Skip to Content

Lens Advice Needed

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: Nikon DSLR

Unread post by Peter Betts » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:03 pm

DvZ wrote:Hi All photography boffins

For those that don't know I have a Nikon F55 SLR body. I have invested in a couple of good lenses. I was lead to believe when I upgrade to digital body, the lenses will fit.

It is time.............. :!: :!: SLR costs are getting ridiculously high. :shock:

I am looking to upgrade my SLR body for DSLR body. However it must be Nikon.

Any suggestions and approx cost I am looking at?

Waiting in anticipation............ :wink:



I have just gone digital and have bought the new 10mp D200 IT's GREAT and can do 95% of what flagship D2X can do (The D2X focusing is more powerful) however the price is steep in South Africa because NIKON insist you have to buy a Nikon DSLR in your country so you have to pay SA prices which are double New York Prices so I paid R16 800 for my D200instead of US$ 1699 !!!!!! from B&H New York. Everything else however comes from that store and I have saved thousands.... buy on the web and in 3 days your order is delivered Check out www.bhphotovideo.com the biggest photo shop in the world. What Lenses do you use for Wild Life?

So far I have got 12-24 DX (Ultra Wide Angle = Landscapes)
24-85 (General Photography)
70-200 VR AFS f2.8 (General mid power zoom)
My 105 VR f2.8 Micro is sitting at JHB Int waiting to clear
and when B&H get the 200-400 VR I will order that
I also have a Nikon 1.4 and 1.7 convertor. REMEMBER YOU CAN SKIMP ON THE CAMERA BUT GET THE BEST GLASS (LENSES).... Good Luck
2009
Punda Maria Sept 27,28
Bateleur Sept 29,30 (free award)
Tamboti Oct 1,2,3,4
Biyamiti Oct 5,6,7,8

FGASA Local Area Guide

Nikon D700 FX, Nikkor 24-70 G f2.8, Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8, Nikkor 200-400 VR f4, Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 Convertors

User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: Long lens , long range quality issues .

Unread post by Peter Betts » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:39 pm

bucky wrote:I just went digital recently , and also bought a sigma 170-500 second hand .

The lens takes some stunning pics at full magnification , but only if the subject is relatively close .

When taking a picture of something , that is standing a little way off , my clarity goes to pot .
This is worse if there is a lot of glare .

Is this normal with all long lenses due to there being more "air" between me and the subject , or is it a lens specific issue .
My old canon 70-300 seems clear , although I never used it for any long shots the last trip , and used the sigma .

I am taking pictures of things far further than before , because of the 500mm combined with the 1,6 crop of the 350d making an effective 800 or so mm (Almost 3x more than my previous 300mm max zoom availability)


Hi there,

Congrats on your move to Digital. Your 170-500 is one of the better pirate lenses but I think you may have bought the film version as you say you bought 2nd hand. the 170-500 DG lens is made specifically for Digital. Don't go running out and buy this lens now ...Why not try the brilliant 100-400 Canon Lens with image Stabilisation it has pretty good optics as well even if it is a bit slow. If you really want to spoil yourself ....Go Nikon ...I did and my pics are all of a sudden jumping off the page..... That ED Glass is AWESOME
2009
Punda Maria Sept 27,28
Bateleur Sept 29,30 (free award)
Tamboti Oct 1,2,3,4
Biyamiti Oct 5,6,7,8

FGASA Local Area Guide

Nikon D700 FX, Nikkor 24-70 G f2.8, Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8, Nikkor 200-400 VR f4, Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 Convertors

User avatar
bucky
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Gauties .

Unread post by bucky » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:44 am

I did buy the dg version , and its only 6 months old ! .
I got it at a very fair price , about a quarter of the 100-400(My dream lens , I cant think of anything else more suited to wildlife).

Is it possible the lens is faulty ?

I am going to be testing it and comparing with other lenses now that I have some time at home , lets see what happens !

Thanks for the input guys .

User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Unread post by Peter Betts » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:59 am

bucky wrote:I did buy the dg version , and its only 6 months old ! .
I got it at a very fair price , about a quarter of the 100-400(My dream lens , I cant think of anything else more suited to wildlife).

Is it possible the lens is faulty ?

I am going to be testing it and comparing with other lenses now that I have some time at home , lets see what happens !

Thanks for the input guys .


I'm relieved you have the DG lens ... definitely the best value Wild Life Lens around and IT DELIVERS...so my feeling is that it could be something finnicky like White Balance....camera setup.... ???? I really battle with this new digital stuff... the lens should be fine and i suspect it is.. hope you come right
2009
Punda Maria Sept 27,28
Bateleur Sept 29,30 (free award)
Tamboti Oct 1,2,3,4
Biyamiti Oct 5,6,7,8

FGASA Local Area Guide

Nikon D700 FX, Nikkor 24-70 G f2.8, Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8, Nikkor 200-400 VR f4, Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 Convertors

User avatar
richardharris
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire UK

Unread post by richardharris » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:43 pm

I suspect DQ is right in suggesting things like dust and heat haze. I have some excellent photos of small birds, which are obviously fairly close, and some of larger animals at middle distance.

But if taking pictures over long distance you really are going to get interference. Dust and heat will obviously distort the picture, and quite possible upset the focussing systems as well.

Richard

User avatar
bucky
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Gauties .

