The Nikon 70-300 AF-P is still one of my favourite lenses. It has so much reach and optical quality is pretty good while remaining a SUPER small size. you can fit it anywhere, in any bag, without losing too much space. It's just something I can't do with my Sigma 150-600mm Sports for example which is still reasonably small for a 600mm
I have been photographing wildlife for 30 years and agree that a 70 - 200mm f2.8 is a good starting point for someone who is only able to afford one lens. Coupled with an APS-C camera it provides reasonable reach. This reach is further extended by the addition of a 2 x teleconverter. A Nikon or Canon 70 - 200mm f2.8 lens will still provide cracking results with a 2 x TC. In fact, Tony Northrup found the Canon 70 - 200mm f2.8L IS II sharper at 400mm with the 2 x TC than the Canon 100 - 400mm f4.5/5.6L IS II. My Canon 300mm f2.8L IS produced stunning results with the Canon 2 x TCIII fitted. If, like me, you shoot Nikon and have a reasonable budget but cannot afford (or justify) a used, let alone new, 300mm f2.8 etc., take a look at these two. Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikkor TC14EIII. Fantastic lightweight lens, produces brilliant images even with the 1.4TC. Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 - a bit heavy but simply stunning on the end of a D500. I tend to use it in preference to my 300mm f4 PF VR. For macro I use a Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS. Other focal lengths are covered my my Olympus system. Always consider "used" lenses/cameras from a reputable shop/trader.
Love that 20mm1.8g, superb & versatile lens. Totally agree re: 300mm f4, it's a bargain - produces much better images than my consumer 70-300mm. Great channel Tom, I'm enjoying exploring your videos.
Great video, I don't know how many times I've watched your Wex videos and there was no question about subscribing. I think your enthusiasm is so contagious, and there is no doubt about your passion. One of my favourite images was taken with a 75m, on a 645 using Delta 100, my favourite instance of the best camera being the one you have with you. There are some great enthusiast lenses to be had from third parties, I have the Sigma 150-600 Sport and got some decent images with it and I believe the new Tamron is at least as good. Great to see you with your own channel.
Yes, invest on the good lens. As a nikon user, I'll stick to Nikon lens only. Third party lens is only good for a few years and they're having compatibility issues to new camera body.
I'm entering the photography world completely green, yet I have my father to try and guide me. For as long as he's here anyway. I bought myself a Canon 77D, 100mm Macro and a 70-300mm IS lens. Having been out on my own, I am now either considering digiscoping or winning lottery with a 600 or 800mm lens. Or get a 1.4x converter. Just so annoying seeing an oystercatcher, lapwing and shoveler for the first time and not being able to catch them. Going to Formby tomorrow with the old Pa and hopefully see and shoot some red squirrels. As an aside, learn a thing or two about my camera, because there's so much! It's a mine field for us uneducated you know!
Film photographer here. I used a manual camera nikon F2as and a 300 2.8 mf lens. It amazes me how people think they need 500mm or longer for wildlife ..being quiet , patient and observant, is more important than gear .
The 300mm 2.8 has and will be an all time favourite lens of mine, although having just added a 600mm to the kit I certainly know it can be handy! The 300mm for me just has a special look and feel as a lens, and certainly won't be going anywhere from my kit bag in the future!
AF-P 70-300mm is great one to start with, super sharp, cheap as chips used (esp. the DX version). Fast it is not but the VR is one of the best I've used and the transmission is excellent. I've shot it successfully in fairly low light and it's a lot more capable than the specs would have you believe. The DX version of the lens will work fine on FX cameras too: just crop two sides to get a square aspect ratio image. And it's a keeper no matter what else you get later on because it's a featherweight champ of convenience.
Thanks Tom, here in April 2019, I have a 70-200 f2.8 - I am dx but plan to go Full Frame in a year or two - I currently own the plastic fantastic DX 55-300 and I'm looking to upgrade : I'm torn between the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (new) and the 200-400 f4 (2nd hand) for similar cost. I wondered what you would choose in my circumstances?
