New camera and long lens

[RobertSchuldenfrei]

Hi Everyone,

I have a friend in my condo who is going to buy a DSLR. Originally she was going to purchase a D40x with a "kit" zoom lens. When she asked me my opinion I asked her what types of pictures was she expecting to take. I knew that she is not a beginner, but I was surprised at her answer.

It seems she takes a lot of bird pictures at a great distance. I gave her some suggestions, but the good folks who hang out here probably have better ones.

Here was my line of reasoning: One, get a really long lens. The biggest one you can afford and carry. Marion is old, so weight is an issue. Two, go for the quality of the glass and not the features. Since she will be using the lens at its maximum range, zoom makes no sense to me. You might get more "bang for the buck" if you bought an old lens second hand. Even an old manual lens would work for her as auto focus and aperture have little value in her work.

I fear my lack of real knowledge may be sending her off in the wrong direction. What do you all think?

Thanks in advance,

Bob

[Not4wood]

Bob,

Truthfully, if she is going for longer shots for wildlife I think your correct in a single size longer lens. But, a Zoom like a 70-300 will also cover the areas that she might need. The problem in helping her is she has to realize that you buy equipment for what you don't need as well as for what you do. Limiting yourself to only a One MM Telephoto will also prevent her from doing any other kinds of Photography or how bout a subject (bird) a little closer then the lens would allow for a good shot??

You say she is a little older, I would then assume this lens would be VR Vibration Reduction correct?? Is money a problem for this little lady??? How does she feel about the quality?

In Nikon the D80 is only slightly more money then the D40X but I think the Kit lens is probably the same as my D80 Kit 18-135mm but its not VR. Me thinks at this time, she needs to go to a Photo Store with someone else that also knows technology and photography and see what they offer at what prices.

Now In My Honest Opinion:
I think buying the Kit Lens would be good for a start and if she feels she needs more she can always go for a 300 mm or 400 mm lens on top of that. I dont think she should just buy a body and a larger Telephoto cause it would limit her abilities to shoot anything else thats a lot closer. The only definate thing I would say is the VR Lens would be more important. I also agree with you about buying the best lens you can afford but picture walking around with a 400 or 500 Telephoto and all of a sudden a Dear walks into your sights and your now looking at the Deers One Eye instead of the whole Dear? A close up of the face I could see but you can't Zoom out with the Single MM Lens. I think if she buys the Kit Lens it wont help her in the VR catagory either. I just looked at the Nikon Lens site and I found this new lens,

(AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED) here is the link: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146

you could show her this and see what she says. I dont know the price from the details over at Nikon but a Photo shop would probably give her a few choices.

[Chuck S.]

Bob, I'm a birder and enjoy going out in the field with my 8x binoculars and 25x scope. I hoped to be able to photograph birds as well, but my results have been disappointing.

You are spot on - a long lens (beyond 300 mm) is really needed to get a decent-sized image that can be minimally cropped for birds 'at a distance'. I've tried with a 75-300 mm zoom and a 70-200 mm with 1.4x converter - still too short. I've thought about a 100-400 mm lens, but I'm not going to go that route because I believe it will still be inadequate.

What's interesting is how your 'mind's eye' plays tricks with you when looking through binoculars or a a long camera lens. You see the bird and it looks to be large; when you take the photo, however, you see how little of the field of view is taken up with your primary subject. The result is a lot of cropping and loss of image quality.

If I were to try a longer lens for wildlife photography, it would be a fixed rather than zoom and bright (i.e., f 2.8 if possible).

If she's going to get a DSLR for other purposes, she could proceed with a kit lens and rent a longer lens....

My two cents.

[Joe M]

This is a very interesting thread.

Bob, something you said intrigued me. "Two, go for the quality of the glass and not the features." I'm considering purchasing a Sony A700, one of the reasons being all the used Minolta lenses available at very reasonable prices. I looked at KEH (http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx) and they have a large choice of older Minolta lenses. My question is, how do you decide what is "good glass" and would work well with a modern DSLR?

Am I fooling myself thinking I can get an older lens that can perform like a modern lens. Or is quality glass, quality glass, no matter when it was manufactured?

[RobertSchuldenfrei]

Hi Everyone,

I may have failed to mentioned one point. If Marion goes the long lens route it will be in addition to a kit lens, not in place of.

I will keep reading this thread and learn more.

Cheers,

Bob

[Not4wood]

A fast answer to Joe: Using the "Older Lens" a lot or should I say most older lenses don't work with modern day Digital Bodies. The plane of Focus or the Curtain where the film or sensor is that the lens will focus its image on is in a different place. Some lenses will work but you must get advice from your Photo Store to see what they have to say about an older lens and which one will work for you.

