Opinions on best wildlife lens for D500

[Pixel boy]

I currently have the 200-500 f5.6 but feel that I am often needing to increase the ISO up to 3200 and even 6400 to get a fast enough shutter speed of say 1/1600 etc, when its a cloudy day or the light drops.

In bright sunny weather (not often in the UK) the lens performs very well, but as soon as the light dips the ISO needs to go up!!!!

I would appreciate some feedback on what lens you think would give better results than below.

I wondered in the 300mm F4 PF VR would give me better results although I know if I put the 1.4 converter on it it will take me to f5.6, but at 300mm its f4 which I guess gives me an extra stop so I could use ISO 3200 instead of 6400?

The last shot of the tiger is not an image I would keep but its just to illustrate that when I need to crank up the ISO the detail is lost, particularly if you view the snout of the tiger at 100%.









View attachment 8599fba78ff2441d8ff14c63ce08530d.jpg

 

[Weerterbos]

Perhaps a Better Beamer for the bird shots?

 

[Tigre del neve]

The 300/4 PF is excellent on the D500. It is very sharp.

I mostly use the 600/4 though.

 

[corg902]

The bird photos are so excellent I'm afraid I don't understand what you are disappointed with.

In fact, I was going to post some of my bird photos with the D500+200-500 5.6 but now I'm thinking of holding off if the quality of photos on this forum is so good that you are asking for advice on lenses because you are not satisfied with your shots.

-Scott

 

[Cultured Vulture]

If you want better and faster without giving up focal length you will have to go with one of the exotic primes. Not cheap.

 

[tom graham]

The best wildlife lenses are made by Nike. Get a nice new pair of Nike sneakers and walk closer to the subject. Often wildlife is plain and simple just too far away.

Tom

 

[Cultured Vulture]

The best wildlife lenses are made by Nike. Get a nice new pair of Nike sneakers and walk closer to the subject. Often wildlife is plain and simple just too far away.

Tom

Good point for some things, but many subjects are extremely difficult to impossible to get close to. Other subjects such as grizzlies and moose, I would just as soon keep a little distance between us. Seriously, if your actions cause an animal to change its behavior, your either too close or your fieldcraft is poor.

 

[mansod]

I currently have the 200-500 f5.6 but feel that I am often needing to increase the ISO up to 3200 and even 6400 to get a fast enough shutter speed of say 1/1600 etc, when its a cloudy day or the light drops.

In bright sunny weather (not often in the UK) the lens performs very well, but as soon as the light dips the ISO needs to go up!!!!

I would appreciate some feedback on what lens you think would give better results than below.

I wondered in the 300mm F4 PF VR would give me better results although I know if I put the 1.4 converter on it it will take me to f5.6, but at 300mm its f4 which I guess gives me an extra stop so I could use ISO 3200 instead of 6400?

The last shot of the tiger is not an image I would keep but its just to illustrate that when I need to crank up the ISO the detail is lost, particularly if you view the snout of the tiger at 100%.





View attachment 8599fba78ff2441d8ff14c63ce08530d.jpg

Very nice shots! Did you use photoshops content aware fill to expand the background on that 9000x6000 image?

For static subjects you can often get away with pretty slow shutter speeds. This works best if you have the time to take multiple shots since you probably get a pretty low rate of acceptable sharp images.

Here is a Wild juvenile goshawk that I almost stepped on... shot hand held at 1/30s at 550mm. It's not critically sharp but it's better than the higher ISO shots I took at with higher shutter speeds.

He had captured a young Crow.

This is of course not an approach that works for all situations but it it does pay off sometimes.

Maybe add a D750 to couple with the 200-500? It would also give you about at stop better ISO and would have more pixels on the subject compared to a 300mm f/4 on DX.



--

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/mansod

 

[Tigre del neve]

I'd say get a used 400/2.8 AFS. I have seen them down to 3000 USD. The IQ from that lens is unbeatable and you get a stop of light and you are at 600 mm equivalent f/2.8. That beats a D750 with a 2-500 hands down. You would have to go D750 with a 600/4 VR to get something similar.

 

[Pixel boy]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

 

[mansod]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The difference in DOF is easy the check. A distance of 5 meters gives:

400mm, f/2.8 = 1.63cm

500mm, f/5.6 = 2.04cm

600mm, f/6.3 = 1.55cm

That all changes of course if you move closer with the shorter lenses to get the same framing.

Sharpness is another issue but I suspect the 400mm f/2.8 should be pretty sharp wide open?

 

[Brandon birder]

Nice images.

but not sure I understand.

You have shown several shots at less than 1/500s so you can manage that speed and get sharp pictures. `So why take the tiger at 1/1600s instead of 1/500s. Use 10fps and some are going to get the action at a relatively static point and iso's will be much lower.

Or just time the point of shot to the moment the animal action changes direction when it is relatively still. But with 10 fps i would do the first suggestion.

 

[Pixel boy]

Nice images.

but not sure I understand.