I was lucky enough to get the Nikon 500 mm f5.6 PF, and it has changed everything. All the reports are true, it is only a bit longer than my 70-200 f2.8 and weighs the same. It is incredibly sharp and has great vibration reduction. I now leave my Nikon 600 f4, my big tripod, and my Wimberly mount at home. Coupled with the D850, it is the best camera/lens combo available.
The 500 PF is a lens I’m hoping to get my hands on for testing this year, looks awesome however for me personally I’ll miss my 2.8 too much to probably switch to one. The 120/300 2.8 is what I want!
Excellent video. I know this is outdated since full frame cameras are more affordable now but perhaps you could mention the advantages of crop versus full frame for wildlife?
The debate is now getting very interesting in 2023/24. There is now a significant overlap in prices and specs between them. Eg a 20MP FF or a 32MP APS-C? Used to be APS for affordable long lenses. Not so much anymore. Lots of videos supporting both sides. Many conclude on APS for reach v weight v price. But now look at Canon IS 100-400mm zoom reviews! Other brands too. Canon R body and that zoom under 1.3kg in either format from about $USD1,500. I've seen a video comparing 100MP mid-size, 50MP FF and 36MP APS. Guy printed off subject matter at same size (ie full image for APS and cropped for the others). Had to get prints up to A1 before he could see any real difference worth noting. Also, as he said, if you are not printing but putting up on a screen, then you become restricted by the screen resolution anyway. It used to be a weight v sensor v image quality (body& lens combos) v price debate. The lines are blurring. Don't forget its the composure which counts. A great shot and people don't pixel count!
Hi Tom, Love the vlogs, your hare approaching the river is great... I have a question for you if you don't mind, I'd appreciate your help.. :Hi Paul, hope you're safe and well, and not too bored.. Don't know if you remember but my wife Pam and I came to you for a wildlife workshop last April.. I got a question for you if you don't mind.:. There's a rule of thumb regarding shutter speed and focal length I.E. SS=or>FL for sharp photos.. Would it be that Ss needs to be increased for cameras with a crop factor,.. say a 300mm lens with a 1.5 crop, should SS now be at least 1/450...? . Looking forward to more vlogs. Steve & Pam Roberts.. Cheers
Hey Steve and Pam, yes I’m regards to the standard tele rule the crop factor does impact the speed, so a 300mm + DX camera (1.5) would mean 450mm so a minimum of 1/500 is what I’d work with. Often now however with higher and higher res sensors I’d try and double this where possible, shooting 1/1000 sec for a 500mm lens etc. Hope that’s helps, cheers, Tom
I don't agree with the recommendations you have suggested so far for wildlife photography. Atleast it depends on your subjects, lighting and location before any recommendations can be made. If your subjects are birds in flight or really wild animals you will need a long lens for that (400mm +) I find 300mm as the very minimum lent to consider when its animals you can get fairly close to without disturbing them (25+ feet's) Sure I agree the 300mm f4 & f2.8s great lenses but that would be more suitable for sports than wildlife. So anything 400mm and above would be the better range to choose. For someone with a decent size budget for professional wildlife photography would consider a few long primes like 400 f 2.8 / f4, 500 or 600mm f4 or long zooms like the sigma 300-800mm f5.6 or sigma 200-500 f2.8 if they can afford to rent or purchase it. If on a beginners budgets $1,000 - 2,000 then the sigma 150-600mm or 200-500mm f5.6 for Nikon user
Teleconverter down grade the IQ a bit, better use only 1.4, or most 1.7. I think a 500 F4 with 1.4 as back up is very good for someone on budget and want to shot smaller wildlife and BIF. It is kind of handhold-able, and much longer reach than 300 F2.8. Also lighter than 400 and 600, so no need for tripod.
300mm on DX is very good, you have a 450 f4 and a 600+ f5.6 with the 1.4 tc. The last Nikon 1.4 tc has basically 0 degradation on good lenses, and you can find used 300 f4 for good prices. The 500 f4 isnt really budget at all, not even the Sigma, eventho greatly cheaper than Nikon/Canon.
