Remember that thread on Cameras? Now lets talk about lenses . . .

[Chris Shelton]

#6001

Hey guys, I just bought a Nikon D5000 DSLR. I love it, and I got a good deal on it. It is my most important business asset, but I think I can manage a few trips with it along without having a nervous breakdown(worrying about scratches etc). I would really like to try my hand at some wildlife photography, but I dont want to break the bank as much, lol. The D5000 comes with an 18-55 mm lens, and to be honest this whole mm business is a bit confusing. I remember that there is alot of experience on here as far as photography goes. I got my eye on a 55-200 mm lens?!? Is that even close? Most of the videos I have taken were between 10-250 yards, and that was about as far as I photographed anything.

Thanks in advance

[Don Thomas]

#59030

Chris–I just got back to my computer, or I would have helped you with this one earlier. First, some basic optics. The human eye has a focal distance of 50 mm (actually, it’s usually closer to 52). That’s the way we see the world, and why a 50 mm lens is called normal. Higher numbers are “telephoto”; lower numbers are “wide-angle”. Both have their uses, but for wildlife you’ll need the first. A 300 mm is a great choice, especially if that’s at the high end of a zoom, so you can back off when you need to. Anything less than that will give you problems for serious wildlife work. Now, for reasons too complex to discuss, digital camera technology tend to “magnify” by about 25%, so a digital 300 acts more like a 400. Of course you pay for that on the other end–if you’re shooting wide angle, a 20 mm will produce images more like a 25 mm, but that’s not the problem here. The other essential feature in any lens is its maximum aperature–the smaller its lowest f-stop (2.8 for example), the more light it lets in, which has lots of advantages. However, you pay for that in terms of both cost and weight, and with digital technology allowing you to vary the ISO at will, that’s not as important as it used to be. For your current needs, I would recommend the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR. The VR (vibration reduction) technology means you won’t have to pack a tripod everywhere you go. If cost is a big issue, look at the comparable, Nikon-compatable lenses from Tamron and Tokina for big savings at very little cost in terms of image quality. Hope this help. Cheers, Don

5

[Patrick]

#59781

I would highly recommend the same lens Don suggested. It’s especially useful to have an image stabilizer when using such a lens. So much so, that I would recommend getting used to using what you have and saving up until you can afford it. A used one perhaps. BUT, I would really recommend getting comfortable with what you have, learning the limitations AND benefits of it first. There are SO many directions you could take, it’s pretty difficult to give you specific answers.

[Chris Shelton]

#59915

Thanks guys! I got my 70-300 mm in the mail yesterday. I unfortnatly bought it before reading these reply’s so it doesnt have VR:roll:, BUT I dont normally use VR when the lense does have it?? Maybe I should start. But most of my pics are either shot on a tripod or with enough light that the shutter speed is high enough that I dont really need it. I will post some pics I have taken here in a bit so you guys can see what it is. It was a pretty cheap lens, only about 169! It is manual only without VR so that is probably why, but the quality is still top notch.

[Chris Shelton]

#59938

Here are some. On all of these shots the lens was out to 300mm.

Little fawn

the only reason she is blurry is because she was bolting, lol

but that is basically what my set up can do, all of these shots were pretty close, like 70-80 yards max. I need to get a teleconverter for the feilds around here!

[Author]

Posts