Lenses for wildlife?

Hello all. I'm currently considering to get a new lens for my camera, Nikon D5000. I'd like to be able to do wildlife, but I don't want it to be too expansive...hopefully within $200. I've looked around a little, have taken interest in the following:
Sigma 70–300mm f/4–5.6 APO DG Macro lens
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED

and a few others that may work but I'm not sure about:
Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Tamron AF 70-300 F4-5.6 Di LD Macro
Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD

What is recommended here? I'm quite new to SLR and I'm not sure some of the things mean. For example, what is the difference between the last two? The VC USD one seems to be much more expansive.
And, what exactly are APO, DG,ED,Di,LD,VC,USD?

PS: I know some of the lenses that I posted are more expansive than $200, but I do value quality so going over a hundred or so is fine.

Thank you very much.

mizuto said:

Hello all. I'm currently considering to get a new lens for my camera, Nikon D5000. I'd like to be able to do wildlife, but I don't want it to be too expansive...hopefully within $200. I've looked around a little, have taken interest in the following:
Sigma 70–300mm f/4–5.6 APO DG Macro lens
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED

and a few others that may work but I'm not sure about:
Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Tamron AF 70-300 F4-5.6 Di LD Macro
Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD

What is recommended here? I'm quite new to SLR and I'm not sure some of the things mean. For example, what is the difference between the last two? The VC USD one seems to be much more expansive.

Click to expand...

If we focus in on the last two Tamron lenses the second has the in-built motor (USD) and in-built stabilisation (VC). If you buy a lens without a motor for you D5000 it will not autonatically focus even if it is an AF lens so this rules out the first unless you are happy to focus manually The VC will allow you to shoot at lower shutter speeds or give better results particularly if you are new to photography.

mizuto said:

And, what exactly are APO, DG,ED,Di,LD,VC,USD?

Click to expand...

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/faq_lens.htm
APO: Apochromatic lens: Protects against chromatic and spherical aberations
ED: Extra-low Dispersion glass
DG: large aperture lenses
USD: In built motor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamron

Di — ‘Digitally Integrated’, featuring coating optimized for digital SLRs, but still usable on 24×36mm sensors (35mm, ‘full’ or double frame)
Di II — Lenses for DSLRs with APS-C sized sensors only
SP — ‘Super Performance’, professional lenses
IF — ‘Internal Focus’
LD — "Low Dispersion" elements
XR — Extra Refractive Index glass
VC — "Vibration Compensation" -- in lens image stabilization

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

You can't do what you want. Here's why.

You can take pictures of your wife, your kid, your house, or your car with moderate equipment for several reasons. First, you can direct them to stand still where you want them and/or move into a good position yourself. Plus, you will have a unique photo unlike any other, assuming you are the only guy shooting your stuff. In other words, you (or your friends) can enjoy the shot of your kid because it's your kid, not because it looks better than some other photo of some other kid. Wildlife is different.

Unfortunately, lots of VERY good photographers shoot wildlife using some VERY good (read "expensive") equipment. The bar is set quite high for any ordinary wildlife you are likely to encounter. Measuring up to that standard ain't easy.

If you attack the problem with an unrealistically low budget limit, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The standard, and what your friends will compare your efforts to, is what they see in NatGeo or some similar magazine. Sad to say, those photos just can't be made on the cheap, at least not on the real cheap.

Getting great racing photos or great foot ball photos or even great concert photos presents similar problems. It boils down to access and good, if not great, equipment, with wildlife shooting being the most demanding.

Shooting at the zoo or making photos of the tame Blue Heron down at the local fishing dock can help ease your pain if you don't have great gear, but it's not the same as the real thing.

My partial solution was to buy used gear, but my Nikkor 300mm f-2.8 and my Nikkor 500mm F 4 weren't exactly cheap. By the way, I'm not sure what would be more frustrating; trying to make wildlife photographs with a good, cheap Nikon 50mm lens or a crappy, cheap 300 mm lens made by some other company, but it's something to think about. I'm all for saving money, but going cheap, especially with telephoto lenses, is not the greatest solution to the problem of filling the frame.