You have shown several shots at less than 1/500s so you can manage that speed and get sharp pictures. `So why take the tiger at 1/1600s instead of 1/500s. Use 10fps and some are going to get the action at a relatively static point and iso's will be much lower.

Or just time the point of shot to the moment the animal action changes direction when it is relatively still. But with 10 fps i would do the first suggestion.

 

[Tigre del neve]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The DOF on the DX format is deeper iirc so that f/2.8 matches f/4 approx on FX. This means that you can shoot at more larger apertures on DX and get the same DOF as a smaller aperture on FX. So those guys shooting f/8 on FX where you could shoot f/5.6 or f/6.3 and get approximately the same DOF meaning you could use higher shutter speeds with lower ISO than they do with a 400 mm rather than a 600 mm and get at least the same if not a slightly better result.

Others may think differently.

 

[mansod]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The DOF on the DX format is deeper iirc so that f/2.8 matches f/4 approx on FX. This means that you can shoot at more larger apertures on DX and get the same DOF as a smaller aperture on FX. So those guys shooting f/8 on FX where you could shoot f/5.6 or f/6.3 and get approximately the same DOF meaning you could use higher shutter speeds with lower ISO than they do with a 400 mm rather than a 600 mm and get at least the same if not a slightly better result.

Others may think differently.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I think it's important to point out that the DOF for FX and DX is about the same if shot at same distance with same focal length.

 

[Tigre del neve]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The DOF on the DX format is deeper iirc so that f/2.8 matches f/4 approx on FX. This means that you can shoot at more larger apertures on DX and get the same DOF as a smaller aperture on FX. So those guys shooting f/8 on FX where you could shoot f/5.6 or f/6.3 and get approximately the same DOF meaning you could use higher shutter speeds with lower ISO than they do with a 400 mm rather than a 600 mm and get at least the same if not a slightly better result.

Others may think differently.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I think it's important to point out that the DOF for FX and DX is about the same if shot at same distance with same focal length.

--
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/mansod

That's right. A 400 mm shot at f/2.8 will have the same DOF on DX as if it was shot at f/2.8 on FX. But how does that translate to your bird subject DOF? as the bird will take up more space on the DX sensor it will also occupy a bigger area of the f/2.8 focus plane, right? Therefore a larger part of the bird will be in focus, no? Or am I completely wrong?

Asking since I am unsure about the technical explanation.

 

[Pixel boy]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The DOF on the DX format is deeper iirc so that f/2.8 matches f/4 approx on FX. This means that you can shoot at more larger apertures on DX and get the same DOF as a smaller aperture on FX. So those guys shooting f/8 on FX where you could shoot f/5.6 or f/6.3 and get approximately the same DOF meaning you could use higher shutter speeds with lower ISO than they do with a 400 mm rather than a 600 mm and get at least the same if not a slightly better result.

Others may think differently.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I think it's important to point out that the DOF for FX and DX is about the same if shot at same distance with same focal length.

 

[bayareaphoto]

The 300/4 PF is excellent on the D500. It is very sharp.

+1. I love mine for its image quality and ease of transport.

 

[mansod]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is not necessarily the speed of lens?

I guess an f4 with a FF wold be a good compromise but the D5 and 500mm f4 are out of my range, so I would need to look at say the D750 + 300mm PF and maybe even the 1.4 tele?

Why I say this is I was recently in a hide with a couple of guys who had a f2.8 and they were shooting at f8 for "critical" sharpness and more importantly to get a good DOF . This was because at say 5 meters away using a 400-500mm lens the DOF is very very narrow.

I understand that this isn't always the case depending on what you wish to achieve, thoughts on this would be welcome

Pixel Boy

The DOF on the DX format is deeper iirc so that f/2.8 matches f/4 approx on FX. This means that you can shoot at more larger apertures on DX and get the same DOF as a smaller aperture on FX. So those guys shooting f/8 on FX where you could shoot f/5.6 or f/6.3 and get approximately the same DOF meaning you could use higher shutter speeds with lower ISO than they do with a 400 mm rather than a 600 mm and get at least the same if not a slightly better result.

Others may think differently.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but I think it's important to point out that the DOF for FX and DX is about the same if shot at same distance with same focal length.

 

[Geomaticsman]

Brandon thats a really good point.

I was just trying to be safe at 1/1600 as the Tiger was chewing and I wanted to ensure I froze any movement.

The above illustrations are not typical as the light was brilliant when taking the Kingfishers.

When I struggle is when the light drops and I need to crank up the ISO to say 3200, those images (despite what some people say) do have a good degree of noise in them.

I cant afford the exotic lenses so it looks like I just need to either compromise (which I hate) or only shoot in good light.

I guess I could get the 300mm f4 and when necessary use a teleconverter? or 70-200 f2.8 and converter? but I guess I would need to crop as well to fill the frame.... decisions decisions!

Honestly, I don't think you'll get a lot more service out of the 300/4 than the 200-500VR....they're just isn't that much difference between f4 and f5.6 that can't be compensated for with slightly higher ISO and heavier post processing. The painful answer is that the "best wildlife lens for the D500" is the 400/2.8 FL, at least in my opinion.