|
Ouch!
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Just bring a strobe powerful enough to cook the bird from half a klick away and not worry about light. Hauling the battery into the woods will really show your dedication.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Can I get a recommendation for a long zoom lens for a crop-sensor Nikon? Right now I've got a 55-200 that I picked up for $40, and it's very solid for a lot of what I do, but lately I've been getting more interested in wildlife photography and birding and 200mm just isn't enough, especially in situations where I can't get closer (either for safety reasons or because I'd spook the animal). What kind of range should I be looking at, realistically? There's reasonably affordable 300mm lenses out there, but I honestly have no idea if that extra 100mm is enough. On the other hand, I don't really want to get into the super-zoom range where I'm walking around with a gigantic tube that I can't easily stow while I'm hiking or whatever. Some kind of vibration reduction would also be ideal, since I've found my wildlife shots are almost always chance opportunities where I don't have a chance to set up a tripod. With budget telephoto lenses you are making compromises on image quality, aperture for price and ease of use. If you have the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II it is a very good lens for the price. AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR is the other one to get. Harder to find the vr version at a reasonable price with the 300mm. The older lenses like the 55-300 have slower AF, and the newer lenses have some compatibility issues with older bodies. The 70-300mm lenses are softer than the 200mm lenses overall. At $1000-$1500 the Nikon 200-500mm, Tamron g2 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 sport are all excellent options for birding where longer reach is important. You can also use a teleconverter with these lenses, but generally not with the budget lenses. The 70-200mm, or 80-400mm VR, or fast 300mm lenses are similarly priced to the longer lenses, but are more versatile if you are also using these for sports, or events.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
There’s also the Sigma/Tamron 100-400 route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
President Beep posted:There’s also the Sigma/Tamron 100-400 route. I was looking at that one, too. Part of me feels like I should just save up and get the 200-500, but man that thing is considerably bigger and I really do like to keep my kit compact, which is why I had initially considered the Nikon 70-300 + a 1.4x teleconverter. But then I shoot mostly handheld, so adding a teleconverter on top of that would probably make getting sharp shots a lot harder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:I was looking at that one, too. Part of me feels like I should just save up and get the 200-500, but man that thing is considerably bigger and I really do like to keep my kit compact, which is why I had initially considered the Nikon 70-300 + a 1.4x teleconverter. But then I shoot mostly handheld, so adding a teleconverter on top of that would probably make getting sharp shots a lot harder. Even though you said you shoot handheld, you might want to consider a monopod. I just got one two days ago in an attempt to help take better pictures using my Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 without needing to take the time to set up a tripod. I'm hoping it will be a decent compromise between portability and reduction of camera shake without investing in a lens with a better f-stop. Though, I might be completely wrong, so maybe someone with more experience will be able to suggest whether it's a good idea or not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Something around 400mm would probably be a good choice. A 400mm prime (as opposed to a zoom - the word "zoom" does not mean "greater magnification", it means "variable focal length") would be big, but not nearly as big as the anti-aircraft cannons some of us carry around. I'm not at all knowledgeable about Nikon and third-party-for-Nikon options, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Something around 400mm would probably be a good choice. A 400mm prime (as opposed to a zoom - the word "zoom" does not mean "greater magnification", it means "variable focal length") would be big, but not nearly as big as the anti-aircraft cannons some of us carry around. I'm not at all knowledgeable about Nikon and third-party-for-Nikon options, though. Afaik the only 400mm prime lens for Nikon costs $11,000, which is miles outside of my budget. But even though the image quality would be better and it would have far superior low light performance, etc., I feel like a locked 400mm focal length would be a bit too niche. There have been plenty of times even with my 55-200 where I've gone from zoomed in all the way to backing off a bit for a more interesting composition, and I prefer to carry around as little gear as I can get away because I spend a lot of time in questionable places where having thousands of dollars hanging off of me is probably not a great idea. The 100-400 is looking pretty tempting the more I look around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Uh if you're gonna be birding it's not gonna