camera lens for wildlife shots?
Feb 15th, 2006, 03:52 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
camera lens for wildlife shots?
I have a Nikon D 70 with two lens 18-70 and 80-200. I was debating about getting an extendor or another lens to be able to get good wildlife shots in Denali and Kenai Fjords. Any suggestions about lens length and whether to opt for a lens or extendor?
Feb 15th, 2006, 05:56 AM
#3
I would not use an extender either. But you could get a long, fixed focal length lens that would fit the Nikon D70 digital camera. I would get a 400mm at least, and take a tripod to steady it (which I'm sure you're already are going to do). It doesn't have to be one that's meant for a digital camera, just one that works with the Nikon back.
Feb 15th, 2006, 06:07 AM
#5
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the places you are going to shoot wildlife such as shuttle buses in denali, cruise ships, or smaller whalewatching tours and other bus tours don't really give you much chance to use tripod. I took a monopod for my day trip to Katmai NP and did use it all day. I shipped it home before our cruise started.
A compact 400mm lens is good for both wildlife and marine life. I used it on whalewatching and denali shuttle. Only once in three trips did it feel like I had to switch back to my 70-200 for a shot.
With your camera's multiple factor, your 300mm longest length may be ok, but you will not get lots of closeups. Matched 1.5 or 2x teleconverter may work but will be tough without tripod capability since your speed and light are reduced.
A compact 400mm lens is good for both wildlife and marine life. I used it on whalewatching and denali shuttle. Only once in three trips did it feel like I had to switch back to my 70-200 for a shot.
With your camera's multiple factor, your 300mm longest length may be ok, but you will not get lots of closeups. Matched 1.5 or 2x teleconverter may work but will be tough without tripod capability since your speed and light are reduced.
Feb 15th, 2006, 06:25 AM
#6
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you plan on carrying a tripod, I'd stick to the 200mm or invest in a 70-300mm zoom. While a 400mm prime is a great suggestion, both the cost and weight make it impractical for most amateurs.
I'm just back from Alaska and I took a Nikon D100 with Nikon's 80-200mm f2.8. The speed of the lens makes for clear imags and the resolution of the camera will allow you to crop to get larger images. I also took a Sigma 28-300mm (a great walking around lens) and Nikon 50mm f1.4.
As for the Sedona question and for landscapes in Alaska, I carry a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8 While I'd like to go a bit wider due to the teleconversion factor of the camera, the cost is again an issue.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with a good, matched teleconverter. The only issue with most people is the loss of 2 f-stops means that camera shake becomes an issue and most people end up with blurry photos. It's not an issue with the extender but with the speed of the lens and the ISO of the film (or the ISO set on a digital).
I'm just back from Alaska and I took a Nikon D100 with Nikon's 80-200mm f2.8. The speed of the lens makes for clear imags and the resolution of the camera will allow you to crop to get larger images. I also took a Sigma 28-300mm (a great walking around lens) and Nikon 50mm f1.4.
As for the Sedona question and for landscapes in Alaska, I carry a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8 While I'd like to go a bit wider due to the teleconversion factor of the camera, the cost is again an issue.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with a good, matched teleconverter. The only issue with most people is the loss of 2 f-stops means that camera shake becomes an issue and most people end up with blurry photos. It's not an issue with the extender but with the speed of the lens and the ISO of the film (or the ISO set on a digital).
Feb 15th, 2006, 08:36 AM
#7
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with astein12. I think an extender is fine. I have used one with a 70-200 for sports shots lots of times (with digital multiplication factor adding more reach). However, I agree that it can be a bit slow in low light without a tripod. Certainly at least a 400mm would be great to have, but you do have to balance it versus the high cost and weight.
Feb 15th, 2006, 12:34 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a 200 mm lens. For wildlife I think it is not enough unless you want to get too close for my comfort.
A 300 might be enough, but hmm.]
I have used a 2x extender on my 200 mm lens and the result was camera shake unless I had high ASA film and could keep the shutter speed faster 1/125 of a second.
Most 400 mm lenses are heavy and after using the lens, what are you going to do with it?? You might want to consider a monopod or a small tripod to help support the weight.
An extender usually costs you about two F stops. So if you can afford the longer lens, I would suggest that option. You can often find a good used lens at KLH Camera in Atlanta. I find that it has better prices than some of the New York camera specialty shops like B and H.
I have an 80-200 zoom, and it is a big rascal. Using it with an extender requires support.
Get at least ASA 400 film for your shooting. I am assuming you can stop it down, or compensate with shutter speed if you get a bright day and want to take closer range pictures in full sunlight.
I use a Minolta and it goes up to 1/1000 of a second and most of my lenses have a smallest opening of F22. I have never had a problem of too much light.
Usually, it is the reverse: not enough.
A 300 might be enough, but hmm.]
I have used a 2x extender on my 200 mm lens and the result was camera shake unless I had high ASA film and could keep the shutter speed faster 1/125 of a second.
Most 400 mm lenses are heavy and after using the lens, what are you going to do with it?? You might want to consider a monopod or a small tripod to help support the weight.
An extender usually costs you about two F stops. So if you can afford the longer lens, I would suggest that option. You can often find a good used lens at KLH Camera in Atlanta. I find that it has better prices than some of the New York camera specialty shops like B and H.
I have an 80-200 zoom, and it is a big rascal. Using it with an extender requires support.
Get at least ASA 400 film for your shooting. I am assuming you can stop it down, or compensate with shutter speed if you get a bright day and want to take closer range pictures in full sunlight.
I use a Minolta and it goes up to 1/1000 of a second and most of my lenses have a smallest opening of F22. I have never had a problem of too much light.
Usually, it is the reverse: not enough.
Feb 15th, 2006, 03:14 PM
#9
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Stillhouse stated, he is using it on a Nikon d70, so his 200 is at least 300mm, right? If he has a 2.8 as Astein has and I used to have, a 2x convertor still gives you pretty good speed. But if the 80-200 is a slower 4.5 lens, 2x converter is really going to be slow. How do the teleconverters work with digital? Any additional problems?
My Tokina 400mm,, 4.5 or 5.6 low dispersion glass is pretty sharp for typical amatuer use and not too big or heavy.
My Tokina 400mm,, 4.5 or 5.6 low dispersion glass is pretty sharp for typical amatuer use and not too big or heavy.
Feb 15th, 2006, 04:33 PM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never had any luck with an extender either. Several years ago I got a Tamron AF28-300 XR/A06M that I use on an older Minolta 7000i. Have enjoyed it since you have just about everything covered. Don't know how it would work on a digital. You could do as I did, take the camera to a shop and ask to try it on the camera you will be using.
