wildlife lense for a noob...

[Devananda]

just some thoughts...
I finely got me D80
I also got a nikon 18-70
now the big question I really like shooting wildlife and was looking to get a lens with some reach. my first thought are to go with:
nikon 70-300 G as it has good reviews and is pretty cheap.
other lens that are making me wounder are:
nikon 70-300 VR cost doube the G
nikon 80-200 F/2.8
is the VR worth the money???
any thoughts from you pros out there would be great. :thumbup:

 

[Big Mike]

For wildlife that may be standing still...VR would be an amazing tool to have. If you are shooting things that are constantly moving...then VR will still help...but not as much.

The problem with the 70-300 lenses...is the small aperture, which makes it hard to get a fast shutter speed. That's why the 80-200 F2.8 is so much better...the large maximum shutter allows for faster shutter speeds. VR helps to stabilize the lens and reduce blur from camera shake...but VR won't do anything to freeze a moving subject...only a faster shutter speed can do that.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The 80-200 f/2.8 is amazing. I have it and it's my sharpest lens with my 35-70 f/2.8 in a close 2nd. I think the choice is pretty obvious on what you should get. The 80-200 is sharper and you'll have less CA.

 

[Devananda]

OK I do think I am going to get the 80-200 F2.8.
do you guys think it I should buy it used or new??

OH and would love to see some pics taken with this lens
thanks

 

[Big Mike]

Good quality lenses are usually quite robust...and are often in good shape when bought used. However, it helps to buy from a reputable dealer or from someone with a good rating (if buying on EBay, for example). I've bought several used lenses with no trouble.

OH and would love to see some pics taken with this lens

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=Nikon+80-200+F2.8+example+photos&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Devananda]

what you you think is a good price for a used glass in good shape?
(nikon 80-200F2.8)

 

[Big Mike]

Check EBay auctions that have already finished...that should give you a clue as to what they are going for. Also, check the used section of B&H or Adorama...and check out www.KEH.com

 

[mascafe]

For wildlife photography the 80-200mm isn´t long enough. You need at least 400 or 500mm at the long end. The 80-400VR could be a good option, for less price you have the Sigma 135-400mm or the Sigma 170-500, which is a good recomendation for wildlife. You will need a good tripod, IR shooter, a good hide and a lot of patiente. Don´t forget to cancel your cellular phone´s volume.

My best regards.
www.juanparmenides.com

 

[Big Mike]

For wildlife photography the 80-200mm isn´t long enough.

Well what if the wildlife is only 20 feet away? Or what if it's only 3 feet away?

My point is that 'wildlife photography' is too broad a term to say whether a lens is too long or too short.

 

[Devananda]

well I still going back and forth about this.
I may just get the 70-300 G for now and start to save up for the 70-300 VR..
but at the same time I would like a fast lens...so it seams that the 80-200 is the all around best lens( for me @ this time) as far as speed, sharpness and price.
so I guess I just made up my mind typing this...lOL

 

[mascafe]

You can not shoot properly anything dangerous or frightened
animals in nature with 200mm.
Only you can shoot non dangerous animals or pets, or insects, of course.

Regards

 

[Devananda]

well I just got the 80-200....
what about putting a 2x telaconverter?

 

[mascafe]

Could be a good option, you will get a 400 f/5,6 , I would use it as a 400 f8 for better resolution in spite of speed. But put a good Teleconverter in the lens, with a 2x TC you will have a little quality lack. The better TC you get the less quality you loose. Anyway, you can improve your images later by software, but don´t expect miracles.

My best regards.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I agree, 200mm may be long enough for some wildlife. But when I say 200mm isn't long enough, I'm thinking in terms of 35mm. On your camera body, the 200mm will behave like a 300mm, which is pretty good. That's the start of serious telephoto for nature & sports photographers.

But if you can't get close enough with the 300mm equivalent, then you will do much better with the 70-300 VR. That lens will behave like a 450mm on the long end, and if it is a difference of filling the frame with a lesser 450mm that has VR and a 300mm that doesn't, your pictures will be much sharper with the VR. I also wouldn't worry much about subject motion, as most wildlife photography isn't really about action. Generally, wildlife photographers try to catch the subject stationary, though there are exceptions. When it is, you're panning anyhow.

You can bump up your ISO to 400-1600 to get faster shutter speeds with the slower lenses. Yes, you will get more noise (grain) in the pictures, but you have to pay the price somewhere, whether it is price & weight, or a bit of grain.

The 80-200mm f/2.8 will be of better optical quality than the 70-300, especially wide open. Narrower zoom range almost always means better optical quality. Also, lenses that were designed with large apertures, are always better at their larger apertures than the ones that weren't. They know that if you're paying the money for a large aperture lens, you're going to use it a lot at the larger apertures. The smaller apertures are sometimes not quite as good.

After all that, I think the best compromise of price, weight, telephoto magnification would be to spend the money on the f/2.8 with VR. "Buy once, cry once." People never complain about the performance, and you will be freed from the tripod for much of the time. Later on, if you find that isn't enough telephoto, you can try a quality teleconverter, or really start to invest in lenses. A common wildlife lens is a 400mm f/2.8, which go for over $7k. Most of us have to cut corners here, as we're not paying the bills with it.