Bob, in that case it changes everything. Under this new choice, I would go for the longest VR lens she can afford within her given budget. The only thing I would suggest after this is try to make sure the lens is also faster then f:4. For some reason, a lot of these lenses are very slow at F:4, and I would like to see if there are faster lenses down to maybe 2.8 or if there really good a 1.7 :D I am now on eBay looking around for a lens to recommend but everything I see is not worth the effort to even bother to post the link here. I had thought a had a great 1000mm lens, but it was a scam. It was a 500 mm lens with a Tele Converter, manual focus and the f:8 as a start was not worth the asking price. A real con put this one up. LOL

The most lenses I see are up to 300-400 mm some with a bad larger start and others aren't even worth a manual focus either. I'm very disappointed so far, I thought there would be a larger selection on higher power telephotos with VR capabilities for the Nikon Line. Even Sigma and Tamron dont offer that much but I haven't searched out there sights yet only from what I've seen on eBay.

[lexcell]

Let me throw my two cents worth in here. If your neighbor is really serious about bird photography she needs a 500mm or 600mm lens. These lenses are F4 which is relatively fast for such long glass. They are fairly heavy and very costly but that's the nature of the beast if she wants to capture birds.

There are some exceptions...there are several locations in Florida where the birds are quite habituated and fairly easy to get close to. But for most bird photography even a 400mm is not quite enough. If she is willing to compromise, the 200-400mm that Mark mentioned is a good lens, just a bit short for most bird photography.

There are Nikon teleconveters that are designed to fit these lenses that come in 1.4XX, 1.7X & 2X. The best option, in my opinion, is the 1.7X.

I would also recommend that she look at a D300 for bird photography. It is much faster and more responsive than either the D80 or the D40X.

This is going to cost quite a bit of money but the rewards are great with wonderful images.

I would have her double check the specifications of the lenses...weight, minimum focus distance and cost. The 600mm is very heavy, the 200-400mm & the 500mm are significantly lighter.

If you have seen my blog, all the photos I took in Bosque were with a 600mm and some had a 1.7X teleconverter as well.

[Chuck S.]

It goes without saying that Canon has cameras and lenses in the same performance ranges cited by Laurie....:)

[lexcell]

Thanks Chuck, that is correct. I went with Nikon because, she was originally considering a D40X but Canon is also a great option for birds in flight...just translate the figures into the equivalent Canon lenses and bodies.

[RobertSchuldenfrei]

Hi Everyone,

I have printed this out for Marion. These are all great suggestions. I fear that the weight issue will preclude her from buying the really long lens options, but this is up to her.

Thank you,

Bob

[Joe M]

Thank You Mark, that answered my question very well.

[Not4wood]

There are Nikon teleconveters that are designed to fit these lenses that come in 1.4XX, 1.7X & 2X. The best option, in my opinion, is the 1.7X.

If you have seen my blog, all the photos I took in Bosque were with a 600mm and some had a 1.7X teleconverter as well.

Laurie,

You obviously do recommend teleconverters and specifically the 1.7.

I would assume but I still have to ask just in case:
Do the Nikon teleconverters fit all Nikon lens since the mounts for the D series are all the same? Also, in the past history way back when we always tried to get the best quality lens for the money we had. We always didn't get the quality we wanted but felt that at that time teleconverters degraded the image and we were stubborn and didn't go that way.

In this high technology and quality world, is this statement false?

I just looked at the B&H site and the Nikon 1.7X isn't listed for use with the basic 18-135 mm kit lens? After just recently buying the camera D80, PE5 and then on this past Wednesday spending a lot more on Kitchen Appliances (replaced the Fridge and Stove) I don't think I will be buying a longer telephoto lens for a while :twisted:!!

Now are there any negative thoughts on using the teleconverters and why do you not recommend the 2X?

[Benny Pedersen]

I fear my lack of real knowledge may be sending her off in the wrong direction. What do you all think?

Thanks in advance,

Bob

Hi Bob

Old and New Lens:
http://home1.stofanet.dk/photo/post_elements/oldnewlens.jpg

OLD Lens: Canon EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
NEW Lens: Sigma 70-200mm

Ignore the difference in exposure, etc..., but notice the sharpness.
In my opion the one to the left is completly useless, and should have been deleted. The one to the right is better. Anyhow, For some reason or whatever, (as you can see on the right photo) I havn't been able to shot an image that is sharp using my Canon EOS 30D :confused:, but the image to the right is much better than the left one.
The experiment was done many times with the same result each time.

Benny

[ClickCardo]

I think a previous poster had it best about renting not buying big glass at first. The big glass your talking about can go $5,000 US. You could rent for a week for just a couple hundred and really find out for sure whether a particular lens meets your needs before spending $5k then selling it right away after you find out it doesn't.

