Wildlife lens recommendation - DPChallenge Forums

04/14/2008 03:01:03 PM · #1

I like to shoot wildlife, rodeo and landscapes. Last year I got a nikon 70-300mm VR for my summer travels. I was somewhat pleased but not blown away. I like the VR and the extra 100mm over a 200mm lens. However, I am currently considering the 80-200mm 2.8 lens without VR. (The lens with the VR seems to be unavailable and it's out of my price range).

So my questions are these;
1) would it be worth it to give up the 100mm for the faster glass?,
2) is the lack of VR something to worry about?
3) will using a teleconverter give me good results,
4) would the 80-200mm make the 70-300 lens I have obsolete?

Your opinions would be appreciated.

04/14/2008 05:57:49 PM · #2

bump

Citadel

Nikon D7500

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/14/2008 06:03:57 PM · #3

200 mm is quite a bit less zoom all things considered however the f/2.8 is quite fast so you can shoot in lower light conditions. Wildlife are easier to find during dusk and dawn which aren't the brightest conditions. For rodeos 200 mm is plenty for zoom. (I found that with my 70-300 mm I was working around 80 mm for shooting chuckwagons.) For indoor rodeos you'll like the f/2.8. The 70-300 mm might sit and collect durst but its handy for the extra zoom. You may want to rent the 80-200 mm to see how much you'll miss the extra zoom.

Message edited by author 2008-04-14 18:04:44.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/14/2008 06:09:30 PM · #4

You'll appriciate the faster (2.8) lens when it comes to stopping action. While VR is very helpful in reducing the motion of the person holding the caera, it does nothing to stop the action of a fast moving subject.

Sports photography, rodeo included, requires a minimum shutter speed of 1/500, faster if possible. If you are shooting in low light and want a decent ISO rating, the 2.8 will come in very handy.

If you get the shutter speed you need, VR becomes a moot point. Camera movement will not be a factor with a 200mm or 300mm lens when shooting at 1/500 or faster.

Nikon makes a very good 1.4x tele-converter. You do lose 1 stop of light though, so a 200mm f2.8 becomes a 280mm f4.0. All the same rules about stopping action still apply.

I would say that an 80-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter will make your 70-300 obsolete unless you wanted to keep it around for when you don't want to carry the weight of the 80-200 2.8. It is a pretty heavy lens.

Good luck.

Message edited by author 2008-04-14 18:10:03.

04/14/2008 06:27:14 PM · #5

Thanks Craig- A Guiness for you.

Anyone else who has the 80-200? Is the teleconverter effective? I know I lose a stop, and that the VR doesn't stop action, but will there be shooting situations where I'll miss the VR?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

04/14/2008 06:56:37 PM · #6

Thanks Dave. So I guess I'll end up selling the 70-300 after I get the 80-200.

But does anyone know about the 70-200 f/2.8 VR? The places I've looked don't seem to have them. Is it not being made? Has it been replaced?

Ironworker

Nikon D70

04/14/2008 07:54:55 PM · #7

I have the 80-200, in the push-pull version. Since I got it my 70-300 (non VR) has been sitting in the bag. The difference in picture quality is amazing. I did miss the last 100mm of the 300. So I have bought a 3x teleconverter, along with the 300 f4. Those are for shooting wildlife. For sports, indoor activities, I use the 80-200. I recommend to you to go with the 80-200, & get a teleconverter.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/15/2008 10:49:17 AM · #8

The 80-200 is as good optically as you'd ever want, far better than the 70-300, even with a 1.4x TC attached. VR would be nice, of course, but I can't justify the price, either.

The downside if the 80-200 is that it's quite heavy. Most guys can handhold it, at least for awhile, but I have to use a sturdy tripod or monopod to take more than a couple of shots. After I bought it, I ended up getting a sturdier tripod and monopod, because the cheap ones I had couldn't support the weight.

The 80-200 with the 2x TC is long enough for a lot of wildlife, but I don't get the quality out of the 2x TC that I get from the 1.4x. I don't know if it's an optical problem or a problem with my technique. Probably some of both. I'd like to be able to afford a 400 or 500 prime, but that's not going to happen soon.