I bought the Nikon 300 mm + 1.4 TC 15 years ago , after 10 years heavy use I burnt out the focusing motor I sent it to Nikon & £500 later it is still in use. It's dead sharp & not to heavy.
Hey Tom. Been really enjoying your videos. I am a commercial photographer by trade, shooting ad campaigns in the fashion and fitness market. But I’ve been picking up bird photography as a hobby during the pandemic and really enjoying it. Mostly I’ve been shooting birds at a local sanctuary, but my trusty old 70-300 variable aperture lens is being pushed to its limits. As wildlife isn’t my main genre, I can’t spend too crazy. But I was looking at everything from the $1300 250-500 f5.6 to the 500pf that I think was in the $3500 range US. I like the versatility of the zoom. But also like the lighter weight of the prime. I’d like to spend wisely and don’t mind spending for quality. But as I’ll likely only be buying one in the near term, which lens for the Nikon system would you suggest for bird photography if you only have one?
Hello! I have the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and I'm somewhat satisfied with it. I like the built, the flexibility, the image quality and the overall lens itself. The only things I don't like that much is the weight and the autofocus motor. For bird photography in full frame world, 500mm is almost never too close. And if you want to photograph birds in flight, a good autofocus motor is very helpful. I'm not saying that the 200-500 is not capable, but it is quite slow to acquire that inicial focus on the bird in flight. I use this lens paired with the nikon d500 (that has one of the best nikon dslr focus system). If I had the money, and if my main subject is birds and birds in flight I would buy the 500mm f5.6 PF without a doubt. Hope I was helpful :)
Funny that you think of 5 years as being an investment in a lens. To me it’s more like 30 years. 300mm is too short for most wildlife. That’s all I have but end up cropping enormously.
Hey! Great video! I'm a amateur photographer trying to get more into wildlife, I'm currently using a tamron 100-400 f/4-6.3 and am looking to upgrade for the low light capabilities and the better bokeh which are both meh on the tamron. I'm really torn between a 500mm f/4 (Canon or Sigma which I heard is really good) and a 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm is cheaper but I fear it would feel too short for what I'm photographing (birds/deer), especially after being used to the tamron 400mm. On the other hand the 500 is so expensive and heavy but if I'm going to use a 1.4x on the 300 all the time why not get the 500.. Thank you for your advices!
Maybe a bit late for you. Canon now has a FF RF100-400mm worth considering. Only fits canon R series. I loved my Tamron 18-270mm on my APS-C I bought 11 years ago. But technology has moved on and Canon won't allow third party RF mount lenses. But at the price and quality for that . .?
I gave up and bought a Panasonic FZ80 with 1200mm (1680mm in 4K crop) built in. The FZ80 costs AU$500. The stills can be very sharp. The 4K is brill. There is one requirement for wildlife - reach reach and more reach. 300mm is not enough
Hi Edwin, I totally understand that 300mm can seem short when your starting out but I can assure you it more than enough for great wildlife images - I've used my 300 2.8 for years professionally. The quality of the images produced are stellar so I just work harder to get close - Ill certainly do a video on field craft at some point to help people get closer to wildlife, but enjoy your FZ80, sounds like a impressive little camera!
and yet you're right. When I'm good enough... 300mm will do the job. But I have to learn how to sneak up a bit better. Especially with King Brown snakes... :) [DOWNWIND..DOWNWIND!!]
I'd love to see loads of your bird pictures using a 300mm. I don't mean penguin pictures, I don't mean birds that sit there for hours without moving and let you walk up to them. I mean birding, the sort of bird pictures that most wildlife photographers take. I have never seen a birder with a lens so small. The Canon 100-400 seems to be an excellent lens especially the mark 2, added to the 7d mk2, give you plenty of reach and 1.4tc and 2x options available. Wildlife photography is such a variable I think you were asking too much. Maybe look at a certain aspect of wildlife photography and then recommend a certain lens for that?