be very often you'll be on the wider end of a long zoom. Hell I hardly left the 400-600 range of the sigma 150-600 I rented the few times I went birding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Uh if you're gonna be birding it's not gonna be very often you'll be on the wider end of a long zoom. Hell I hardly left the 400-600 range of the sigma 150-600 I rented the few times I went birding. I was more looking for something that could be used for birding but still had the versatility for other stuff. I do more landscapes and general wildlife photography than birding specifically, so I'm trying to find something that will let me do all three even if it's not perfect. I just hate when I'm out shooting other stuff and see a really cool bird but can't get close enough to get a decent shot, and I'm not at the point where I can afford niche lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Most landscape is done well under 100mm. You can do longer lengths and there are certainly very good pictures out there taken at the long end but obviously the majority of shots are gonna be 50mm or wider. A long lens is gonna be geared towards two things: wildlife (including birds) and sports (including motorsports). So pick something that works for those because otherwise you're gonna make some tough compromises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
I got the standard two lenses 24-70, 70-200 and a teleconverter. I used to have the 400mm f5.6, but found that most stuff 400mm out is too far for sharp photos and only good for headshots of birds and stuff. And yes I tried 800mm a few times which all came out poorly. It was almost always better to crop in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of my Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 (the current version). The size is so much more manageable than the 200-500 and it covers the wider end so I could sell my 70-200 f4. So far I'm really happy with it even though you're obviously compromising a little to get the size+range. Used it wasn't much more than a new 200-500 either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
I often see a lot of very good landscape photographers who use Canon mention using the 100-400 II. Long focal length are too often underrated for landscape photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Long focal length are too often underrated for landscape photography. This. I'm a big fan of tele-landscapes. Grizz, a zoom range is nice, yes. But if you need flexibility, you change lenses. That's how you break away from the compromises inherent in a lens that tries to do everything. What third-party lens makers built a 400mm f/not-terrible lens for Nikon? That focal length, often paired with a maximum aperture of F/5.6, was very popular during the film era of the 1980's and 1990's, and I believe current Nikon DSLRs are pretty good at backwards compatibility. What's the second-hand market like?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
The 300mm f4 without VR plus a teleconverter is the classic affordable Nikon telephoto prime. Used I think you’d be under a grand for both, but it’s been a while since I was looking. The extra flexibility of a zoom was extremely worth it for me though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Have any 3rd party manufacturers made a fast super-telephoto, zoom or prime? Anything I can think of is really slow (and a zoom).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Have any 3rd party manufacturers made a fast super-telephoto, zoom or prime? Anything I can think of is really slow (and a zoom). Sigma has that new 500mm f/4 in their sport lineup. A pretty affordable 6k!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
There's the Sigma 500 f/4 ($6k) and the 300 f/2.8 ($3300) and if you can find it maybe a 500mm f/4.5 APO ($4k) (I can only locate that in Canon mount) Nothing in a Sigma/Tamron 400mm f/4 like you'd really want in that off-brand, sub $1500-2k niche. I'm going to be renting the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport (which I think is about $3300 as well retail) for a trip as it provides more reach than the 70-200 while being a little more than half the price of the first party 300 f/2.8 IS/OS/VR or about a third the price if you throw in the 70-200 2.8 IS/OS/VR to go with it. Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have the f/5.6 400mm option that Canon does as that's only about $1200 in first party glass which isn't too shabby all things considered for a supertele. E;f;b: oh well, I think I added some worthwhile extra info.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
