# Which Lens



## Blue Steel (Sep 29, 2007)

I have a Nikon D 40. It came with a couple of lenses, an 18-55 and a 55-200. The problem is I need more magnification for wildlife shots. Can anyone recommend something, or point me in the right direction. I don't know much about this stuff, but I hope to oneday post up some pics if I can figure it out. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Depends on what you are after. 

Sigma and Nikon both make a decent 300mm zoom telephoto for 300 bucks or so. I know it took me about a month to realize it wasn't what I was after. On the cheaper lenses you get edge fuzz and they won't be as crisp. That's not to say you can't get good photos out of them, some of my favorite photos were taken with that lens, but don't expect magazine quality photos out of them. If you are looking for more zoom, a teleconverter can be added. 

Nikon's 80-400 vr is a very versatile lens for wildlife, but runs about 5x more than the aformentioned lenses. The only complaint I have is it being a f4.5 and the acquisition is a little slow compared to say, the 18-200. 

If money is no object, a something like a 500mm f2.8 woud be my girl, but I ain't found a genie lamp yet. 

For a D40 and with assumption that you're fairly new to this, I'd grab an 80-300g lens and go shoot.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

The 80-400 Nikon is a great wildlife lens, but it will not autofocus on the D40 because that body lacks a mechanical focus drive. You could still manually focus the lens. They run $1700.

I'd recommend the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Optically, it is excellent. $550 price range.

I've shot with the 500mm f/4, and it is a pig of a 13-pound lens at $7500. If you want an expensive prime that is hand holdable, get the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 and a Nikon TC17eII teleconverter (1.7x). This gives you a 510mm f/4.8 lens at half the weight and size, for $3000 less.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oops, I said 80-300g and it's actually 70-300. They can be picked up for like 130 bucks if I remember correctly. Also, you can rent lenses to try them out before you settle on one. 

Hey thresh, you seen that 'sigzilla' thing? Good lord!


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hey thresh, you seen that 'sigzilla' thing? Good lord!


The one that's the size of a torpedo? Yeah they always seem to tote one of those to the PMA show. It's like Sputnik.


----------



## Blue Steel (Sep 29, 2007)

How far out can you get with a 300 and still get decent photos. What are we talking as far as yardage. I took some pictures of geese with my 200( at about 75-100 yards) and was a little disapointed with the results. I am also under the impression that I should be looking into a VR feature??


----------



## Hellsangler69 (Sep 26, 2007)

Sounds like you have the same lenses as I . I have the VR , but have shut it off , but that is my quest . I been trying to save for a 70-200mm F/2.8 and them maybe a teleconverter next . I do plan on renting one first to check it out .


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

Blue Steel said:


> How far out can you get with a 300 and still get decent photos. What are we talking as far as yardage. I took some pictures of geese with my 200( at about 75-100 yards) and was a little disapointed with the results. I am also under the impression that I should be looking into a VR feature??


If you want my honest opinion on VR... its a marketing gimmick. Makes the lens lurch and "muddy" up. That 2-4 stop gain they talk about is better by bumping the iso or use a tripod or monopod. Also it doesnt really help in most situations, it is more for side to side sway than anything else.
Even on your crop sensor the FOV of 300 isnt much. The 300/4 and 300/2.8 do take the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's well, and for the D40 you must get a AF-S version along with AF-S compatible TC's.
The price of most Nikon glass has been going through the roof lately and you might just have to rent when the time comes unless you have DEEP pockets. 300/4 and TC1.4 or 1.7 might be a nice poor mans choice, but that is up almost 500 dollars from December.... Id stay away from the 80-400 unless you have alot of patience, and alot of the big zooms from 3rd party also(sig 50-500, 150-500, tokina 80-400, etc) are not great choices either. There is a 100-300/4 that sigma makes that gets good reviews(I think there is a 2.8 version also) that might be a good start. Tamron and Sigma both make some 300/2.8 primes that I have heard decent things off, also there is the MF Nikon lens that are still floating around that are optically just as good in many's peoples opinion. 
I would suggest checking out the lens lust section at the nikon cafe here http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/forumdisplay.php?f=108 but you may to sign up. These guys here really know their glass and tons of samples can be found via the lens archive.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

waltny said:


> If you want my honest opinion on VR... its a marketing gimmick.