How much nature will you disturb by sneaking up? I have stalked deer and birds through a forest for hours to get a picture. But looking back on that I think that maybe I shouldn't, I am spooking the target, distressing them if you like. It would be better to be able to take pictures from a distance that does not disturb the animal.
Shooting at national park and zoos I think 70-300 on a APS-C sensor make sense. I use D5300 and 70-300mm which is giving me pretty much great result. While shooting in zoos try not to include "HUMANS". Wild animals are pretty.. Few samples of my work: yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/1656047
Please do give me your opinion. I have decided to buy the nikkor 200-500 f5.5 for my d7000. I am a landscape, wildlife and macro shooter. I have a dedicated macro lens and 18-105 kit lens. I need a dedicated wildlife lens. And then I'll invest on a good wide angle for landscape. What do you think. Should I go for the 200-500mm ?
Hey Tom, im a amatur wildlife photographer from Norway, and im considering to update my gear. I have a Nikon d7000 with a really old 300 mm f4 AF and a tamron 24-70 f2.8 G1. Im gonna work with puffins and seabirds for 7 weeks this summer. Any lens u think I should invest in?
With faster seabirds the AF will be the issue on the older AF lens (D type I'm guessing) updating here will likely speed things up. Depending on budget, stepping up to the slightly never AF-S 300 F4 (£600 ish mint used) will speed up your AF.Of course a newer body (D500 etc) will give a major boost to speed and right now used you can find some great deals.
I’ve just bought from wex a second hand sigma 150-600 sport and it’s fantastic,what do you think of the lens ? I know it’s heavy,around 7 pound in weight and heavy to hold. I would like some advice on this lens,I’m using a Nikon D4
Great video Tom, thank you for sharing. I'm new to wildlife photography, I own a Nikon D5500, but unsure which lens is compatible with my camera body. I have a budget of around £500 - 600 to purchase a lens or two. Any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks Paul.
Hi Tom, many thanks for posting. I've a Sigma DC 18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 MACRO HSM lens and would be grateful if you could answer the following questions please. Is this a lens that will allow me to take 'macro' photo's of insects and do I have to set my Canon EOS 77D to the Macro function position to be able to do this? For most of my wildlife (particularly bird) photography, I'm getting my best results with a Tamron 150-600mm lens and if I could afford it, like to get a bigger reach as the subjects are nearly always too far away. You've said that great shots can be got with lenses of smaller range and I see other people posting shots with such gear. Is this because the shots are taken where you can be pretty much assured that the subject won't 'fly un away'? I'm pretty much a beginner and appreciate there are a whole bunch of factors affecting what's best for what shot.
So ive been looking online for a used 70-200 one. The one he had just used but i cant find any used ones. Could someone help me out and send me a link or something please :)?
Hi Tom. Just discovered your channel and really enjoying it 😊 can you tell me, is there much difference between the 300mm f4 you're recommending and the cheaper AF 300mm f4 ED? Cheers
Yes there is a huge difference and that’s the AFS motor, the motor means it works with more cameras but also improves the speed and accuracy of the focus. The newer model also will work with the newer TCs and has an around better build and feel. For the extra £100 or so the 300 F4 AFS is certainly the one to be looking at!
I have a Nikon D500 and Nikkor 200-500 f5.6 lens.I am planning to buy Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for mammals and near subjects specially for low light conditions. Is this lens a better option than a Nikon 300mm f4 PF for wildlife photography?
Hey Tom I am thinking of upgrading my camera setup for wildlife! I’m thinking of going for the Nikon D850 camera body and the 300mm F4 PF ED Lens with the 1.4x mark 3 teleconverter! I would love to know your thoughts on that kinda setup?
