What long lens to get next?

[Chrisc1977]

Good evening to all

New to the forum so please go easy

I am using a Nikon D3400 and currently have an 18-55 and a 55-300mm lens. These have been good to me for the past few years as I have been learning to use a DSLR.

Recently I have started to enjoy bird and wildlife photography and Im finding I need a lens that gets that bit closer. This is the same story when Im at somewhere like Silverstone for the motor racing. I get pictures that I'm happy with but I want to step it up a bit, get that bit nearer to the subject without a loss of clarity.

I have been looking around this weekend and Ive seen the Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 120-400.

Are either of these going to be an improvement on the 55-300? Will they get me that closer to the subject?

My initials thought are 400mm or 500mm is greater than the 300 so therefore it must get me nearer but is it really as simple as that?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[OldManJim]

I'm no expert on this subject but I think there is more than just reach involved in getting good wildlife shots. Yes, 400mm is "better" than 300mm - and 500mm is even "better", However, you also need to think about shutter speeds. As focal length increases, shutter speeds need to increase to reduce camera shake and freeze action. This leads to the question of VR (vibration reduction) and how useful that is. Furthermore, you will probably need higher ISO values to allow the fast shutter speeds. As ISO increases (other things being equal), noise tends to increase.

So, your balancing a few independent variables. For a good mentor, look at the Backcountry videos by Steve Perry. (www.backcountrygallery.com) He's got some really good info there.

 

[ac12]

No, shooting at distance gets complicated. It is not just the lens, it is the entire kit and the environment.

Example, I can normally hand hold a 200mm lens (5.7x), but NOT a 500mm lens (14x).

• When I shoot my 500, it has to be on a STABLE tripod, to get the lens steady enough for a sharp image. With the 500 handheld, the image in the viewfinder shakes so much that I almost get seasick.
  
• And shooting moving subjects from a tripod, I discovered that a pan or ball head does not work for fast moving subjects. I had to switch to a gimbal head to be able to follow the fast moving subjects.

Secondly, for distant subjects, is the AIR between you and the subject.

• The more air between you and the subject, the more "stuff" is in the air; water (mist, fog, rain), dust, pollen, pollution, smoke, salt and water spray at the ocean, etc. This changes by location, weather, season (pollen), etc.
  
• Heat mirage. This is the wavy shimmering look of something in the distance when viewed over a heated surface like a road or a house roof.
  
• At night you have light, the astronomers and astro photographers call it light pollution. That is light reflecting off the microscopic dust particles in the air. This is the "glow" over a city at night.

 

[zombiesniper]

If you really need the reach beyond 300mm the price tag for quality goes up more in this range than any other range of lenses.

In this price range I will say renting/borrowing a prospective lens is always cheaper than buying a lens you hate.

Now I personally love primes and hand hold my 500mm all day. Yes some long days can suck but I think it's worth the quality I get from it.
Sometimes it's not only about getting that bit closer. I see plenty of zoom lenses and some even longer than my 500mm. Some have decent glass and do well. Others not so much. The quality of the glass can mean more than the focal length.

Without knowing your budget I can only guess that the Sigma 150-600mm isn't out of you're price range.
If you are looking to go with the 150-600mm range I would suggest also looking into the Tamron 150-600mm G2.

One last thing is don't be afraid to look into used lenses. They can save you a decent amount.

 

[Derrel]

I would consider that Tamron 150mm-600mm G2 model lens...

Tamron 150-600mm G2

The old Sigma 120-400 is considered by many to be "not a very good lens", but it is available used in the $500-$550 range.

 

[ac12]

Look at one of your pix shot at 300mm.
Divide it in half V and H, so that you have 4 quarters.
The image inside one of those quarters is what you would see with a 600mm lens, a 2x magnification over your 300.
When increasing magnification, I normally go at least 2x over the prior lens. If it is less, why bother, just crop into the image.

Don't look at mm, but convert to magnification difference.
With your 300mm lens, I would not bother with a 400. The magnification gain is too small, at about 1.3x over the 300.
A 500 would be barely acceptable at 1.7x over the 300. But you still have not reached 2x magnification over your 300mm.

With the Tamron at $1,300, you should also look at the similar price $1,400 Nikon 200-500. However, the 500mm long end is not as long as the 600mm of the Tamron, and at 2300g, the Nikon is 310g heavier. Both negative points against the Nikon.

 

[zombiesniper]

4 quarters.

2x magnification over your 300.

