Wildlife/Birding lens for Nikon

[J-Cal]

So,

I have a D300S and a newly acquired D7100. I shoot wildlife with my 18-200 VR lens, but honestly I need to get closer. The 200mm puts me seemingly a couple of steps inside animal's natural anti human radar.

So, that means i'm looking for a 300mm + lens.I like Nikon lenses, but my finances have me looking at possible other brands as well, which I don't know much about.

Any direction would be appreciated. Thanks! I uploaded a picture I took yesterday for the heck of it. I couldn't get as close as I wanted but I caught him better than I thought I would.

 

[SquarePeg]

If you can't afford the Nikon, check out the Tamron 70-300. I love the image stabilization system that it has and it came with a 6 year warranty. I got it last year when there was a $100 rebate. I think it's still a bit short for serious birds in flight shots but I've used it to get a few decent bird pics:



[url=https://flic.kr/p/MbB13E]


Here's a good video review of the lens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-aMQKOFMc[/url]

 

[J-Cal]

If you can't afford the Nikon, check out the Tamron 70-300. I love the image stabilization system that it has and it came with a 6 year warranty. I got it last year when there was a $100 rebate. I think it's still a bit short for serious birds in flight shots but I've used it to get a few decent bird pics:






Here's a good video review of the lens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS-aMQKOFMc

Those are nice photos. Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look at that lens. You think I might be better served going with a 400mm though?

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well Nikon lenses for budget wildlife shooting... hmm...

The Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 would be a good place to start. Sigma and Tamron both make 150-600mm lenses and the older versions are generally in the $700 ish range, both of which work fairly well but you will need to practice with them most likely unless your used to shooting at long range already.

Stepping down from there I'd skip most anything in the 400mm range in the Nikon mount. The stuff that's affordable generally isn't that good and will have one problem or another such as doesn't autofocus very fast, doesn't produce good image quality, sometimes both, etc.

In the 300mm range best option would probably be an older 300mm prime, you can get a 300mm F4 without the built in motor for somewhere in the $300 range. Optics are outstanding. Only thing is if you want to add a TC be aware that nikkor TC's won't allow you to AF an older lens without the built in motor. For that you'll most likely need a Kenko - just understand that adding in a TC while it will give you some extra "reach" will affect the AF speed and as such might make it tougher to get shots like birds in flight, etc.

On a really tight budget you can also look at a 70-300mm zoom lens of some sort, if you do stick with either a Tamron 70-300mm with VC or the Nikkor 70-300mm with VR. You can get older, cheaper models without the image stabiilzation, etc.. however most of these are not really worth getting. They again have various problems like slow AF, poor image quality, etc.

 

[480sparky]

My D7100 is pretty much super-glued to the Nikkor 200-500, with a rich, yummy center of a 1.4x Nikon TC.

This gives me an equiv. focal length of 420-1,050.

 

[J-Cal]

Ok, well Nikon lenses for budget wildlife shooting... hmm...

The Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 would be a good place to start. Sigma and Tamron both make 150-600mm lenses and the older versions are generally in the $700 ish range, both of which work fairly well but you will need to practice with them most likely unless your used to shooting at long range already.

Stepping down from there I'd skip most anything in the 400mm range in the Nikon mount. The stuff that's affordable generally isn't that good and will have one problem or another such as doesn't autofocus very fast, doesn't produce good image quality, sometimes both, etc.

In the 300mm range best option would probably be an older 300mm prime, you can get a 300mm F4 without the built in motor for somewhere in the $300 range. Optics are outstanding. Only thing is if you want to add a TC be aware that nikkor TC's won't allow you to AF an older lens without the built in motor. For that you'll most likely need a Kenko - just understand that adding in a TC while it will give you some extra "reach" will affect the AF speed and as such might make it tougher to get shots like birds in flight, etc.

On a really tight budget you can also look at a 70-300mm zoom lens of some sort, if you do stick with either a Tamron 70-300mm with VC or the Nikkor 70-300mm with VR. You can get older, cheaper models without the image stabiilzation, etc.. however most of these are not really worth getting. They again have various problems like slow AF, poor image quality, etc.

This is nice information. Thank you. I'll look at the Nikkor 5.6. I was under the impression that in order to catch movement I might need a faster lens than a 5.6. I am interested in off brands, so i'll definitely look at any Sigma's and Tamron options that are available.

 

[chuasam]

the new Nikon 200-500 is pretty good and fairly affordable.
Also consider the Sigma 150-600 contemporary

 

[J-Cal]

Ok, well Nikon lenses for budget wildlife shooting... hmm...

The Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 would be a good place to start. Sigma and Tamron both make 150-600mm lenses and the older versions are generally in the $700 ish range, both of which work fairly well but you will need to practice with them most likely unless your used to shooting at long range already.

Stepping down from there I'd skip most anything in the 400mm range in the Nikon mount. The stuff that's affordable generally isn't that good and will have one problem or another such as doesn't autofocus very fast, doesn't produce good image quality, sometimes both, etc.

In the 300mm range best option would probably be an older 300mm prime, you can get a 300mm F4 without the built in motor for somewhere in the $300 range. Optics are outstanding. Only thing is if you want to add a TC be aware that nikkor TC's won't allow you to AF an older lens without the built in motor. For that you'll most likely need a Kenko - just understand that adding in a TC while it will give you some extra "reach" will affect the AF speed and as such might make it tougher to get shots like birds in flight, etc.