A hard question to answer as it’s dependant on your style of shooting and the situation. Personally however my 300 2.8 has been a mainstay for 7 years in my kit bag, it comes on every trip and is a work horse of a lens, zooms (bar a small handful) never match the quality of the primes and of course the wide aperture at 2.8 makes it very flexible for working in the field
@@TomMasonPhoto I want nice lens and I am confused whether I should get a 300mm f4 pf (with 1.4x tc) or 200-500mm lens for my nikon d500 to shoot birds front of my home , water birds at lakes and rivers , birds in tree faraway trees in wildlife and bird santury. I am confused which one to get because zoom is very versatile and prime has better image quality , autofocus and fast aperture
Hello Tom I want to buy a long lens for my camera nikon d850, and whats your advice about these lens? whats better? AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 FL ED VR AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 FL ED VR thank you very much
which used 300mm f2.8 lens to avoid, i am currently looking out for sigma and nikon. As per you which wildlife lens from 300mm or above is known to give super sharp images, like name top 3 super crisp and sharp lens of your choice. :)
Hey there, personally i'd certainly go for the Nikon over the Sigma if you can afford it. Both the 300 2.8 VR I and II are exceptional (I personally have the 300 2.8 VR II) They can be found for £2300-£3000 used. The older 400mm 2.8 and 500 f4 VR's are also super lenses that are now often seen on the secondhand market for good prices however they will set you back around £4k. The Sigma lenses I know are a tad cheaper, but certainly the Nikon versions are slightly sharper and better built. Thanks for watching! Cheers, Tom
Hey Tom, I recently discovered your channel, and I love the videos! I know there was already a comment on this, but I am curious would the sigma 300mm 2.8 not have more value at half the price compared to the Nikon version? Is it the VR that changed everything? How important is VR to you?
Hey Stephen, Personally I wouldn't go with the Sigma super teles. Although they are half the price the performance is certainly a little lacking from what i've seen, the AF speed isn't as fast and they also as you say lack the VR that can be very handy at times (The AF and sharpness reductions are more then issue for myself than the VR as if course I very often am using a tripod - although do love working handheld with my 300mm). The Nikon ones can be found second hand for £2k (for the VR I) and so although expensive, I really feel they are a much better investment. The Sigma is a little old now as well so really are not the best performers on some of the Latest DSLRs, the IQ is certainly lacking more in the corners on FX. Thanks for joining the channel!
So would you say if I was looking for a cheaper option, then the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 would be solid option or would I want a longer focal length? I do have a D7000 so there is a crop with it. Are there any other options you would recommend that are on cheaper level than the Nikon 300mm 2.8? Thanks!
Great info Tom, thanks. I used to use the Nikon 70-300 for years on my old D80 and D90 (I currently have a D500, D750, and D4S), before I got smarter about lenses. Looking back, it really was a crappy lens. :) Have you ever used 3rd party lenses like Sigma and/or Tamron? I currently own the Sigma 100-400 and think it's a great lens for the money. Much less expensive than the Nikon 80-400, with more consistent AF. Do you plan on getting the newish Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens? I have one on order (still backordered here in the States). I live an hour north of Yellowstone National Park, which is great if one is mainly a wildlife photographer (which I am).
Hey Mac, personally I’ve never used 3rd party lenses after I invested in my 300 F4 aged 15, I’ve used the Nikon 80/400 but the 200/500 is better all round. I’d love to test out the 500 PF - hoping to get my hands on one this weekend for a whole few first thoughts - I’ll try make a quick video! For me however I know that the slow aperture will always make me want my 300 2.8! However I’m super tempted to pick up a 300 f4 PF for hiking in the future!
@@TomMasonPhoto Thanks Tom. Have heard great things about the 500 PF. Not the fastest 500mm lens around, but way cheaper and lighter than a 500mm f/4! It's super sharp too. If you get your hands on one (mine has been backordered for months), have fun!
Hey there, I have used the 105 on the D500 a few times now, not a huge amount but thats just down to time of year and what I was shooting this year. I works well just as it would on any DX body, giving a 150mm equivalent rather than 105, that is great for working with wildlife and insects. You get a larger depth of field with DX cameras as well due to the sensor size that can be handy for getting those little tiny things perfectly in focus!