Have fun, but don't have unrealistic expectations if your budget for the endeavor is unrealistic to start with.

Bob
--

I doubt that $200 will be enough but keep saving for the Nikon 70-300VR, Its a great lens for the money

Dave
--
http://www.wildlifeinfocus.com
Facebook-David Courtenay Photography (www.wildlifeinfocus.com)

The sad reality is that most wildlife, being wild, is not very happy to have humans wander too close pointing things at it. For a lot of wildlife, that is a good way to end up dead.

However- there is another way- simply redefine what you see as wildlife, and get into macro photography. A good macro lens is about a third of the price of a good telephoto, and as the smaller you go with wildlife, the greater the diversity, so the greater the opportunity to capture images that are unique. The other advantage of concentrating on the little critters is you don't have to spend money on travel as you would if you were trying to shoot lions or tigers and stuff.

Once again, you will end up having to fork out a bit of cash for lighting, but the money you save on travel and lenses and camera bags and insurance will easily pay for some good flash gear.

Lower your sights- there is a lot of cool stuff happening on the ground.

Cheers,

Alex.

--
Gehyra -the lizard that sticks
http://www.pbase.com/gehyra

Dave Courtenay said:

I doubt that $200 will be enough but keep saving for the Nikon 70-300VR, Its a great lens for the money

Dave
--
http://www.wildlifeinfocus.com
Facebook-David Courtenay Photography (www.wildlifeinfocus.com)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advices, and I understand what you are saying. I want a cheap lens because I'm a university student and what I want to use what I earned during coop to pay for my future rent, tuition, etc. I also know the results of the cheaper lenses will not satisfy my needs completely, but as for now, I want to first practice my photography skills and plus this will be a chance for me to see if I'm really suited for wildlife. If all goes well, I will be upgrading my equipments in the future, probably after I graduate.

mizuto said:

Dave Courtenay said:

I doubt that $200 will be enough but keep saving for the Nikon 70-300VR, Its a great lens for the money

Dave
--
http://www.wildlifeinfocus.com
Facebook-David Courtenay Photography (www.wildlifeinfocus.com)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advices, and I understand what you are saying. I want a cheap lens because I'm a university student and what I want to use what I earned during coop to pay for my future rent, tuition, etc. I also know the results of the cheaper lenses will not satisfy my needs completely, but as for now, I want to first practice my photography skills and plus this will be a chance for me to see if I'm really suited for wildlife. If all goes well, I will be upgrading my equipments in the future, probably after I graduate.

Click to expand...

Oops. Sorry, meant to quote Bob.

Gehyra said:

The sad reality is that most wildlife, being wild, is not very happy to have humans wander too close pointing things at it. For a lot of wildlife, that is a good way to end up dead.

However- there is another way- simply redefine what you see as wildlife, and get into macro photography. A good macro lens is about a third of the price of a good telephoto, and as the smaller you go with wildlife, the greater the diversity, so the greater the opportunity to capture images that are unique. The other advantage of concentrating on the little critters is you don't have to spend money on travel as you would if you were trying to shoot lions or tigers and stuff.

Once again, you will end up having to fork out a bit of cash for lighting, but the money you save on travel and lenses and camera bags and insurance will easily pay for some good flash gear.

Lower your sights- there is a lot of cool stuff happening on the ground.

Cheers,

Alex.

--
Gehyra -the lizard that sticks
http://www.pbase.com/gehyra

Click to expand...

I have also considered doing macro, but I thought I'd do it after I've started wildlife. I guess it should be the other way around?

In that case, what will be a recommended lens for macro photography? (And the other necessary gears)

Bob's advice is very good, also the suggestion about macro work.

