Lens selection help please
Feb 12, 2017 02:20:44 #
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'm travelling later this year to northern Canada and Greenland and need help on deciding which lens to purchase. I already have the nikon AFS 24-70 ED 2.8 and nikon AFS 70-200 2.8 G2ED. With the wildlife that I hope to encounter I think the 70-200mm even with a TC14E 1.4 converter will not give me a enough reach.
I'm considering purchasing either the nikon AFS 28-300mm or the nikon prime 300mmF4. I would then leave the 2 heavy lens at home.
Can anyone assist with some views on which would be the better lens to take on my trip. The primary purpose is to shoot wildlife.
Thanks in advance
Russ
I'm considering purchasing either the nikon AFS 28-300mm or the nikon prime 300mmF4. I would then leave the 2 heavy lens at home.
Can anyone assist with some views on which would be the better lens to take on my trip. The primary purpose is to shoot wildlife.
Thanks in advance
Russ
Feb 12, 2017 02:52:16 #
Russ1700 wrote:
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'... (show quote)
I am a Canon user so can only advise in generalities.
I hate to say this but if you want to be ready for anything you need the two lenses you have plus a long lens for the wildlife.
Many of the Nikon users here have the 200-500. You would have 24-500 covered in three lenses. And you will find yourself wanting even more reach. When it comes to birds and wildlife there is no such thing as too long. (Or for that matter "long enough") A Sigma or Tamron 150-600 might allow you to get away with only two lenses and just hope you won't regret not having the 70-150 range covered.
You could also go with your 610, your choice of the three long lenses and a good pocket zoom for everything the big rig doesn't cover.
Feb 12, 2017 03:17:48 #
I agree, think the 200-500 would be your best choice. And bring the 1.4 converter also and the 24-70.
Feb 12, 2017 04:39:55 #
Russ1700 wrote:
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'... (show quote)
If you are talking about Bears, Moose, etc. as wildlife, you need the longest lens you can get. Yes, a 200-500mm. You might even consider renting a huge fast 800mm lens for the trip. A pro wildlife photographer that I know does not own really massive lenses, she rents $10,000+ Canon Teles and Zoom Lenses for the trip or assignment. I believe her longest owned lens is a 100-400mm with a 1.4x extender. And that was purchased used. She and her husband own or rent in duplicate so they have paired cameras and lenses for everything.
Feb 12, 2017 08:03:19 #
The main reason that I wish to leave my 2 existing lens at home is the extra weight on the plane and carrying them around on long hikes etc. Therefore the nikon 200-500 or the tamron 150-600 doesn't solve this problem.
Feb 12, 2017 08:27:37 #
The 28-300 is appropriately criticized by many; it is not a pro lens. But for many serious photographers, it is considered an acceptable travel lens.
Feb 12, 2017 09:19:00 #
Other tboughts...
Buy the 150-600 ( have the sigma 150-600c and its a beauty...newest Tamron may even be better). Buy a wide angle 16-35mm and bring it. Leave the 24-70 at home. You can crop any 35mm photos you take and the 16 end will give you breathtaking vistas on a FF body. Wildlife and vistas will be what you will shoot and the odd friends photo)
If you had a crop camera....you could get a cheap wide angle vs the 16-35. Plus the crop would give you equiv 1.6x600 = 960mm tele on canon( ...nikon i think is 1.3 or 1.5 ....need to look that up)
I like the idea of renting an 800 but it will be HUGE.
Buy the 150-600 ( have the sigma 150-600c and its a beauty...newest Tamron may even be better). Buy a wide angle 16-35mm and bring it. Leave the 24-70 at home. You can crop any 35mm photos you take and the 16 end will give you breathtaking vistas on a FF body. Wildlife and vistas will be what you will shoot and the odd friends photo)
If you had a crop camera....you could get a cheap wide angle vs the 16-35. Plus the crop would give you equiv 1.6x600 = 960mm tele on canon( ...nikon i think is 1.3 or 1.5 ....need to look that up)
I like the idea of renting an 800 but it will be HUGE.
Feb 12, 2017 10:24:36 #
Russ1700 wrote:
The main reason that I wish to leave my 2 existing lens at home is the extra weight on the plane and carrying them around on long hikes etc. Therefore the nikon 200-500 or the tamron 150-600 doesn't solve this problem.
Ok, I understand. But you must keep in mind that you gain nothing but less weight if you get the 28-300 because it is not compatible with the teleconverter, meaning you could as well leave that at home.
Maybe you should consider buying a whole new setup for this kind of trips. A Nikon 1 J5 or Nikon 1 V3 with a kit lens plus a 70-300 lens would give you the same reach as if you had a full frame camera and 800 mm lens. But the total weight will be less than your D610 body alone. Of course you will not get the same quality pictures as if you were travelling with D610 and 800 mm lens, but probably you get much better pictures from this combo than from D610 and the 28-300 lens and you will be travelling light.
Feb 12, 2017 11:44:45 #
Feb 13, 2017 05:39:49 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
Russ1700 wrote:
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'... (show quote)
Consider the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. It would be ideal for your trip, have better range than either you mentioned, and would be more useful than either lens you mentioned.
Feb 13, 2017 05:43:48 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
Russ1700 wrote:
The main reason that I wish to leave my 2 existing lens at home is the extra weight on the plane and carrying them around on long hikes etc. Therefore the nikon 200-500 or the tamron 150-600 doesn't solve this problem.
It does for wildlife photography in Canada or Alaska. Take a 24mm W.A. for scenics, and the long lens for wildlife. You did ask for advice, yes?
Feb 13, 2017 06:35:28 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Russ1700 wrote:
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'... (show quote)
If your going to shoot primarily wildlife then get a wildlife lens, either the 300 f4 or the more versatile 200-500 f5.6, the 200-500 is not that heavy especially if you reverse the tripod collar and use it as a handle, I hand hold mine without a problem.
Feb 13, 2017 08:20:47 #
Russ1700 wrote:
I shoot with a Nikon D610 in both RAW and JPEG. I'... (show quote)
Here's a radical idea. Buy a DX body and get a 50% increase in the reach of your lenses.
Feb 13, 2017 08:22:12 #
Alpix
Loc: Cambridgeshire, UK
I would not want to be limited to 300mm on a trip.
I have the 28-300mm and it's a great walk around lens, small and light.
In saying that, I leave it at home on a trip and carry the trinity, along with Sigma 150-600mm.
It's heavy, but all fits into a Think Tank Airport carry on backpack and stays with me.
I guess having the 24-70mm and the Sigma 150-600mm as a pair would work pretty well.
If that were too heavy to carry, the 28-300mm.
I have the 28-300mm and it's a great walk around lens, small and light.
In saying that, I leave it at home on a trip and carry the trinity, along with Sigma 150-600mm.
It's heavy, but all fits into a Think Tank Airport carry on backpack and stays with me.
I guess having the 24-70mm and the Sigma 150-600mm as a pair would work pretty well.
If that were too heavy to carry, the 28-300mm.
Feb 13, 2017 08:44:42 #
The biggest issue with weight is the airlines weight limit of 7 kg for carry on. My current set up with the holy trinity and bag already exceeds that.
Thanks to everyone for their comments, all very helpful.
Thanks to everyone for their comments, all very helpful.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.