The 24-70 is stunning but on DX although you gain some reach at the long end, loosing the 24mm for me defeats the use really, something like the 17-55 2.8 might be a better choice if sticking to DX, although if your planning to upgrade to FX in the future, the 24-70 is excellent!
forever grateful for recommending that 20mm lens . can you please answer my query ? 1. D500 with nikon 200-500 vs d850 with nikon 200-500? which is better ?note I already have a nikon d810 .
Glad you loved the 20mm recommendation, it’s one of my favourites. Personally I’d go D850 over D500 with the 200/500 due to the extra MP and FX sensor. The crop mode on the D850 is pretty much the same as the D500 and you’ll only loose 3 FPS without the grip or only 1 if you add the grip making it a stunning all round performer. The D850 will be my go to in 2018 when I’ve finally got round to picking one up! Cheers, Tom
Thanks tom !! very useful info Re: the FPS ,will buy 200-500 now and will wait for d850 price to cool down a bit in 2018. Happy new year in advance ..Cheers !!
I am ready to replace my Nikon D7000 with a new Nikon camera, either a D7200, D500, or a D750. I am seriously considering a D750 with the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR "kit" lens. I noticed the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens at $1400.00. I think that I would have an easier time learning how to use the D750 over the D500. I can easily afford the D7200 with the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lens. The price would be about the same as the D750 and the 2 f/4 "G" lenses. With the D7200, I would be using a AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II lens, which I already own. If you do not like the 18-200mm lens, what other similar lens would you recommend. Yes, I can afford the D500. The issue is how much time I would need to learn how to use the D500 properly. Based on the above information, which camera and lens(es) would you recommend for me? Thanks in advance for the information.
Hi Tom...loved ur insight regarding the different lenses❤.Could u just suggest which lens would be better among 300mm f4e pf ed and 70-200mm f2.8e fl ed for photographing somewhat close landscape of large animals in africa(lions, elephants).Thanks
Hi there! So between these two lenses there are a few things to think about. If close in shots of subjects are something you'll be after, the longer reach of the 300mm PF will certainly help, however the prime is somewhat restricting when it comes to more landscape images and a variety of shots. The 70-200 FL is certainly a sharper lens, and the 2.8 aperture will be ideal for morning game drives and lower light scenarios. What I would suggest here, especially if you are after landscapes + wildlife, is go the for 70-200 FL + a 1.4 TC III, this would give you the additional reach up to 280mm for some tighter wildlife shots whilst also giving you the flexibility of the zoom and aperture for wildlife and low light. I love 300mm fixed lenses but the PF is one I'm less of a fan of as I feel its IQ lets it down a touch!
The 200-500 is a super lens for the price and has excellent performance on modern Nikon cameras. The sharpness and reach is perfect for birds and wildlife. I’ve used the lens a few times and have found it to be great, the only downside is the 5.6 aperture that is fine for working in decent to average light but can be a bit of a problem in darker conditions where a f4/2.8 lens really comes into its own. Personally it think the 200/500 is priced exceptionally for its performance and what it offers and know a few pros who’ve added one to the bag for its versatility!
Thank you for your answer. It is really tough to choose between the 300mm f4 pf versus the 200-500 :) I have a D500 and the 300mm would make a great combo i think. Lightweight and nice reach. Although I am a bit worried because I'm not sure if the 450mm eqv. field of view is enough for small animals.
As a 300mm 2.8 owner myself I’d have to go with that! The lens is so well balanced, super fast and the VR can be very helpful, paired with the 1.4 Tc it’s a dream, also a hell of a lot smaller than the 400 Afs non VR! But if you shoot little birds and always find yourself far away, the 400 might suit you better, but you’ll be Tripod bound most of the time, where as the 300 is highly flexible for all kinds of shoots, the whole reason I picked mine up! Also the bokeh quality on the 300 is second to none!
The older Afs model is out of production in regards to repair, so if there are any problems you’ll find it harder to get serviced, the newer models will be a much better bet. Optically the newer versions coatings are fantastic.