Couldn't disagree with you more on this one Waltny. VR is an invaluable tool for low light, hand-held photography. It compensates for shake and buys a real world 2-3 stops without adding the noise of ISO creep. It's not magic, but it's far from a marketing gimmic. VR technology has made tripods all but obsolete for many types of wildlife photography. Not having to carry a 'pod and still being able to hand-hold my camera in fading light situations is well worth the cost increase to me, and I would not buy a lens with a focal length of over 100mm without it.

Bear in mind this is all for my style of photography, which is out walking around in the boonies shooting hand-held. If I carried a tripod with me everywhere, and focused on landscapes, portraits, and timed exposures -- VR is not needed. Those applications are not what image stabilization is designed for. In fact, VR needs to be turned off whenver the camera is on a tripod.

Shots like this, hand-held in fading light at sunset, would simply not be possible without the advantage of VR:


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Blue Steel said:


> How far out can you get with a 300 and still get decent photos. What are we talking as far as yardage.


Blue Steel: The single biggest technical challenge of wildlife photography is not related to equipment, it is getting close enough to your subject.

There's no rule about how much yardage a lens buys you, because it depends on how large the subject is and how you want to compose the photo. The simple answer is that a 300mm lens buys you 50% more magnification than a 200mm.

For something the size of an eagle, you still need to be within 50 yards to get a shot with reasonable detail even with a 500mm $7500 lens. If you are photographing an elk, and want to fill most of the frame, you would probably need to be within 40 or 50 yards with a 300mm lens, and perhaps 60-65 yards with a 400mm. I have rented huge telephoto lenses a couple of times from places like www.lensrentals.com and what never ceases to surprise me is how "close" they DON'T get you.

Getting good wildlife photos is more about getting close to wildlife than it is about equipment. That being said, 300mm is about the minimum focal length that you'd want for non-captive animals. Anything less and you have to be in their personal space.


----------



## Blue Steel (Sep 29, 2007)

Thanks for all the replies, I'm getting alot of good info and I appreciate it. Sounds like a 300mm is a good place to start. Thresher, thanks for the distance advice. I was probably expecting too much of my equipment. I was really hoping to get some up close shots from along ways away. Of course, none of this would be a problem if I didn't keep coming to this site and seeing all of these great photos. Alot of good photogs here.


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

threshershark said:


> waltny said:
> 
> 
> > If you want my honest opinion on VR... its a marketing gimmick.
> ...


I may be a bit harsh with the marketing gimmick tag, but I suppose I feel that strongly against it. We will have to disagree on the VR issue because I think I would rather carry a tripod or monopod than rely on the VR. It eats the battery, in my opinion makes the lens "slow down" and in fast moving applications doesnt help as much as it hinders. VR is only good for side to side shake and doesnt help with the front to back shake or movement. I guess Im old school in this way of thinking, as Ive got almost as many manual focus lens as I do AF ones. Ive used the VR function on the 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8 and 300/2.8 and it left me wondering why. So with that said Im glad its working for you, I just wish they made models with out it so I dont have to pay for a feature I dont like or use like the canon line does.

Im hoping to rent a 400 or 500 for the eagles this year so Ill give it another go one of those times Im out there, but until then Ill still be a unbeliever in VR.


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

Blue Steel said:


> Thanks for all the replies, I'm getting alot of good info and I appreciate it. Sounds like a 300mm is a good place to start. Thresher, thanks for the distance advice. *I was probably expecting too much of my equipment. I was really hoping to get some up close shots from along ways away*. Of course, none of this would be a problem if I didn't keep coming to this site and seeing all of these great photos. Alot of good photogs here.


Alot of folks make this mistake. They think the DSLR cant take a bad pic, and all you have to do is be a button masher as in "Wow you must have a good camera" or "If I only had that good of a camera" . The gear can and will make a difference but it wont be automatic. On another local site I seen some horrible shots come from a D300 and the 200-400/4 VR of the eagles last year. underxposure, blur, noise and the gal asked what she was doing wrong, "I have it in auto"....

Aside from learning some compositional and lighting rules and techniques you need to learn the strengths and weaknesses of your gear. Also learn to take control of the camera by shooting manual or aperture priority. This will go a long way in making better images and not getting frustrated with the gear you have while you lust for bigger and better things.


----------



## Blue Steel (Sep 29, 2007)

I am realizing that the more I play around with this thing the less I know about it. Thankfully it's pretty cheap to go out and take a bunch of pics and make adjustments as I go. I would have to take out a second mortgage on my house if this thing used film. All in all, I'm pretty satisfied with it, and I think that once I figure it out, this could turn into a serious hobby.


----------

