Posted 13 October 2016 - 02:43 PM
#9
Posted 14 October 2016 - 08:23 AM
Kind of to tie in with what I said above, it really is about what works best FOR YOU! I have met a few people who are quite happy with their 18-300 both because of its size and its capability. The 70-300 is a bigger lens but would give you more reach on the long end at a fairly low cost. Every lens is in some ways a compromise as M.Beier said above. The higher quality long telephotos tend to add significant weight and / or cost. You need to select the right balance of reach, weight, cost and quality that you need to meet your expectations. I am guessing that you are taking these photos for you. Assuming that is correct, then you are the only one who needs to be happy with the results. Other than wanting more reach for wildlife, are you happy with the results you are getting from your 18-200? If so, the 70-300 might be a good lens that you can throw on when you want to shoot some birds and the 18-200 could continue to be your "normal" lens. If you only want one lens, then the 18-300 might be your best choice. The 18-200 and 18-300 are basically designed to be a lens that stays on your camera most often if not always.
There was one person I met about 3 years ago at a lacrosse tournament. I shoot sports as a part time job and that requires some specialized gear. That weekend I had rented and was trying out a 300mm f2.8 lens. It is a big, heavy lens but it is one of the best lenses out there for sports and can handle the low lights of high school and other rather poorly lit fields. Like me, he was a dad of a player who happened to be on another team and had a D3xxx and an 18-300. He was taking photos of his son and their team for fun and was quite happy with the results he got with his equipment. He didn't feel he needed any more equipment than what he had. The reality is that he didn't. And the other part of the reality is that I did. A big part of that is the intended use of the equipment and the intended client or clients. My audience and my expectations were different than his. Neither was wrong - in fact both were right. The cameras and the lenses are tools to allow us to achieve a desired outcome. That's why it ends up boiling down to an individual decision as to what is best for YOUR desired outcome.
#11
Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:01 PM
I have a Sigma 70-300 and am quite pleased with it. Also the cost is less than it's Niko counterpart.
#12
Posted 15 October 2016 - 11:29 AM
Birding is a bottomless pit when it comes to lenses. Nothing ever really gets you comfortably close enough, while being sharp enough and having enough light gathering power.
If it's just a hobby for you, then the 70-300mm is probably one of the best values for money you'll get without breaking your back from the extra weight.
I've done a little bird photography with a 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC14 teleconverter. Very sharp good light gathering power, but it cost a mint, is big and heavy, and I was cropping the heck out of my pictures. You choose your budget and your battles.
#13
Posted 15 October 2016 - 04:11 PM
Birding is a bottomless pit when it comes to lenses. Nothing ever really gets you comfortably close enough, while being sharp enough and having enough light gathering power.
If it's just a hobby for you, then the 70-300mm is probably one of the best values for money you'll get without breaking your back from the extra weight.
I've done a little bird photography with a 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC14 teleconverter. Very sharp good light gathering power, but it cost a mint, is big and heavy, and I was cropping the heck out of my pictures. You choose your budget and your battles.
And that is even 'lightweight' compared to the 150-600 or the primes 400(2.8) 600(4), 800(5.6)... last 3 I don't even think I'd be comfortable with doing handheld shots for a full day...
#14
Posted 15 October 2016 - 06:30 PM
And that is even 'lightweight' compared to the 150-600 or the primes 400(2.8) 600(4), 800(5.6)... last 3 I don't even think I'd be comfortable with doing handheld shots for a full day...
I can imagine. I've never hefted those lenses, but my 70-200mm f/2.8 is stout enough.
- M.Beier likes this
#15
Posted 16 October 2016 - 09:19 AM
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable shooting a 400 2.8 handheld for more than a few minutes...I've shot the lens before and it is a load to haul around on the monopod, let alone hand hold. My 200-400 f4 is tough enough to hand hold and I normally use it on my monopod...
- leighgion likes this
#16
Posted 16 October 2016 - 01:44 PM
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable shooting a 400 2.8 handheld for more than a few minutes...I've shot the lens before and it is a load to haul around on the monopod, let alone hand hold. My 200-400 f4 is tough enough to hand hold and I normally use it on my monopod...
One of the minor, but not insignificant reasons my photography gravitated away from sports, birds and distant landscape features.
- TBonz likes this
#17
Posted 16 October 2016 - 03:15 PM
- TBonz likes this
#18
Posted 16 October 2016 - 07:21 PM
#19
Posted 18 October 2016 - 01:48 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#20
Posted 18 October 2016 - 02:40 PM
If your budget is 500-1000 then you can easily pick up the Tamron 150-600. It routinely goes on sale for the high 600s to low 700s. However, you will run into limitations with your camera body. The buffer on that camera is too small for birds in flight. Keep your eyes out for a used D7000. If you shoot larger birds, 300 is probably sufficient, but if you get into it you'll always want more. I used to shoot with a Sigma 100-300/4, but I jumped on the Sigma 150-600 as soon as it went on sale.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nikon lens
Lenses and Accessories →
Nikon Lens Discussion →
Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D or Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 GStarted by Nasseh, 19 Dec 2013 nikon lens, portrait |
|