Great video Tom Mason! What is your take on using a 1.4TC with a 300 PF on a D500 versus a 500 Prime on a D500. Of course, I have cost in mind. The 1st combo would cost me 2500$ and a Sigma sport 500 mm prime would cost me 6000 $. Pretty sure Nikon would better a 3rd party lens, just not sure whether the 300 PF+ 1.4 TC would trump a 500mm prime, even if from a 3rd party. Your thoughts on this ?
Hey Pakhers, good question. Personally I've never been a fan of Sigma lenses, always found them to be a disappointment. I know that the 300 PF and 1.4 is an excellent combination ( sharpness, speed, IQ) and so would have no problem recommending it. Also it would be hugely lighter and cheaper than the Sigma. With recent announcements however I personally would be tempted to wait for the new Nikon 500 PF. At £3600 its cheaper than the Sigma, but will have excellent sharpness, Nikon quality build and performance, giving you the extra reach and being far more compact and lightweight, whilst still being able to work with the 1.4 tc. Personally I am hoping to have one for a review in the next few months, but right now if I was in your position, I'd be looking to the 500 PF. Cheers, Tom
Hi there, I never owned the 200/500 but have used it many times for reviews and certain jobs, the lens is great for enthusiast wildlife photographers. Personally I choose the 300 2.8 VR II at the moment as it’s just stunning for images
@@TomMasonPhoto I am thinking about to purchase wildlife lens. Your review is honest and so convinced. I am owed the Nikon D500 right now. And you think the Nikon 300 have enough reach?
Hi Tom, I've recently acquired my first full frame Nikon DSLR (the D750). I currently use a 200-500mm f5.6ED VR for wildlife photography. I'm keen to do more early morning/early evening wildlife photography where light may be restricted. I'm considering trading in my 200-500mm and swapping to either the 300mm f4 AFS VR or the 300mm f2.8 VR II lens. This will be primarily for low light badger, otter and brown hare photography. Out of the two lenses, can you say which would be the better option please? Thanks for your time, Andy.
I use the 300mm 2.8 VR II every day, it’s a fantastic lens, works with TCs, stunning optics and prefect for low light shooting, I have worked with otters and badgers with the lens and wouldn’t change it for the world, bar maybe the new 120/300 2.8 FL! Certainly gets my recommendation
Hey man, I'm looking to get into wildlife videography (specifically birds). Do you have any recommendations of a cinematic camera (that can go slow motion) that either has an internal stabilizer or also a gimbal?
Personally as I'm only getting started in videography myself and do more stills I'm probably not the best to ask, however Sony FS5/FS7 or Canon C200 are certainly good options (pricy). On a smaller budget the Sony A6500 is a camera I love to use with 120fps and great AF and lens options and at £1500 is a much more reasonable starting point. Good log profiles and ISO performance make is great for use as well as the small form factor 5 axis stabilisation mean it works well in many situations - I very enjoy using mine. But will certainly be looking to up my video game over the next few years with this channel etc - Hope that helps. Cheers, Tom
Hi Rebecca, the 70/300 is a f4.5-5.6 consumer zoom, where as the 70/200 is a 2.8 zoom. The 2.8 aperture allows for much better low light performance and control over depth of field effects for more options in regards to the look of an image. The Af speed is also a major improvement that is paramount when working with fast subjects. The 2.8 aperture also allows for the use of Teleconverter that mean the 1.4 can create a 100-280 lens that still has excellent AF and a faster aperture for low light work. Coupled with a pro spec body and it’s a very very flexible combination and one that’s excellent to build a system around. Thanks, Tom
Yes any of the lenses with the AF-s motor will work and autofocus on the entry level Nikon cameras so you shouldn't have any problems with these on the D3400! Cheers, Tom
Hi tom I love your videos can you help I have the Sigma 150-600 sport but I find that at f6.3wide open it seems very soft I shoot with the Nikon d500 and soon will be getting thed850 I mainly shoot birds what other lens would you recommend I was thinking of the Nikon 200-500 thank from Sam
