Lens Options

[Josh_Houchin]

Hi guys, I am new here and I look forward to garnishing knowledge from the members on this forum. I have a question regarding lens choices. I primarily shoot wildlife and nature shots with a focus on fly fishing and bird hunting. I am upgrading my camera next week and after agonizing over reviews I have finally settled on a Nikon D7100 Body. Most of my photos are action shots of people fly fishing or bird hunting with a few posed shots of birds or of trout being released. I am hoping to also get photos of birds in flight flushing in front of the dogs or of raptors in flight.

What lens would you recommend for the type of shooting I just described? I am switching from a Sony to a Nikon so for the time being I can really only afford one lens. I am considering an AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens and would be curious to your thoughts. Since I am buying a body at the same time I can really only afford to spend $300-$500 on the lens. I found the lens I listed above for $249 refurbished. Thanks for the support!

Josh [h=4][/h]

 

[Coasty]

The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VRII has much faster autofocus, better build, has a manual focus override, and doesn’t cost much more. Plus, if you ever move to full frame, it will work on that.
The D7100’s autofocus system is out of the D300/D300s and you would not get the full benefit with the 55-300, especially if you want to capture birds in flight and other action shots.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, i think you have picked the best option for your circumstances. 300 vs. 200 will make a difference to you.
The weight is less than almost anything else at that range you have as options, due to being DX
The lens is slow, but there aren't really any alternatives close to your price range, so whatever.

For fly fishing in particular, a nice remote flash (can be as cheap as $50 with off brand yongnuos and such) and diffuser (~$50 stand and diffuser and rope to hold it down) or two can largely make up for the slowness of the lens for action shots of casting or releasing.




Edit: regarding 70-300, also a good option, but I don't see either as obviously superior. It costs more in weight you have to lug around as well as another $100-200, in exchange for essentially just faster autofocus ("build quality" has never mattered for anything I've done other than just lenses feeling sexier. They both have basic standards like proper metal mounts, etc.).

And while faster autofocus is nice, if you're on a budget, it is likely not terribly necessary for most of the things you said you wanted to shoot. You likely have plenty of time to focus where flushed birds will be if you saw them land in the first place or watch where your dogs are. And that sounds like the only iffy situation. Most everything else is happening at known, fixed locations.

Yes, it would be nice, but mediocre benefit for mediocre higher costs makes me feel it could go either way. (and slightly less range on the wide end)

 

[Josh_Houchin]

The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VRII has much faster autofocus, better build, has a manual focus override, and doesn’t cost much more. Plus, if you ever move to full frame, it will work on that.
The D7100’s autofocus system is out of the D300/D300s and you would not get the full benefit with the 55-300, especially if you want to capture birds in flight and other action shots.

Can you explain why it wouldn't get the full benefit? Thanks for the reply!

 

[Coasty]

The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VRII has much faster autofocus, better build, has a manual focus override, and doesn’t cost much more. Plus, if you ever move to full frame, it will work on that.
The D7100’s autofocus system is out of the D300/D300s and you would not get the full benefit with the 55-300, especially if you want to capture birds in flight and other action shots.

Can you explain why it wouldn't get the full benefit? Thanks for the reply!

The 55-300 has a lot slower autofocus than the 70-300, so your camera would be tracking and focusing at a fast rate, but the lens would not be able to keep up.


Example #1 Nikon 55-300 at 300mm on D7000 February 2012.



Example #2 Nikon 70-300 at 300mm on D7000 November 2012.



Example #3 Nikon 70-300 at 300mm on D7000 December 2012

 

[Coasty]

I had the 55-300 for a bit. It was a good lens on a tripod, and hand held at stationary subjects. It was weather sealed with a metal mount, so it was much better than the kit lens that came with the D7000. But it just didn’t perform at fast motion/action shots for me. I would get one keeper out of 12 shots, usually the first shot. I tried the 70-300 for a weekend and fell in love. It felt better, focus was a lot faster, and my number of keepers jumped to 10 out of 12 or so. It is not a superfast pro f2.8 optic, but it works for me.

 

[table1349]

With all due respect, your examples really don't prove your point. Example 1 has a shutter speed of 1/125, too slow to freeze motion, where as example #3 has a shutter speed of 1/250th which is the minimum speed to freeze motion. Example 2 has had the Exif data stripped from it, but I would venture to say that the shutter speed is higher than 1/250th of a second.

 

[Josh_Houchin]

I appreciate the replies, I will shop around and see what I can find. I may have to resign myself to the 55-300 for now and upgrade later on down the road.

 

[Coasty]

With all due respect, your examples really don't prove your point. Example 1 has a shutter speed of 1/125, too slow to freeze motion, where as example #3 has a shutter speed of 1/250th which is the minimum speed to freeze motion. Example 2 has had the Exif data stripped from it, but I would venture to say that the shutter speed is higher than 1/250th of a second.

Douh!!!!
You are correct. I didn’t check the data before posting; I just pulled from the junk folder. Gull was at 1/500.

 

[table1349]

With all due respect, your examples really don't prove your point. Example 1 has a shutter speed of 1/125, too slow to freeze motion, where as example #3 has a shutter speed of 1/250th which is the minimum speed to freeze motion. Example 2 has had the Exif data stripped from it, but I would venture to say that the shutter speed is higher than 1/250th of a second.

Douh!!!!
You are correct. I didn’t check the data before posting; I just pulled from the junk folder. Gull was at 1/500.

Yep, that's motion blur not focusing issues.