The math doesn't add up.

If you are using a quarter of the image that is 4x magnification. therefore he would need 1200mm and in canon that's a $125000 lens.

 

[ac12]

4 quarters.

2x magnification over your 300.

The math doesn't add up.

If you are using a quarter of the image that is 4x magnification. therefore he would need 1200mm and in canon that's a $125000 lens.

Yes it is confusing.
It took me a bit to understand it as well. This is because the two measurements are different rulers, and not measuring in the same way.

• Quarters is using area measurement (H x V)
  
• 2x magnification is a linear measurement along only one axis (H or V) or the diagonal. Think doubling or in this case halving the angle of view.

When you double the H or V axis, the area goes up by the square 2 x 2 = 4x
This is because when you magnify and double the H axis, the V axis also doubles at the same time.

Here are some examples. The angle of view numbers are from the Nikon web site.
Each lens in the series is approximately 2x the focal length of the prior lens.
The angle of view halves as you double the focal length.

• 24mm lens = 80 degrees angle of view
• 50mm lens = 46 degrees
• 105mm lens = 23 degrees
• 200mm lens = 12 degrees

Now we add magnification to the scale, with 50mm as 1x.

• 0.5x = 24mm lens = 80 degrees angle of view
• 1x = 50mm lens = 46 degrees
• 2x = 105mm lens = 23 degrees
• 4x = 200mm lens = 12 degrees

Using the 50mm as "normal lens," at 1x.
The 105 is 2x magnification, not 4x.
The 200 is 4x magnification, not 16x.

 

[zombiesniper]

You are correct.

I was completely screwed this one up. Based it on something else.
This is one of the reasons I don't use a sliding scale ie. magnification. mm never have a changing base scale.

P.S. 500mm is my base scale so I'm at 1x magnification.

 

[petrochemist]

Look at one of your pix shot at 300mm.
Divide it in half V and H, so that you have 4 quarters.
The image inside one of those quarters is what you would see with a 600mm lens, a 2x magnification over your 300.
When increasing magnification, I normally go at least 2x over the prior lens. If it is less, why bother, just crop into the image.

Don't look at mm, but convert to magnification difference.
With your 300mm lens, I would not bother with a 400. The magnification gain is too small, at about 1.3x over the 300.
A 500 would be barely acceptable at 1.7x over the 300. But you still have not reached 2x magnification over your 300mm.

With the Tamron at $1,300, you should also look at the similar price $1,400 Nikon 200-500. However, the 500mm long end is not as long as the 600mm of the Tamron, and at 2300g, the Nikon is 310g heavier. Both negative points against the Nikon.

This reasoning makes fairly good sense at shorter focal lengths, but when you get to longer focal lengths cost & bulk make real restrictions. If you were to get a 500 you can crop that as well getting shots that are not practical with the 300. Yes a 600 might be preferable, but I'm pretty sure a reasonable 500 is cheaper than a reasonable 600, especially when used options are considered.

I have a Sigma 150-500 and a 100-300, the 300 is definitely the sharper at full reach, but the 'Bigmos' is still the most often used at airshows & motorsports.

 

[ac12]

This reasoning makes fairly good sense at shorter focal lengths, but when you get to longer focal lengths cost & bulk make real restrictions. If you were to get a 500 you can crop that as well getting shots that are not practical with the 300. Yes a 600 might be preferable, but I'm pretty sure a reasonable 500 is cheaper than a reasonable 600, especially when used options are considered.

I have a Sigma 150-500 and a 100-300, the 300 is definitely the sharper at full reach, but the 'Bigmos' is still the most often used at airshows & motorsports.

In addition to just finding those LONG lenses in the first place.
I lucked into a Nikon 500mm mirror at a very affordable price.
But 2x up, the 1,000mm mirror was too expensive, even used. And hard to find to begin with. So I will probably never get one.
Though at that magnification, I might as well get an 8" reflex telescope

 

[ac12]

Just for some fun.
Here is a Tonkina 800mm full manual lens.
Look at the "sights" on the lens to get the lens on target.

 

[zombiesniper]

The sights are a gimmick. You get used to finding a target quite quickly.

 

[chuasam]

Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 is a great lens and reasonably priced

 

[nerwin]

I think it's time to go all out and get the Nikkor 1200-1700 f/5.6-8.

It's only 3 feet long, weighs 36 pounds and cost $60,000.

Some say when you buy the lens, it comes with a personal assistant to carry it around for you.