[RobertSchuldenfrei]

Hi Benny,

I am going to set up a similar experiement with some lenses I have in my bag. But, since I am going out of town for a week, I will not get to it for some time. If I get what you got, it is really going to kill my pocketbook:). I have some gear I have not pulled out in years. Some of it goes back to my circa 1959 Nikon F!

Cheers,

Bob

[lexcell]

Hi Mark,
I do recommend teleconverters when appropriate. I use them myself.
To answer your question...no, the teleconverters do not fit all Nikon lenses. They are made to work with the higher end lenses...70-200mm 2.8 VR and up. They will not even mount on other lenses. This is why I like them...they are designed to work with specific lenses and the formula in the design allows the use of these quality teleconverters with the faster, long glass from Nikon. Unlike third party teleconverters which are one size fits all and have a noticeable loss of quality.

I like the 1.7X because I think it is the sharpest of the three even though they are all excellent.

[Not4wood]

Laurie,

Thank you. I wasn't expecting your answer for this turn in the quality of the tools.

Its a big difference from what I remembe when we were kids in college walking around with our cameras by our sides.

[RobertSchuldenfrei]

Hi Everyone,

I finally got around to testing my 5 lenses to see if there is a dramatic fall off in quality with the ones from my old N8008s. Because of the differences in focal length, I do not know how to present my findings like Benny did, with a side by side showing an object of the same appearent size. Here is how I set up the test: The camera was set to ISO 400, shutter priority, and I wanted to take the pictures at 1/60 sec. As it turned out each one of the lenses failed to stop down low enough. I therefore give you the shutter speed at which I took the shot.

1. The kit lens that came with my D70s, AF-S Nikkor 18-70 mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED - 1/80 sec.

2. Sigma 28 mm 1:1.8 - 1/100 sec.

3. Sigma 70-300 mm 1:4-5.6D DL Macro - 1/100 sec.

4. Nikkr 50 mm 1:1.4D - 1/200 sec.

5. Nikkor AF 35-135 mm 1:3.5-4.5 - 1/100 sec.

None of the above took a bad picture. Lens #1 is probably the best for sharpness, but as I said, none took a poor shot. I do not use lens #2 nor lens #5. I make use of lens #3 for its macro capability and the fact that it is the longest lens I own. I use lens #4 in low light settings.

If someone could tell me how to do a side by side display of the shot taken with lens #1 and lens #3, I will post it. I took both shots at the high telephoto setting of each lens. For lens #1 it was 70 mm and for lens #3 it was effectively 450 mm when adjusted for the sensor factor.

Cheers,

Bob

[Benny Pedersen]

I think I did something like this:

For my 200 and 300 mm focal shots. I draged one over with Shift.
Then resized down the 300 mm shot in blend mode difference.
Then back to Blendmode Normal, Opacity = 50%, and zoomed in 1600 %. Nudge 1 px in all 4 directions so I could see that they match.
Back to 100% opacity.
More Canwas and aligned with border (nudge) the other photo.
Save for Web...

Benny

[lowbone]

My primary interest is nature photography, especially birds so I will speak from my own experience and try to apply my comments to Robert's initial post. No lens is long enough when shooting birds. I see nature photographers stacking teleconverters on a 600mm lens and still wishing they had more but you mentioned your friend is old and maybe doesn't want to carry a fifteen pond lens or for that matter spend $7500 on one.
I shoot Canon so if this woman has a Nikon everything will have to be translated into Nikon products. I have three longish lenses. A 70-300, a 100-400 and a 400mm. For birds I wouldn't use anything shorter then 400. It is amazing how close you have to get to a bird in order to fill the frame with it. The 400mm prime is nice because it focuses faster then the 100-400 ( a prime will always lock focus faster then a zoom ) but it is not that much faster. The prime is also slightly sharper at 400mm then the zoom but not that much sharper The trouble with the 400mm prime is that it has a minimum focus distance of 12 feet as opposed to the minimum focus distance of 5 feet on the 100-400. So to sum it up, when the light is good and I can shoot at say 1/1000 of a second or faster and I am trying to shoot birds in flight the prime is terrific but when I'm walking through the woods and and the light is not the greatest and I don't know what I'm going to encounter the 100-400 is unbeatable, not just because of the focal length adjustability but because of the IS. I feel that IS or VR is mandatory on a lens of this length if used without a tripod. It not only allows you to shoot at a slower speed but it really helps to steady things in the viewfinder. At 400mm any slight tremor is magnified.
Finally, a lens of this length weighs about four pounds and is not cheap. The canon 100-400 sells for upwards of $1400 and the Nikon 80-400 is up there as well.
One thing I didn't consider, If she is planning to shoot out of her window,( feeder shots ) something like a 70-300 would be allot cheaper and allot lighter