lense question

[NewDaddyMark]

looking to buy a lense for my nikon d5100 that I can take great wildlife photos with...basically I'm a deer hunter and want to be able to zoom in on whitetails 300-500 yards away and take reasonable pictures of them...does this lense exist? at a reasonable price?

[Ads]

[PinkDoor]

Lens

[Big Mike]

What do you consider a reasonable price?

You can get a 75-300mm lens, very inexpensively. The cheap ones aren't great quality though.
nikon 70-300mm | B&H Photo Video

That probably won't be long enough for 300-500 yards away. For that, you'll want something more in the 400-600mm range, and there are few options that won't break the bank.
There are a few 500mm "mirror" lenses that are around $100. The quality is pretty much terrible, but it gives you a lot of reach for little money.

If you are wanting to shoot images like you see in wildlife magazines / sites etc., then expect to spend many thousands of dollars.
SLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

[NewDaddyMark]

Lens

thanks

[NewDaddyMark]

What do you consider a reasonable price?

You can get a 75-300mm lens, very inexpensively. The cheap ones aren't great quality though.
nikon 70-300mm | B&H Photo Video

That probably won't be long enough for 300-500 yards away. For that, you'll want something more in the 400-600mm range, and there are few options that won't break the bank.
There are a few 500mm "mirror" lenses that are around $100. The quality is pretty much terrible, but it gives you a lot of reach for little money.

If you are wanting to shoot images like you see in wildlife magazines / sites etc., then expect to spend many thousands of dollars.
SLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

I was thinking in the few hundred dollar range....I'm no pro and dont plan on being but i just want to be able to take a picture of a deer at 400 yards and count the number of points it has...it doesnt have to pick up the twinkle in his eye.

[sovietdoc]

what about a binocs or rangefinder? or you must take the picture?

[tirediron]

If all you want to do is count the points, do you actually need to to take a photograph? To do this with any sort of quality at that range, there's really only one lens; 600mm f4. New, it runs around $11,500; used (depending on version and condition) $2000 - 8000. Another option might be to buy a lens mount for a spotting scope or small telescope. Again, IQ will not be great, but it will probably do for your purposes.

[NewDaddyMark]

If all you want to do is count the points, do you actually need to to take a photograph? To do this with any sort of quality at that range, there's really only one lens; 600mm f4. New, it runs around $11,500; used (depending on version and condition) $2000 - 8000. Another option might be to buy a lens mount for a spotting scope or small telescope. Again, IQ will not be great, but it will probably do for your purposes.

now that is a bit out of my price range...i was looking at a spotting scope and i have a digital camera I can use, etc so i could go that route but since I have a decent camera I thought why spend $1000 on a spotting scope when I can but a camera lens for the same amout or less and get what I'm looking for while also being able to use it for other projects photo related. I want to be able to take a picture of the deer I see for planning purposes...simply noting when I saw someting wont help me when I'm trying to identify certain deer over the coming months. Pictures would certainly make that easier.

[Big Mike]

Another option, would be to get a long lens and add a teleconverter. For example, you could put a 2X TC behind a 75-300mm lens, and it would be like a 150-600mm lens. The problem with that, is that a teleconverter steals some light, so rather than a maximum aperture of F5.6 (at 300mm) it would be more like a maximum aperture of F11....and that would make it hard to get sharp photos because you'd need a rather long shutter speed in all but bright mid-day shooting. Also, that combination usually cripples the AF of the camera, so you'd have to manually focus.

Yet another option would be to use a spotting scope as a lens on your camera. Image quality won't be a good as with a nice lens, but it gives you plenty of reach.

[KmH]

Lens

Both lense and lens are correct. They are synonymous.

[cgipson1]

Lens

Both lense and lens are correct. They are synonymous.

How do you spell LENS | How-do-you-spell.net Correct spelling: lens Common misspellings*: lense (95%)

Lense - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster
Variants of LENS: lens also lense

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lens?s=t
lens pulls up a definition and spelling.. LENSE does not pull up anything

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lens
This shows LENS as universal spelling.. and LENSE as the UK spelling...

(odd... everything I was ever taught in school (grade, middle, high and college) indicates LENS is correct, and LENSE would only be applicable in a plurality... as in LENSES.

It is also interesting that it appears that a lot of hopefully educated people feel that LENS is correct, and LENSE is not! At least in the American Lexicon.. In the UK, Lense does appear to be correct.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/central...57615742359323

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=23288

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00B1ii

[SCraig]

This is a (horrible) shot of a White Tail shot at about 100 meters with a 300mm lens. Quadruple that distance and it's going to be a spec. I seriously doubt that even a 600mm would allow you to count the points at 400 yards.

35mm on a D5100 is considered "Standard" so a 350mm lens would be 10x magnification. Even a 600mm lens would only be 17x.

[chris]

Lens

Both lense and lens are correct. They are synonymous.

How do you spell LENS | How-do-you-spell.net Correct spelling: lens Common misspellings*: lense (95%)

Lense - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster
Variants of LENS: lens also lense

Lens | Define Lens at Dictionary.com
lens pulls up a definition and spelling.. LENSE does not pull up anything

lens - definition of lens by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This shows LENS as universal spelling.. and LENSE as the UK spelling...

(odd... everything I was ever taught in school (grade, middle, high and college) indicates LENS is correct, and LENSE would only be applicable in a plurality... as in LENSES.

It is also interesting that it appears that a lot of hopefully educated people feel that LENS is correct, and LENSE is not! At least in the American Lexicon.. In the UK, Lense does appear to be correct.

Flickr: Discussing Simple spelling error LENS!!!! not LENSE!!! in FlickrCentral

How to spell 'lens' - Rangefinderforum.com

OT: lens or lense? - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum

Lense is as incorrect here in the UK as anywhere else

[cgipson1]

Both lense and lens are correct. They are synonymous.

How do you spell LENS | How-do-you-spell.net Correct spelling: lens Common misspellings*: lense (95%)

Lense - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster
Variants of LENS: lens also lense

Lens | Define Lens at Dictionary.com
lens pulls up a definition and spelling.. LENSE does not pull up anything

lens - definition of lens by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This shows LENS as universal spelling.. and LENSE as the UK spelling...

(odd... everything I was ever taught in school (grade, middle, high and college) indicates LENS is correct, and LENSE would only be applicable in a plurality... as in LENSES.

It is also interesting that it appears that a lot of hopefully educated people feel that LENS is correct, and LENSE is not! At least in the American Lexicon.. In the UK, Lense does appear to be correct.

Flickr: Discussing Simple spelling error LENS!!!! not LENSE!!! in FlickrCentral

How to spell 'lens' - Rangefinderforum.com

OT: lens or lense? - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum

Lense is as incorrect here in the UK as anywhere else

Really? GOOD to hear it! Thank you!

[aavivi]

Any thoughts about renting lens(es)? That way you can try it without committing yourself or your hard-earned cash