New lens, good for taking long-distance photos / wildlife?

matthew4544

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So i recently bought the Nikon D3400 because i want to get into photography. The 18-55mm kitlens i got seems to be pretty decent, but not at any range.

I would like some suggestions for a lens under 500AUD, that is good for taking wildlife photography. Also, i have heard that using a full-frame lens won't be very sharp on a cropped sensor, so any suggestions for lenses that suit the cropped sensor on my camera would be much appreciated.
 
You heard wrong. Full frame lenses can be sharper on crop sensor cameras because the smaller sensor only uses the center of the lens's image circle, and the center portion is typically sharper.

Depending on the type of "Wildlife" anything from 300mm up. I use a 150mm-500mm lens for birds and wildlife and sometimes wish it were longer. 300mm is sufficient for larger animals at relatively close distances (think in a zoo) but typically not in the wild where they are shy.
 
Ok thank-you for clearing that up. I don't have a lot of money, so do you think a 70-300mm lens would be a good start? And is there any particular lens under 400usd that would work for me?
 
Look at used lenses, that will help keep the cost down. Unfortunately, long glass is expensive and most of it retains it's value pretty well.
 
Ok thank-you for clearing that up. I don't have a lot of money, so do you think a 70-300mm lens would be a good start? And is there any particular lens under 400usd that would work for me?
Yes. This is the one to get:

It must be the VR G version. Lightning fast auto focus. You should be able to find one in Oz, because they're available all over the world. Used Mint condition for only $250. USD.

Screen Shot 2017-12-28 at 8.36.34 AM.png


Or a new one:


Screen Shot 2017-12-28 at 8.37.37 AM.png


These are AF-S, so they will auto focus on your camera. Not the longest lens, but quite useful. Would not be the first choice to take on safari, for instance, but for the local zoo, very good.
 
Last edited:
Best advice I could ever give someone looking to get into wildlife photography is wait and save. I know it's not what you want to hear but it's true. Follow below.

Option A. Buy a cheaper lens now that isn't quite up to the task, to short and quality just isn't quite there. Sure you can upgrade later but only top glass holds it's value. You'll take a hit on the resale.

Option B. Wait and save a little more. The difference between a 70-300 and say a Tamron 150-600 G2 is worth the price. In the interim, join a photo club. You may be able to borrow/rent longer lenses when you need to.

I meet people weekly that ask why they can't get that crisp sharp image. Most of the time they have the skill but they are pushing their lens beyond it's limits. The 70-300 is a decent lens but do know it's limits and try not to expect to shoot small birds at any distance.

The second piece of advice has been covered but it's buy used if at all possible. It can save you thousands of dollars.
 
You can, to some degree, mitigate the need for a long focal length with field craft skills.
If you can know in advance where your subject will be you can set up a blind so the wildlife can't see you.

Used Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 APO DG HSM OS lenses are selling here in the US for $450 to $600 - depending on condition.
 
Ok thank-you for clearing that up. I don't have a lot of money, so do you think a 70-300mm lens would be a good start? And is there any particular lens under 400usd that would work for me?
I have the 70-300 and it is a good lens. My only complaint with it is that the autofocus is somewhat slow. It will work fine for relatively close "Wildlife", depending on your definition of "Wildlife". For normal sized birds you will need to be close, say 3 to 4 meters max.

The shot of a Cocatoo below was taken with my 70-300 at 116mm and a focus distance of 3.16 meters.
2013-11-30-09.jpg


This shot of an Eurasian Lynx was also taken with my 70-300 at 230mm focal length and 5.6 meters focus distance
2013-09-15-10.jpg


And this Red Kangaroo was taken at 116mm focal length and 6.5 meters focus distance
2013-09-15-07.jpg


Not the greatest photos but I was trying to find something similar to what I guess you would find there. All of these were taken at the Nashville Zoo so I was close to the animals.
 
I have the 70-300 and it is a good lens. My only complaint with it is that the autofocus is somewhat slow.
Which Nikon 70-300 do you have? I think Nikon makes 4 zoom lenses in that focal length.
 
I have the 70-300 and it is a good lens. My only complaint with it is that the autofocus is somewhat slow.
Which Nikon 70-300 do you have? I think Nikon makes 4 zoom lenses in that focal length.
Mine is the "G" lens (AFS Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G). I've had it since '09.
 
You NEED to define what you mean by "long distance" and "good for taking wildlife photography."
Specifically how far and what kind of wildlife and what environment.
  • Shooting a small bird at 100 feet can be as difficult as shooting a horse size animal at several hundred yards. The bird is small and moves fast.
  • Is the wildlife fast moving or slow?
  • Whales, from shore, on a boat or zodiac?
A 70-300 on a D3400 makes for a decently long 450mm FX equivalent.
AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR | Interchangeable Lens from Nikon
But depending on what and where you are shooting, you may need longer reach.
 
Wildlife covers a multitude of sins. I use a 70-300 lens for insects and small reptiles/snakes and a 150-600 lens for birds. My 90 mm macro lens is good for slow insects.
 
I have the 70-300mm AF-S VR lens. It works fine and is small enough to carry around all day. I think this is a good lens to get started with shooting at the 300mm focal length range.

It is f/5.6 at that end so you need good light, and you really want to be at f/8 or f/11 to maximize sharpness.

However, today there is the new 70-300 DX AF-P VR lens and that is said to be a bit sharper at 300mm so you can use f/5.6 or f/6.3 with decent results. The price on this lens is below that of the above if buying new.

The two 70-300mm models noted above offer faster AF than the 55-300mm lens and that is what you want for wildlife.
 
Thank you for your comments everyone. I have decides i will go with the AF-P DX NIKKOR
70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR lens for now, and in the future i will buy a 2nd hand longer lens. Thank you all for your help!
 
Beyond 300mm it becomes more difficult, bulky and expensive.

At 500mm, all the current options that I looked at were around $1,000 and up.

I went with an older 500mm mirror lens, because it gave me more reach at an affordable price. The big negative is that it is a manual focus lens, which is OK for static or SLOW moving subjects. But for a lens that I use less than 1% of the time, it was an acceptable trade-off.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top