What lens should I get for a 300mm?

[snapsnap1973]

I like to take pictures of birds in flight sometimes, although of course I'm very new to photgraphy and really don't get it that much yet. Anyways, I got a nice D3200 for Xmas and it came with 2 NON VR lenses and I have no complaints, but I would like a little more reach sometimes. Of course it came with the 18-55 and the 55-200mm lenses.

I'd like to get maybe a 70-300mm, but something that Ken Rockwell said was not to duplicate lens ranges or something similar. Is there a lens that goes from 200-300mm?

What's a good cheap (money-wise) lens that goes out to around 300mm? I would think it should also be VR out at that zoom. Am I correct?

Thanks

 

[SCraig]

1. Forget everything that Ken Rockwell says.
2. The 70-300 AF-S VR is, dollar for dollar, one of the nicest inexpensive lenses you can buy.
3. The 55-200 is, in my personal opinion, a pretty poor lens and I'd rather have the 70-300 ANY day.
4. I have the 70-300 and love it. I have the 55-200 and don't even know where it is nor do I miss it.
5. 300mm is what I consider to be the MINIMUM length for shooting birds. 500mm is much better, 600mm better still.

 

[480sparky]

1. Forget that Ken Rockwell even exists.
.........

Fify.

 

[SCraig]

Fify.

The only thing of value on his site is the very first paragraph on his "About" page. Especially the second line of the "Introduction" paragraph.

 

[jaomul]

Another even less expensive good option is the Tamron 70-300mm vc. Opinion is divided as to whether the Nikon or tamron is better, so much so that I believe either is good enough. I had it in Canon mount, it's a nice lens

 

[snapsnap1973]

I'd bet any 400mm, 500mm or 600mm is very expensive, correct?

 

[480sparky]

I'd bet any quality 400mm, 500mm or 600mm is very expensive, correct?

Fify.

 

[Trever1t]

Ken Rockwell is comparable to Satan. He speaks in Half-Truths. 90% subjective conjectured babble drabble.

Yes, a long telephoto will be expensive. If you are really into wildlife, spend the $ on the good glass for you will soon outgrow the body but the glass is forever. Good long glass is $thousand$ - buy used and you will always retain your resale value.

 

[jaomul]

Lenses can be very expensive yes, but you don't always need to go for the best or newest. If it's a hobby set a budget and research your best option in that budget. It's easy to drop 5000 on a lens, but it's possible to get great photos with a 500 dollars lens, just keep expectations realistic

 

[BillM]

If you are going for bif then VR isn't much of a concern, you'll be shooting at higher shutter speeds so you will be turning VR off anyways. The 70-300 is a nice starter lens for birds, from there you have everything else going for a minimum of $1000. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses are a great way to go long for short money.

 

[Overread]

Remember VR/OS/IS works only to counter shake in the camera and lens and has no effect on the motion of a subject. Subject motion is dealt with only by the shutter speed alone.

Now the theory for handholding is 1/focal length of the lens = slowest shutterspeed you can hand hold at and get a sharp shot.

Eg for a 50mm lens it would be 1/50sec. For a 70-300mm zoom at 200mm it would be 1/200sec

Now this assumes good standing posture, good fitness and low fatigue and is only a rough guideline. Some people will be able to hold at far slower shutter speeds and others will need faster ones. In addition the weight and size of a lens has a big impact. You see VR on a lot of longer focal length and big lenses because whilst you can handhold them their weight makes it increasingly difficult. A heavy 600mm f4 is technically possible at 1/600sec but unless you're very fit chances are you'd want to be shooting faster than that to avoid handshake.

For action (eg wildlife) I'd generally say 1/640sec is the slowest speed for capturing motion - 1/500sec in a pinch but you run a risk at that speed of introducing more blur from moving limbs and fur/feathers. Bird wings are much faster and you're well up into the upper limits of your shutter speed for them frozen (unless the wingbeat is at a slow point in its motion of course - and indeed it varies - eagle wings move a lot slower than bluetit ones).

 

[480sparky]

The only thing of value on his site is the very first paragraph on his "About" page. Especially the second line of the "Introduction" paragraph.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. (NSFW!!!!!)

 

[snapsnap1973]

Sorry guys, but I'd NEVER spend $1000 on a lens! I've been playing classical guitar for 20+ years and I won't even spend $3000 on a guitar, I'm still happily playing my $1000 one for years. If I were rich I'd spend $1000 for a lens, but no way I'd do that right now, I'm not that much into photography. Heck $500 would be a lot for a lens for me at this point.

 

[snapsnap1973]

Heck, I even took a couple bird photos with my Canon Sony Cybershot 10x zoom a couple years ago, that I like, maybe others would'nt like them, but I didn't need $1000 lens for that.

I'll have to upload it here, I got a nice bald eagle in flight here in Maine I think last year in Yarmouth I believe. I'm proud of the picture and it's at least pretty clear and he's in flight. I'll try and upload it tonight.

Here's a nice picture with a 70-300mm lens!
Bird [Nikon D7000] [Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED] | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Overread]

Sorry guys, but I'd NEVER spend $1000 on a lens! I've been playing classical guitar for 20+ years and I won't even spend $3000 on a guitar, I'm still happily playing my $1000 one for years. If I were rich I'd spend $1000 for a lens, but no way I'd do that right now, I'm not that much into photography. Heck $500 would be a lot for a lens for me at this point.

Nothing to be sorry about
But just remember most of us said the very same thing you just did when we got started. We said it when we got a point and shoot (don't need a fancy DSLR) and we said it when we got a DSLR (don't need no fancy lenses or flash).

So beware

Heck, I even took a couple bird photos with my Canon Sony Cybershot 10x zoom a couple years ago, that I like, maybe others would'nt like them, but I didn't need $1000 lens for that.

I'll have to upload it here, I got a nice bald eagle in flight here in Maine I think last year in Yarmouth I believe. I'm proud of the picture and it's at least pretty clear and he's in flight. I'll try and upload it tonight.

Point and shoots are actually quite capable at this - because the smaller sensors mean they can pack quite a significant zoom into them. Granted it might not stand up to a DSLR, but you can still get some very good shots these days on a smaller setup.