Unread post by bucky » Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:57 am

I seem to have found 1 of the reasons why I am getting the slightly out of focus clarity issue .

Having looked at some of the troublesome pics carefully , I notice that my focus point is just in front of the animals .
This I think was caused by setting the camera to focus using the lower of the focusing points only .
Also I discovered that the eye piece has an adjuster for focus on it also .
Maybe my eye piece was also slightly out of focus , in a closer that the subject position .

The perils of getting a new camera the day before your trip :lol:

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread post by DuQues » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:02 am

bucky wrote:Also I discovered that the eye piece has an adjuster for focus on it also .
Maybe my eye piece was also slightly out of focus , in a closer that the subject position .

That is a diopter setting, so you can use your camera without glasses. It does not influence the focussing at all.
Using the offcenter focussing points does have a little problem, the focussing is slower. In those photo's were the animals moving?

If I make really long range photo's (mostly meaning my lens is too short) I use the center focuspoint and think "I'll crop this to what I really wanted to how it should look."
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
bucky
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Gauties .

Unread post by bucky » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:49 am

What I mean to say about the eyepiece setting , is that I may have been focusing with the camera slightly in front of the animals , but the diopter setting was out , so it buggered up my own view of what should be clear or not .

The animals where sitting still , I am out of upload space , so I cant show u an example .

Thanks for the tip on the centre point of focus , and crop later method .

User avatar
Johann
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:29 am
Location: Stuck in Gauteng

Unread post by Johann » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:22 pm

Sorry Bucky
Only notice this thread now. I've got the same lens as you and have experienced the exact same problem.

The Sigma seems to be working fine for objects closer than say maybe a maximum of 30m. After that you loose a lot of clarity and sharpness.
Objects in a 10m range give brilliant shots.

Don't know what to do about it though. Only option I suppose is getting the Canon glass but I might have to sell a kidney (or both) to be able to afford the lenses I want :lol:
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
Albert Einstein

Latest lifers from Kruger NP:
Black Coucal Centropus grillii Swartvleiloerie
Flappet Lark Mirafra rufocinnamomea Laeveldklappertjie

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14297
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread post by bert » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:39 pm

Dont worry Johann
With canon i have the same problem from say 50 meters and up
I think it has to do with the particles in the sky which clog the digitil sensor when using a tele.

But i think the same problem occurred with the old camera's
Its a normal feature when using a tele.

User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Unread post by Peter Betts » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:35 pm

But i think the same problem occurred with the old camera's
Its a normal feature when using a tele.


Its true the closer the better. I took some pin sharp pics of a kudu bull with a long telephoto at 15 metres this week end at Addo (Face only and you can literally count the hairs on the fly sitting below its eye) and I took another also at 400 (600 in Digital) of another bull in the same group at 45 metres and it is not as sharp.
2009
Punda Maria Sept 27,28
Bateleur Sept 29,30 (free award)
Tamboti Oct 1,2,3,4
Biyamiti Oct 5,6,7,8

FGASA Local Area Guide

Nikon D700 FX, Nikkor 24-70 G f2.8, Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8, Nikkor 200-400 VR f4, Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 Convertors

User avatar
madach
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 615
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:55 pm

Unread post by madach » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:45 pm

Peter,

It could be that the AF is slighly off. This can be caused by front/back focus issues. Another common issue for faulty AF is misalignment of the main mirror after taking a shot. If either of there are the case then you would have more unsharpness with shots that are relatively far away. Have you tried if you can get sharp shots using manual focussing?

M.

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread post by DuQues » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:56 pm

What's long range... We are talking peanuts here.
Intense curiosity finally got the better of me today (May 3, 2006), so I set up my Sigmonster with 16x worth of teleconverters. That's a focal length of about 12.8 meters, or almost 42 feet, before crop factor. This is equivalent to about 256x magnification (if 1x = 50 mm), and an angle of view of 20,488 mm on the 350D.

Yup, the camera functioned ok at this focal length and aperture (f/91 wide open). Shooting in direct mid-morning sunlight, the view finder is just a bit brighter compared to having the lens cap on. Manual focusing is a breeze, as easy as reading a newspaper in complete darkness. My attempts to control shake at this length (effectively about 0.12 degree or 7 minutes angle of view) merits a Medal of Valor in my opinion. I didn't try to tape the pins on the TCs and see if AF would work.

All in all, the photo taken at 12800 mm f/128 (one stop from wide open for "better image quality") is recognizable, but I seriously doubt any practical application.

If you want to see what he did with it, and what it looks like, click this link!

Details and opinions on the Sigmonster (Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 zoom lens) can be found here.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
Ollie
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:38 am
Location: California

Unread post by Ollie » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:45 pm

Monster being the appropriate description....... :shock:

User avatar
bucky
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Gauties .

Unread post by bucky » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:50 pm

Eventually , I have bought this lense today (Ta Hedrus) .

So far I am dam impressed with my first "white" lens , even though I have only shot about 50 photos this afternoon of the dogs playing , and the rest of the time I have been looking at it :lol:

Looking forward to snapping duke with it , He deserves a quality lens after all :D .


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by Tilandi at 21:27:41
orpen
Submitted by krimpvarkie2 at 21:01:31
satara
Submitted by ritad at 22:30:33
nossob
Submitted by kyknetta at 22:01:48