Best used Nikon-compatible lens under $1,000 for distant bird photography?
Asked 8/10/2011
4 views
2 answers
0
I’ve been shooting birds and whales with a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G and found I enjoy wildlife photography more than I expected. My main limitations are reach and sharpness at the long end: distant birds don’t fill the frame the way I want, and some images look soft when I’m zoomed all the way in.
I’m looking for a second-hand lens for under $1,000 that would be a meaningful upgrade for photographing distant birds. I’d prefer more reach, but I also want better sharpness. Is moving to something like a 55-300mm or 70-300mm worthwhile, or do I need to look at longer options such as a 150-500mm?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
4
Well under a 1k, long reach, and sharp limit your field quite a bit. Pretty much all more advanced long telephoto Nikon brand glass is out of the price range, so I'll be looking mainly at 3rd parties.
On the long reach end you've got the Sigma 150-500 which is pretty much at 1k - but its not known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, especially wide open (which at the 500mm end is a whooping 6.3!). You'd need to stop down to beyond f/8 just to get past lens quality issues, and then you start hitting diffraction issues!
The new Tamron 70-300 VC is a little longer and probably a little sharper than your 55-200, but still definitely in the consumer class. You may notice a better quality, but its not really a lens I'd want to lay out almost 600 for and get a mediocre improvement on.
If you can live at the 200mm limit, but want a lens that will be sharper and overall much better, try a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG. It'll double as a great portrait lens and give you the ability to shoot some indoor shots. It is however, definitely at the very short end of birding lenses. There's other techniques to get closer to birds (in some situations) however - see the links at the end of this answer.
If you want to go over your budget, you can look at something like a 300mm f/4 Nikon, but you'll pay about 50% over your budget.
You'll have to compromise somewhere to get significantly better reach or sharpness.
For birding in general, take a look at this other links - here and here.
Originally by user1917. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1917
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For distant birds, a move from 55-200mm to 55-300mm or 70-300mm is only a modest upgrade. You’ll get a little more reach, but not enough to dramatically change how large distant subjects appear, so it may not feel worth the cost if your main issue is getting closer.
If reach is the priority, a used Sigma 150-500mm is the kind of lens that makes a more noticeable difference within your budget. The tradeoff is image quality: it isn’t especially sharp wide open, particularly at 500mm, so you may need to stop down for better results.
That means your budget forces a compromise: either a small improvement with a consumer 300mm zoom, or much more reach with some softness and slower aperture at the long end.
Mirror lenses can be very cheap and very long, but they come with significant quirks and image-quality compromises, so they’re usually not the best general recommendation for wildlife.
In short: if you want a meaningful birding upgrade under $1,000, look for a used 150-500mm-type lens. If you want clearly better sharpness without a big jump in reach, the 300mm consumer zooms are less compelling.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are my Nikon 55-300mm photos soft on a D7000, and what lens is better for distant wildlife?
Which is better for birds in flight on a Canon 7D: Sigma 150-500mm or Sigma 50-500mm?
Why are my distant bird photos less sharp with a Canon 1200D and 55-250mm lens?
Which budget telephoto lens is the best fit for a Nikon D5100: Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon 55-300 VR, or Tamron 70-300?
Best beginner camera setup for bird photography on a $500–$1,000 budget