Help with Nikon zoom lenses versus prime lenses plz.

The only zoom lens I currently own is a Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5

I keep it in case I need a zoom lens when I'm unable to "zoom with my feet" (Boats, kayaks or whatever).

That said, it compares favourably with my Nikkor 105 /2.5 and 200 /4.0.
Logically, I should use it more often, I just don't like zooms...

 

for many years my favorite nikkor was an 80-200 2.8, it is very sharp;but it is now sitting on the desk as i have a 70-200 2.8 vr lens and it too is terrific, but only need to lug one around.

when zooms first came out i hated them because they weren't very good, but times are much different now and they are better made (please let's not start a war about prime vs zooms). It all comes down to what is going to work for the individual.

perhaps you could borrow one and /or rent one for the day and check for yourself.

 

Zoom or prime, if it's for bird pics. you'll need a minimum of 400mm.

 

Perhaps the lowest cost (and lightest!) entry will be the Nikon 300/4, which is quite good. The 300/2.8 is known to be better (especially if you use a TC) but the 2.8 is of course much heavier and more expensive. Anyway my avatar was taken handheld with the 300/4 on an F100, so... it's fast enough for that kind of thing and light enough to chase hummers

If you want to go a lot longer on a budget: I have also used a manual focus mamiya 500mm (for the m645 family) on my Nikon bodies, using an inexpensive adapter available on ebay. The results were very good.

I once had a manual 400/3.5 and it was great fun for birds out the window, but it was too heavy to take out in the field. After many months of not using it I sold it. But it is very good if you have the patience to set it up and wait for something to wander into your shot.

 

I wish you luck. But I have bad news. There is no such thing as inexpensive lenses that will do the job shooting birds. Any inexpensive lens you get will frustrate you and make you yearn for something longer and faster and sharper when it is long and fast.

In the manual focus domain, you might be able to pick up a 300mm f4 AIS lens for a couple hundred dollars. Another choice, if you can find one, is the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f4 zoom. You might find one of those for $100-125 and it's quite good. But it won't do as well with a teleconverter as the Nikkor 300mm f4 will. And you will want a teleconverter, because 300mm is nowhere near long enough with the full 35mm frame. You'll want to get to 600mm at least, which means a 2x TC on a 300mm lens.

But your frustration will really begin when you realize that manual focus gear is very limiting when shooting birds. And the current autofocus lenses that are long enough and fast enough all have an extra digit in the price. And it gets worse from there.

 

The minimum entry choice for birding is 300mm.

Given that the pro sports shooters keep the prices of beater 300mm f2.8s over $1,000 your best entry choice is the 300mm f4.5 ED-IF made in the mid nineties.
You can recognize it by the fact that the lens barrel is a constant diameter until you get to the objective (front) lens element which is housed in a larger (77mm) cylinder about three inches long.
Because its internal focus (IF), the focus is smooth and light making for easy follow focus once you get the hang of it.

There used to be a wildlife photography magazine here in the US that published lots of bird photos along with the technical details of how they were made.
A very large number of very excellent shots were made with the 300/4.5/EDIF often coupled to the TC-200 teleconverter so I'll say IT CAN be done.

A handy tip I learned from reading about the birders was the use of a tripod attached to the lens tripod socket supplemented by a monopod screwed into the camera body to create a very rigid four footed platform for shooting long glass at low shutter speeds.

Good luck with you project you will find it challenging and be warned you may become obsessed. Mastering the technique for this sort of thing can become a passion of it own before you know it.

Another thing, hanging out with other birders - particularly birding photographers - will bring you into contact with all sorts of exotic home-brew gear created to help get the shot.

 

Nikon's 300mm f4.5 AIS is significantly improved over the earlier 300mm f4.5 AI which was derived from the earlier Nikkor-H. Surprisingly, the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f4 zoom is also clearly better than the Nikkor 300mm f4.5 AI at 300mm. I owned both of these, and when I compared the Tokina to the Nikkor, it wasn't close st 300mm, so I sold the Nikkor. I would drop that one from consideration, and either get a more recent AIS version of the Nikkor prime, or the Tokina AT-X 100-300 if you can find it - it's a really wonderful lens, and it's beautifully built too. Given the practical advantage of a 100-300 zoom just from a framing perspective, I would jump on that one if you could find it. It's also not any larger and heavier than a 300mm f4 prime, surprisingly.

The main advantage to the 300mm f4.5 Nikkor AIS Prime vs. the Tokina 100-300 is that the Nikkor is better when used with a good 2x converter.

I should add that I also found and own, a mechanical beater, but optically excellent 300mm f2.8 AI Nikkor ED IF. That is optically the best of all, both on it's own and especially with a 2X converter - but it's huge and heavy, and I generally hate to carry it around, so I much more frequently use the much lighter Tokina 100-300mm lens in the field if I won't be needing a converter.

One more point - most of my actual use of these lenses has been with digital. I only mention this because of the crop factor, and that I'm getting the effective field of view of a 450mm lens on film. I really don't think that for birding, a 300mm lens without a TC is long enough most of the time on the full 35mm frame.

 

You have two main options as I see it:

1) Stick with the budget lens range. Probably frustrating as you won't get the wide aperture or first-class optics to do the job properly

2) Go for the top-end lenses (second hand, as you say). Check the "Aperture Photographic" website:

http://www.apertureuk.com/

They're based at 44 Museum Street, London - near the British Museum in Bloomsbury and they usually have some older long focal length Nikon fit 'fast' lenses. Not cheap but they get the job done.

A third option would be to consider digital. I know you say you've already tried that but issues regarding misfocusing and poor exposure are nothing whatsoever to do with whether the camera is digital or analogue. That's down to how well you know how to use the kit you have. Shutter lag on DSLRs is a thing of the past as well.