The sad fact of the matter is that 200$, 300$ or even 500$ is probably not enough dosh. If you buy a budget lens you will get budget results and you will probably compound the problem by getting say, a 70-300 then immediately racking it out to 300, where like any zoom at its extreme, it will not perform well. I ended up giving mine away to a relative for nothing.

I do now have a Nik 300/F4 which is a marvellous (and expensive) lens but, you know, I get a bigger kick - and a totally different kind of image - by deliberately using short, sometimes very short lenses.

There are alternative strategies. You can develop your fieldcraft and stalk your quarry; you can put bird feeders in your garden (I hang mine on the house windows); you can build a hide or hide in your car; you can put your camera on a tripod near where the animals will be and fire it remotely. What is however absolutely indispensable is a love of- and empathy with your 'quarry' - and a lot of patience.

A few examples?

Urban fox



(Sigma 180mm macro - hid in my car and waited and waited ....)

Wild deer



(Nik 18-35mm, laid a trail of peppermints - they love them - then hid in a bush and waited. Shot on a golf course where they are used to people but definitely not tame. In fact this one charged at me a little while later)

Snow bunting



(Nik 50mm, French alps)

Robin



(Sigma 105mm, just a matter of making friends with it over a period of a few months)

I could go on.

Good luck
David

The only lenses that will autofocus on a D5000 are those with an internal motor, which are often more expensive compared to the Nikon D series lenses. However, autofocus for close-up work is often more of a hassle than manually focusing. I have a D300 and a Micro-Nikkor 60mm AF-D but I rarely use it on autofocus anyhow. If you are hand-holding a shot it is easier to "pre-focus" manually and move your body towards and away from the subject- in close-up work this is often less than a centimeter. So an older Tamron 90mm Macro or Micro-Nikkor D-series should work just fine. Shop about on the net and keep an eye out for second-hand gear. Check it for fungus (as for any second-hand gear) and make sure the movement is smooth. The D-series Macro has a narrow enough lens barrel not to shade the subject whilst using built-in flash, whereas the newer Micro Nikkor AF-S 60mm ED has a bigger lens barrel and will shade closer subjects unless you use an off-camera flash (and I don't believe the D5000 supports wireless flash without an adaptor). If you shop around you might be able to find a couple of manual flashes and a slave unit. These are increasingly rare, but I used manual flash on my digital slr for years before I discovered the joy of wireless flash with the SB-800 on my D300. As with any photography, it is about practice, experimentation and reading your histogram.

"Bean bags" and live view can also be used in place of flash if you're careful..

Best of luck.

--
Gehyra -the lizard that sticks
http://www.pbase.com/gehyra

(Just putting my park ranger hat on here)- while I agree that very good wildlife photos can be got with shorter lenses and wildlife bribes, feeding animals to get a shot (especially peppermints for goodness' sake!) is not recommended. For a start, as soon as you begin feeding wildlife, its "wildness" is compromised. Why forage for food when you can harass humans and get them to feed you? Feeding wildlife can create problems for the animals involved- artificially high populations which lead to rapid spread of disease, altered browsing or feeding regimes, interactions with humans that can be aggressive (like deer on peppermint sugar-highs charging photographers), and the animal no longer being part of an ecological community. Fed wildlife is too often dead wildlife. Once they lose their fear of people, they are compromised.

Use hides, but not food.

Cheers,

Alex.

--
Gehyra -the lizard that sticks
http://www.pbase.com/gehyra

Well, they were very ordinary peppermints - not the deluxe ones with the soft chewey centres!

Good point - well taken.



David

I love a good pun, but a bad one is even better..

Surely, even someone without any regard for wildlife wouldn't waste deluxe peppermints with chewy centres trying to get a photo..

I bet the peppermint muncher wasn't so en-deer-ing once it charged!

Cheers,
Alex

--
Gehyra -the lizard that sticks
http://www.pbase.com/gehyra