400 or 500mm lens?
SchmidtSG
I do a fair amount of nature shots.
TNX, Bob
Robert Ribnitz
Some 70-210mm (eg 2.8, Sigma)
perhaps some 200-400mm (from Tamron)
going above 400mm is unwise, because for 400mm you need 1/400 (ie. 1/500) max
exposure time.. which does limit the usability of such a lens without a tripod
yours
robert
Robert Ribnitz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
my real email: robert....@unifr.ch (ribnitz95@.. doesn't work)
Comp.Sc. Student at the Univ. of Fribourg,Switzerland
for comments & questions email me
Microsoft Network may nether carry nor redistribute this article in any form
FishFotoJr
bag I have an 80-200f2.8 and the next lens is a 500f4.5 ( I do have a 1.4X
and 2X as well). I think 500 is the middle ground lens, bu that is just
me. I happen to think Sigma makes an excellent 500f4.5 lens in the Nikon
mount, I use a a Canon lens with an adapter on the lens mount.
A great zoom is the new Tokina 150-500f5.6, it is great and then some! It
is not to big and is dead on tack sharp, plus itis f5.6 straight through
the zoom, if you use Velvia, just get Lumiere 100X and push it to 200 and
shot at EI:160 for a similar effect.( Isay that because i know for my job
f5.6 is slow at times, but I use EktaPress 1600 and Fuji 800 regardless of
light situations at work).
Hope this helps.
Steven E. Frischling
Freelance News Photographer
NYPD Working Press #0067
Too young to be respected; Too old to not be taken seriously; INVINCIBLE!;
Fear was just a word in the dictionary; Life was a right, not a gift;
Death was only a concept; STRENGTH!--Nikon F4s ad 1992
131G30000-D.GALENSKY(MT4743)1019MT
SchmidtSG <schm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Any thoughts on a good long lens to use with my N90?
>I do a fair amount of nature shots.
>
it depends on what you shoot (now, you probably could
have guessed i'd say that!)
if you like to shoot small subjects, e.g., small birds
etc., you'll need 500 or 600 mm, an extension tube
or two, plus some technique for getting pretty close
(blind, feeders, etc.) since the subjects are so small.
400mm generally isn't enough length, unless you can
rely more on getting close techniques and less on
brute force optical methods.
on the other hand, i personally find it's desirable
to use the shortest lens possible for a given situation,
within the bounds of having similar properties of
course. i'm not saying use a 24mm instead of a 500mm,
but given that you can get similarly desirable
backgrounds, it's better to use a 300 at distance X
than a 600 at distance 2X, since there's less opportunity
for camera shake to ruin the shot (not to mention
that you might have a full stop more working speed at
300mm than you might at 600mm.) of course there are a
host of additional factors that need to be considered.
my advice is to not screw around with 3rd party
lenses here, for several reasons. first, they
don't hold up as well to teleconverters, by every
account i've heard, bar none. a 1.4x converter
can be the long lens owner's best friend. second,
their resale value is markedly less. third, the
price difference isn't that great (although it's
increasing with nikon's latest price increase...
however, had you bought in a few months ago, your
resale value could have benefitted from the increase.)
fourth, it doesn't make sense given that the
cost of this lifetime investment will be swamped
out entirely by travel, film, and processing costs...
why would you settle for something you know is
less good than it could be every time you press
the shutter?
i don't find AF to be of much value, though it could
be for some situations. if you could find a decent
manual focus 500/4 on the used market from someone
upgrading to AF-I, that'd be great. i've also heard
of used 600/5.6s going for good prices: this lens
is one stop slower (and much lighter!) than the f/4...
of course you lose matrix metering. some folks
swear by the 400/3.5 also...this was standard issue
for wildlife photographers for years, and holds
up very well to a converter by all accounts.
duane
131G30000-D.GALENSKY(MT4743)1019MT
Robert Ribnitz <ribn...@UFPER6.UNIFR.CH> wrote:
>In article <40h5g9$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, schm...@aol.com (SchmidtSG) writes:
>>I do a fair amount of nature shots.
>>
>
>Some 70-210mm (eg 2.8, Sigma)
>
>perhaps some 200-400mm (from Tamron)
>
>going above 400mm is unwise, because for 400mm you need 1/400 (ie. 1/500) max
>exposure time.. which does limit the usability of such a lens without a tripod
you're not going to do much wildlife photography with
200mm unless you're at the galapagos or perhaps in
africa...i'd consider operating with a tripod as
standard procedure for every situation which is
amenable to one (the exceptions being working from
a window mount or beanbag from a vehicle.)
BTW, 400mm at f/5.6 isn't really handholdable either
in my view...unless using fast film which to me isn't
desirable.
duane
Chuck Tribolet
>going above 400mm is unwise, because for 400mm you need 1/400 (ie. 1/500) max
>exposure time.. which does limit the usability of such a lens without a tripod
I disagree. I use a 300+1.6x doubler (=480mm) hand-held
with ASA 100 film all the time. Got some nice coyote pictures
with it just this morning here at work. In full sun, I shoot
1/1000 between f/2.8 and f/4 (which the doubler makes an
actual f/5.6).
And I've gotten a lot of nice pictures with a 600+2x doubler
on a tripod so a tripod is not a show-stopper.
I've done a slide show on the wildlife here at IBM Almaden
(780 acres, mostly wild). There were about 130 slides.
Probably fifty with the 600, fifty with the 300, two with an
80-200, three (scenics) with a 35-70, twenty-five with a
105 macro.
Chuck Tribolet
Tri...@Almaden.IBM.Com
San Jose, CA
Silicon Valley - best day job in the world
They pay me to write microcode and let me take
pictures on my lunch hour.
jh...@andrew.cmu.edu
>Any thoughts on a good long lens to use with my N90?
>I do a fair amount of nature shots.
>
>TNX, Bob
The key consideration is whether you will be shooting wildlife or landscapes. If you
are shooting landscapes you do not need a fast lens. I think a 400mm f5.6 is the
best choice. I have used one for years and would not trade it for heaver f2.8 lens.
If you are shooting animals the faster lens is worthwhile.
A final word on the Nikor 400mm AIS f5.6 lens. It is one of the sharpest telephotos available.
Jim Altengarten
>
>In <40h5g9$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, schm...@aol.com (SchmidtSG)
writes:
>>Any thoughts on a good long lens to use with my N90?
>>I do a fair amount of nature shots.
>>
>>TNX, Bob
>
>The key consideration is whether you will be shooting wildlife or
landscapes. If you
>are shooting landscapes you do not need a fast lens. I think a 400mm
f5.6 is the
It really depnds on what type of "landscape" you shoot. I tend to do
more intimate landscapes and isolate subjects. Shooting at 2.8 is more
advantageous for me than 5.6 allowing me to blow out the background.
Let's not lump all "landscape" photographers in one pool--we are quite
diverse.
Jim
Dean van der Merwe
>you're not going to do much wildlife photography with
>200mm unless you're at the galapagos or perhaps in
>africa...i'd consider operating with a tripod as
>standard procedure for every situation which is
>amenable to one (the exceptions being working from
>a window mount or beanbag from a vehicle.)
You are very wrong if you think 200mm can be used
successfuly in Africa for wildlife. Believe me
600mm is many times to "wide" for decent photos of
most of the animals (unless you can tie the animals
down in order to get close enough). To frame them
properly think towards an 800mm (I don't own one
but believe me it is needed).
Dean van der Merwe (fvdm...@cosine.up.ac.za)