I sold my 70-300 a few months after I got the 80-200. I just never used it anymore.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/15/2008 11:23:34 AM · #9

I believe these were all taken with a Sigma 50-500...

Rodeo, by

Judi (using Canon version)

A decent collection taken with the Nikon version of the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX DG HSM.

I'm still learning the capabilities of mine, but like it so far.

Message edited by author 2008-04-15 11:57:09.

GabrielS

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

04/15/2008 11:50:38 AM · #10

I would consider the sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM.

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=601

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

04/15/2008 01:09:46 PM · #11

You can not beat the optical and build quality of the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR or the Nikon 80-200 2.8. You will pay in terms of weight and cost however. That said it is difficult to get one lens for both sports (rodeo) and wildlife. Either of the above lenses will do great for sports but will fall short on reach for much wildlife, especially birds. I have used my 70-200 VR with a 1.4 and 1.7 TC often for wildlife but always had to do quite a bit of cropping. I ended up buying the Nikon 80-400 VR and love it but miss the speed of my 70-200. That is the compromise you will face.

Good luck in your hunt.

Message edited by author 2008-04-15 13:20:20.

Nuno

Nikon D700

Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-400mm f/4-8

04/15/2008 01:16:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by GabrielS:

I would consider the sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM.

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=601

I second this opinion. 200mm is very shor to shoot wildlife, unless you're in the zoo. I would only recommend the 80-200mm f2.8 for wildlife with the 2x teleconverter or at least the 1.7x (you will only loose 1 1/2 stops)

This sigma is very well reviewed over the net, and it seems to be very well build. If the f2.8 isn't a priority I would look for this one.

Regarding the VR, it's almoust useless for moving subjects, aside some pannig shots. I've only gone for the 70-200mm f2.8 VR for portraiture, where sometimes in weddings in shade or poorly light churches I can go and shoot at 1/30sec at 200mm and have crisp images.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

04/15/2008 03:33:22 PM · #13

I've had good luck shooting wildlife, including birds, with the 50-500mm Sigma.
At around 6 pounds, it's a little heavy, but not awful to handhold for flying birds.

Don't know how it would be for rodeo type images.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/15/2008 03:47:28 PM · #14

4.1 pounds

Originally posted by sfalice:

At around 6 pounds, it's a little heavy, but not awful to handhold for flying birds.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

04/15/2008 04:45:10 PM · #15

Originally posted by hopper:

4.1 pounds

Originally posted by sfalice:
At around 6* pounds, it's a little heavy, but not awful to handhold for flying birds.

* including camera, batteries, memory card...
(joking)
you're right it's 4.1 pounds; just seems like 6 pounds after a day in the field. my bad.

MaryO

Nikon Z8

04/15/2008 05:07:07 PM · #16

Originally posted by Nuno:

Originally posted by GabrielS:
I would consider the sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM.

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=601

I second this opinion.

Me, three :-) I also got a 1.4x Sigma teleconverter which puts me at 420mm f/5.6 at the outside; not bad at all for the $$ and I have been quite happy with the results. I do use this combination a LOT and I think the teleconverter is starting to get mechanically stretched a bit at the connections as the camera occasionally can't find the lens. A twist sets everything right again but wandering around with the lens hanging off the teleconverter for the past year may have stressed the teleconverter too much.

I do prefer manual exposure with this lens, as the camera and I often disagree on what I need for flying birds and such. But it has been fabulous for wildlife and (personal hobby) dog shows.

04/15/2008 10:35:33 PM · #17

Thanks everyone. These are some good things to consider.

How would the Sigma 50-500mm be for shooting sports though? I'm concerned it wouldn't be fast enough as I currently haven't had the best results with my nikon 70-300 at f/4.5.

hotpasta

Nikon D800

04/15/2008 10:42:17 PM · #18

How about a 100-300 F4 Sigma...I adore that lens! Great for sport and wildlife. I took it to Kenya and it is superfast and sharp as a tack!

hotpasta

Nikon D800

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/15/2008 10:43:05 PM · #19

Also, I have the 50-500 which is also a fabulous lens, but is a little slow and you need a solid set of arm muscles to carry it all day

JaimeVinas

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/15/2008 10:44:00 PM · #20

I have a 100-400 and it works wonders for me. :)