I've used digital gear alongside analogue for years. Even a 6 year old Nikon D70 has virtually zero shutter lag and is more than capable of producing excellent images of wildlife. The other good news is that the crop sensor means that if you're using a 300mm lens, it instantly becomes a 450mm lens - a VERY useful tool to have in your armoury.

Add a 2x converter and crank the ISO up to 800 and you'll still get some excellent quality images on what is effectively a 900mm lens. If you buy a second hand D200 or D300 (quite plentiful and very good value right now) you will have a superb set up.

Also, the D70, D200and D300 will spot meter, centre weight and average meter - so no more worrying about exposure, and you'll be able to see what you've shot immediately afterwards.

I'm not being disrespectful to analogue gear as I have more of it than digital equipment, but I bet Eric Hosking would be using digital equipment to shoot birds if he were still alive and Heather Angel and Andy Rouse (two of the best bird / wildlife photographers alive today) use digital gear.

Analogue equipment is wonderful for most photography but there are times when the ability to see what you've just shot and re-shoot, if necessary, is a distinct advantage as it takes an awful lot of the guesswork out of the process.

Ultimately, it's your choice.

 

Good morning, Steve;

Normally I am using something in the range of 300 mm to 500 mm on a 35 mm camera. If I go longer than that, usually it is with a fixed setup when I know where the bird will be, such as a nest hole in the tree trunk, or something similar. Trying to just find something even sitting still with the longer lenses while looking through the viewfinder can be frustrating. It takes a while. The Wimberley tripod head does make a difference in your tracking.

A Townshend's Warbler has been my most surprising so far. He was in a group of Siskins. That female Pileated Woodpecker has proven remarkably elusive so far. I have almost caught her three times now at the suet feeder. If anything moves, she is gone.

 

The Nikon 300/4 is a very good performer. It is well built and travels well. Also has a drop-in filter compartment which I like.

I see why others are suggesting longer lenses but... that is an argument that can be taken to endless extremes. Use your imagination and your patience and a good prime like a 300mm (maybe with a 1.4 tc) and you will get results that you like. If you later decide that you must have a zoom then go on and get a 200-400 VR, but for now, I'd say get something you can use to get your feet wet, will have other uses (like maybe sports or wildlife) and be confident that the lens will stay in your arsenal even if you do later decide you want something longer.

 

Steve, I'm surprised to hear that you didn't enjoy using an E-510 in manual mode. Frankly, I really enjoy using Olympus DSLRs for birding because of the 2X crop factor, and they make really nice manual cameras when a legacy manual lens is used on them. I use my Nikon 300mm f2.8 and my Tokina 100-300 AIS mount lens on my Olympus E-300 and E-1 bodies quite often. Actually, they are quite nice, just set the aperture, set the focus, and leave the camera on Aperture priority automation and let it set the shutter speed - they work quite nicely. This first shot was taken with my E-300 and my Nikon-mt. Tokina 100-300mm lens:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m288/dougjgreen/Miramar Air Show/MAS-6-small.jpg

This was shot with my Olympus E-1 and the 300mm f2.8 Nikkor with a 2X teleconverter:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m288/dougjgreen/birds/Humbird1.jpg

 

If I were a serious birder, I would use a 400mm f/2.8 on a Wimberley tripod head.

Since I am not that serious, I shoot birds with a 400mm f/5.6 on a Wimberley tripod head.

 

Ooogh I honestly cannot take the oly dslr viewfinders.

Anyway here is a test snap with a Nikon D200 + mamiya 500mm, manual everything, handheld. Warning/disclaimer, this was a digital product. In my defense, I got rid of the D200 in about 2 weeks. It was a good 1.5 x tc for my lenses, but then I tried a full-frame digital and that was that, for my digital needs.

 

***But anyway, let us not make this a digital vs film debate, else we all get banned!***

Well I'm a film user and I find your view very interesting.....how do many of the digital guys think how millions of photographers coped, before digital was invented.

 

Steve, no offense intended, but I don't think the problem is with your camera. If you're not willing to take the time to learn whether "is that more or less exposure than F7.1 at 1/80? Or F5 at 1/50?", then you're not going to be happy using any camera on a manual setting. And a film camera -much as I love 'em- is not going to solve your problem.

Regards,

 

I have to agree with Steve.
Dealing with decimal stops is far different than fractional stops. Especially when the decimal is an LCD display and the fractions are shutter speed dial and aperture ring.
I guess that's why it's called analog.

 

Of course if budget permits you could opt for a 300mm/F2.0 http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-30...6387782QQptZCameraQ5fLensesQQsalenotsupported

 

One also needs to budget for a very brawny security guard to both carry and protect that lens. Rumor has it that less than 20 of those lenses were ever made. And just think - If I sold one of my cars, I could own one.

 

If it's any comfort to you, I do totally agree with what you said.

"Analogue" settings usually involve well-recognisable f-stops and shutter speeds; the user can decide (according to brands, ect..) whether and how to set intermediate speeds and diaphragms.

...An analogue way of thinking!

Dealing with values such as f/7.0 and 1/70 shutter speeds requires some (or a great deal of) mental recalculation, not something easily doable on the spur of the moment.

 

I also agree with you Steven_e007. I think that there's a very significant untapped market out there for an electro-mechanically operating DSLR that would conceptually be like a Nikon FM-class or Olympus OM-class body with a digital sensor. I'd expect that nearly everyone on this forum would love to buy such a thing, if it cost anything close to what a current mid-upper level DSLR cost (i.e. between $1-2K for the body).