On a really tight budget you can also look at a 70-300mm zoom lens of some sort, if you do stick with either a Tamron 70-300mm with VC or the Nikkor 70-300mm with VR. You can get older, cheaper models without the image stabiilzation, etc.. however most of these are not really worth getting. They again have various problems like slow AF, poor image quality, etc.

Also, I didn't mean to say I was totally on a budget. In the Summer i'll have more disposable income so i'm not afraid of a lens with a pricetag of a grand. As an amateur i'm not sure I could justify a price of over $1,500, but i'd take a look.

 

[greybeard]

This is where I would start

Nikon Nikkor 300mm F/4 ED IF Autofocus Lens {39/82}

 

[J-Cal]

This is where I would start

Nikon Nikkor 300mm F/4 ED IF Autofocus Lens {39/82}

Thank you.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well Nikon lenses for budget wildlife shooting... hmm...

The Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 would be a good place to start. Sigma and Tamron both make 150-600mm lenses and the older versions are generally in the $700 ish range, both of which work fairly well but you will need to practice with them most likely unless your used to shooting at long range already.

Stepping down from there I'd skip most anything in the 400mm range in the Nikon mount. The stuff that's affordable generally isn't that good and will have one problem or another such as doesn't autofocus very fast, doesn't produce good image quality, sometimes both, etc.

In the 300mm range best option would probably be an older 300mm prime, you can get a 300mm F4 without the built in motor for somewhere in the $300 range. Optics are outstanding. Only thing is if you want to add a TC be aware that nikkor TC's won't allow you to AF an older lens without the built in motor. For that you'll most likely need a Kenko - just understand that adding in a TC while it will give you some extra "reach" will affect the AF speed and as such might make it tougher to get shots like birds in flight, etc.

On a really tight budget you can also look at a 70-300mm zoom lens of some sort, if you do stick with either a Tamron 70-300mm with VC or the Nikkor 70-300mm with VR. You can get older, cheaper models without the image stabiilzation, etc.. however most of these are not really worth getting. They again have various problems like slow AF, poor image quality, etc.

Also, I didn't mean to say I was totally on a budget. In the Summer i'll have more disposable income so i'm not afraid of a lens with a pricetag of a grand. As an amateur i'm not sure I could justify a price of over $1,500, but i'd take a look.

I'd probably lean towards the 200-500mm 5.6 then, sounds like that would be a good fit for what your doing. The 150-600mm's, the G1 Tamron and the non-sports Sigma are in that price range too, I looked at both but as far as consistency I think the 200-500mm would probably yield the best over all results. The higher end Tamron G2 and Sigma Sports are more consistent from what I understand but of course there your looking at right around $1500 so as far as bang for the buck the 200-500 would probably be my first choice.

 

[goooner]

I got the Tamron 150-600 G2 recently, I'm sure you'll be able to get the 1st version for under a grand second hand. It is a very steep learning curve using a big lens like that, I don't think mine is dialled in yet, but I'm waiting for good light and no wind, so I can micro adjust my focus.

 

[table1349]

Oh Heck, Go Big or Go Home.
Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8

 

[astroNikon]

This is where I would start

Nikon Nikkor 300mm F/4 ED IF Autofocus Lens {39/82}

Thank you.

with that lens keep in mind it's a long focus throw which slows down the focus especially if it hunts at all.
You'll also want to make sure that you buy one with the clear filter in the filter tray.

I had one for a couple years. It's very nice. Designed for manual focus with a smooth long and accurate manual focus. in AF it takes a little time if not already focused close to where you want to be compared to a more modern AF-S or even shorter throw AF-Ds.

I had a Sigma 150-500 for a short time. Nice lens though colors weren't very saturated from it.

 

[J-Cal]

Ok, well Nikon lenses for budget wildlife shooting... hmm...

The Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 would be a good place to start. Sigma and Tamron both make 150-600mm lenses and the older versions are generally in the $700 ish range, both of which work fairly well but you will need to practice with them most likely unless your used to shooting at long range already.

Stepping down from there I'd skip most anything in the 400mm range in the Nikon mount. The stuff that's affordable generally isn't that good and will have one problem or another such as doesn't autofocus very fast, doesn't produce good image quality, sometimes both, etc.

In the 300mm range best option would probably be an older 300mm prime, you can get a 300mm F4 without the built in motor for somewhere in the $300 range. Optics are outstanding. Only thing is if you want to add a TC be aware that nikkor TC's won't allow you to AF an older lens without the built in motor. For that you'll most likely need a Kenko - just understand that adding in a TC while it will give you some extra "reach" will affect the AF speed and as such might make it tougher to get shots like birds in flight, etc.

On a really tight budget you can also look at a 70-300mm zoom lens of some sort, if you do stick with either a Tamron 70-300mm with VC or the Nikkor 70-300mm with VR. You can get older, cheaper models without the image stabiilzation, etc.. however most of these are not really worth getting. They again have various problems like slow AF, poor image quality, etc.

Also, I didn't mean to say I was totally on a budget. In the Summer i'll have more disposable income so i'm not afraid of a lens with a pricetag of a grand. As an amateur i'm not sure I could justify a price of over $1,500, but i'd take a look.

I'd probably lean towards the 200-500mm 5.6 then, sounds like that would be a good fit for what your doing. The 150-600mm's, the G1 Tamron and the non-sports Sigma are in that price range too, I looked at both but as far as consistency I think the 200-500mm would probably yield the best over all results. The higher end Tamron G2 and Sigma Sports are more consistent from what I understand but of course there your looking at right around $1500 so as far as bang for the buck the 200-500 would probably be my first choice.

Thank you. I'll take a look.