wildlife lens

--

I just got the D40X w/ kit 18-55 & 55-200 VR lenses. I want to add a lens for wildlife for a trip to Africa in July. Is the 200 just not enough? I am considering the Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR. Is 300 long enough? What about a 1.4 adapter with the 200?
Tom

Typically a teleconverter doesn't work on lenses with smaller apertures. They are harder to lock focus and in lower light very, very difficult. No one recommends it.

If you had a 2.8 constant aperture capable or better lens then a teleconverter would be worth the investment.

Depending on your budget, I think you would be better off with the 70-300 VR. If you can afford more, than a longer lens, but they start to get pricey. You will need a Nikon AF-S or Sigma HSM lens if you want auto focus for your model camera.

Hopefully someone who has been to Africa can speak to your upcoming trip more specifically.

--
http://pics.myfotoguy.com

If budget allows, I'd try the 70-200mm VR and a 1.4 or 1.7 teteconvertor. I use this lens without a teleconvertor a lot, but then I haven't used it on safari.

Or try the Nikon 70-300 VR if on a tighter budget, but no I don't think using a teleconvertor with this is a good idea.

--
Dan Harrod

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan_harrod/



-

on budget a 70-300VR (Nikon, Tamron only has a 28-300VC but i haven't seen reports yet) is your best bet. using TCs is no good on f5.6 lenses, AF will get too slow.

better lenses that work on a D40 are imho the Sigma 100-300 f4 (1.4TC possible as well) or the Sigma 80-400OS, or Sigma 50-500. all these lenses are quite pricey but they all give nice results. for maximum reach my favorite is the tamron 200-500 but this lens has no AF on the D40
--
Mario

My Gallery
http://www.mg-photo.ch

I suggest you read this thread on the forum and add your discussion there, you might get more information or replies as people are already following it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=26326387

I realise the your question is subtly different, but I don't think the topic is relevant and will save people repeating themselves.

I'm generally interested in the discussion, however, as I'd like to get something for wildlife in the future. But I don't have any advice to give as I only have a 200mm reach at the moment and agree that is isn't anywhere near enough....

Thanks for the replies, and the reference to the other thread.

--
Tom

Since you already have it, you might want to use your 55-200 VR for a while and see how much more reach you're looking for. The 300 might not be enough for you. Or just sell it and get the 70-300 VR.
--
Ahmad

http://flickr.com/photos/3ammo

My 80-200 lens on my 35mm slr was my all purpose lens when I left all the other stuff behind. I assume that the 55-200 will fit that role as long as it is fast enough.

But you make a point that I considered when I decided on the D40x with the two lens package, I may not have selected it as the second lens. With the D40X two lens package deal, I can justify that the lens only cost me about $100 after subtracting the cost of the camera case and the and the other stuff that was in the box.

I would rather hand that lens attached to the camera to my kids to take pictures than the one that I am looking for now.
--
Tom

Well if you are sure that 200mm on a film camera was long enough, you should be fine but I would rather have a longer lens for a trip like that......do you still have the 80 to 200....it will work fine with a TC.....of course its MF only, unless it was a AFs version.
--
Gene from Western Pa

http://imageevent.com/grc6
http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
FZ10....20 and 30 and FZ18

D50 ....D80 - 18 to 200VR- 50mm 1.8 - 80 to 400 OS



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!

HI: I was near Kruger 18 months ago and it was be best trip of my life. Maybe to Namibia in Sept.??? Where are you going???

Your 200vr will be adequate for most shots - esp. for large herds if in Tanzania or larger animals in South Africa. If birds are your thing, then 300vr would be better. In South Africa, many of the 'parks' now require that you stay on a 'road or path' and no longer allow driving through and over bushes & trees. Can't get as close as several years ago. With your 10.2mp, you can crop a bunch to enlarge. Knowing the expense of this trip, and the thoughts and memories of at least one, or a few magical shots from 75 yards, I'd probably get a 300, but again, you'd be fine with the 200 for the majority of situations. I used a 6mp with 200 (no VR, which hurt in low-light with some blurring), and got a bunch of wonderful pix.

I now use on my "also new" d40x a 18-135 & 70-300vr for surfing shots and eventual back to AFRIKA!
Bart in CA.

from Hemmingway: ... "There was never a morning in Africa that I awoke and was not happy"

That is exactly what I am saying, the 80 - 200 is fine for walking around on vacation with a group of people but is inadequate for a once in a lifetime vacation where photography is a more central part of the trip, and the primary reason for the investment in the D40X.

My 35mm SLR is a 1980's vintage Konica TC with a Konica hexanon 50mm f/1.7, a Konica 135mm f/3.5 fixed and a Tokina 80 - 200mm f/4.5 zoom. All of the lenses are shutter priority automatic aperture controlled by the camera. Can I get a teleconverter that will work with the new D40X and the vintage lenses (I assume in manual mode only)? Is the teleconverter worth the investment based on the prices of new 50mm lenses with that speed?

--
Tom

If all the political unrest settles down, I am going to Kenya in June to see the migration with Friendly Planet tours.

We are considering cancelling the trip since the U.S issued a travel advisory to Kenya and British Airways stopped sending planes there recently. Right now I'm hoping for the best.

BTW, thanks for the opinion on the lenses.
--
Tom