KennyG posted:There's the Sigma 500 f/4 ($6k) and the 300 f/2.8 ($3300) and if you can find it maybe a 500mm f/4.5 APO ($4k) (I can only locate that in Canon mount) Some of the reviews I've read for the 120-300 say that it's virtually identical in optics and stabilization to it's EX predecessor except for being heavier for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Holy Cow. I didn't realize all of those options were out there. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Some of the reviews I've read for the 120-300 say that it's virtually identical in optics and stabilization to it's EX predecessor except for being heavier for some reason. I just looked, but at this point the EX's for Canon seem to be in short supply. Quick Googling has not shown they hold up well - many of the used listings I saw for Canon were "parts" or "Fair-" Renting seemed like a decent way to try it, but $2300 for a used copy starts to get enticing.  god drat you photography hobby and your insane expenses distorting reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I just looked, but at this point the EX's for Canon seem to be in short supply. Quick Googling has not shown they hold up well - many of the used listings I saw for Canon were "parts" or "Fair-" I've started getting into old Minolta manual focus stuff. Much cheaper fix for GAS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
This gives me a lot of interesting stuff to look into, thanks! I'm still way too far at the amateur hobbyist side of the spectrum to be dropping 3k+ on a lens (that's almost 8 times what I've paid for my current body + 3 lenses), but maybe I can poke around for some older lenses that might give me extra reach without breaking the bank. I didn't realize Nikon cameras were that easy to slap old third-party lenses on. I still might end up picking up a Sigma 100-400 just because it seems like it could pretty easily replace my 55-200 for pretty much anything I usually use that for, and from looking at the flickr galleries for it, it seems like I could still get some pretty good bird shots out of it while I'm out poking around for other wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
There are quite a few reviews of the Sigma on youtube. Opinions seem to be pretty favorable too. ~$700 new isn’t too bad, but it’s not a fast lens. I’ve got a different Sigma lens from their less expensive Contemporary line, and I think it’s a nice piece of equipment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I've started getting into old Minolta manual focus stuff. Much cheaper fix for GAS. So true. I picked up a fantastic kit built around, well, the sweet metal briefcase the XG1 came in for like $75 in an auction at a thrift store. I overbid because I really wanted it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
I love all my Minolta gear, affordable and fantastic. I lucked out and got an X-570 for $75, don't think there's a better SLR for a beginner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
I snagged a Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 for 8 bucks on ebay the other day. Just needed some fiddling with the aperture to put it back into perfect working condition. e: They don’t go for a ton in general, but that’s exceedingly cheap, especially at the buy it now price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Have any 3rd party manufacturers made a fast super-telephoto, zoom or prime? Anything I can think of is really slow (and a zoom). Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. Known as the 'Sigma Bazooka'. Also it's $26,000 and 16kgs/35 pounds  
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
you can't post that without quoting your favorite amazon review of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
I’d heard that the nazis had been working on a third Vengeance Weapon...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
xzzy posted:you can't post that without quoting your favorite amazon review of it I can’t imagine they have sold that many. Tens maybe. There are more comedy reviews than sales for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I can’t imagine they have sold that many. Tens maybe. There are more comedy reviews than sales for sure. Out of 110 reviews, exactly one is verified, and it reads, in its entirety: "Quick shopping. Great products. For the size, received it quickly."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I can’t imagine they have sold that many. Tens maybe. There are more comedy reviews than sales for sure. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
So I’m gonna pull the trigger soon and cop a Fuji XT20. KEH has it for like 600 bucks and a one year warranty, but i’m wondering if it would be worth it to cop it new from Fuji to get a 2 year warranty (which would come out to around 750 bucks). I presume KEH has a good track record with returns and whatnot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Head Bee Guy posted:So I’m gonna pull the trigger soon and cop a Fuji XT20. KEH has it for like 600 bucks and a one year warranty, but i’m wondering if it would be worth it to cop it new from Fuji to get a 2 year warranty (which would come out to around 750 bucks). KEH is hot garbage ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
I bought a used 7D from them in March. USB connector crapped out one month later. After some quick emailing, I had an RMA and a prepaid fedex label from them in-hand. Sent the camera in, a few days later they confirmed the fault and sent me an equivalent replacement. I was only out some time and the use of a camera for a week or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
I've never bought anything digital from keh, but their film / manual stuff has always been great for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
I think KEH is actually pretty bad now after new ownership. This is just from reports online though, haven't used them in a long rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 09:09
|
|