lense question

NewDaddyMark

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Delaware
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
what about a binocs or rangefinder? or you must take the picture?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/discuss/72157615742359323

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23288

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

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

Most reactions

Back
Top