Hi Sam, Certainly the D500 and D850 will push the capabilities of the lenses you use because of the high pixel density and resolution. The 200-500 is well known for being an excellent performer and at £1200.00 Uk its a really great option for wildlife photographers. I've tested it a number of times and also know a good number of people who have invested and love it. The sharpness is great and the overall performance of the lens will most likely be a good upgrade from the 150-600. The only way to get a much better performance would be upgrading to a 300 2.8/ 500/4 etc for the highest optical qualities but that would be £4000.00 + , Hope that helps, Tom
The 400 2.8 / 600 f4 are all great lenses for wildlife photography but it’s much about your personal style and wants from a lens, be it the extra reach or the low light performance of the ultra wide open lenses
In the beginning you'll want to invest more into the lens than camera, something like a 300 f4 or the new 200-500mm from Nikon ($1400) are great starting places. Paired with a decent body such as the D7200 or even a second hand D750 or full frame model will give you great headroom in terms of features as you develop. Hope that helps, Cheers, Tom
I used a Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop sensor D500 and D7500, and shooting birds I was at the maximum zoom (750 mm effective) pretty much all the time AND it was hard to fill the frame with the subject. I'd say for medium size birds 850-900 mm effective focal length would be great. 300 mm, 400, and even 500 mm is too short. I wanna try Sigma 150-600 mm with a DX camera, but most people say Nikon 200-500 mm is sharper ..
Personally I find I can produce images of birds with 200-500m on an FX and with DX it certainly adds that extra flexibility. Personally I find working from hides and some good fieldcraft can get you within 10ft of most subjects, where a 500mm will be more than suitable. Do you work from hides much? Cheers, Tom
So I'm not happy lmfao, just found out I'm spending more than the cost of my Sony a9ii on glass lol, if you could only have 3 lenses what would they be? (As I'm going on a bit of a trekking trip soon and want to invest into some decent lenses but I only have room (and budget lol) for 3 )
Personally I don't really like either of those lenses in terms of focus speed, sharpness or ergonomics, I know some people like them, but I think the money is better saved and used towards higher quality glass. The Nikon 200-500 is a good bet and I have reviewed that, but still a pro spec 300 f4 is always one of the first lenses I recommend for people getting into wildlife photography. Cheers, Tom
Hmm the 70-200 f4 with a TC will be pretty poor, but also I'm not a huge fan of the 150-500. Personally the Nikon 200-500 would be a better investment, giving more reach, great sharpness and better AF performance with your Nikon camera. Cheers, Tom
It means that an object is recorded on the sensor at its real size, so if something is 5mm across it will be recorded at 5mm on the sensor. Highly useful for small insects, plants and details, Cheers, Tom
So with macro lenses the minimum focus distance will get you 1:1 reproduction (with Nikon cameras) Canon do a 5:1 (so 5 times life size). The thing to consider is the minimum distance as you'll have to be that close for max magnification, hence for wildlife/insects its recommended for a macro 100mm + so that you're not right on top of your subjects.
Hi Tom- I really enjoy your content and have found this video very helpful! I have a Nikon D5100 and a 18-200mm f 3.5-5.6 lens, which I've been doing nature photography with for the last 4/5 years-it's served me very well! However I'd now like to invest in a new lens. I'm particularly interested in bee / close-up flower/plant/mushroom photography, so was considering the 105mm macro lens. My dilemma is I'd also love to experiment more with bokeh and getting closer shots of animals so was considering a 300mm f4 prime, as I feel my current lens is limited in low light and my images aren't as sharp as I'd like. If you had to pick one which would you recommend? I appreciate this is probably a difficult question! All the best and keep up the great content :)
Sarah Clews hey Sarah! Really glad you are enjoying the videos! So to answer your question... both lenses do two quite different jobs. If insects/bugs and flowers are your focus the 105mm 2.8 VR macro for Nikon is amazing. I love mine. The lens is super sharp and beautifully built and will last a lifetime! It also is great for Bokeh with closer subjects thanks to the 2.8 aperture (that stops down when into the super close focus). If birds and mammals are more you’d thing then the 300mm f4 is excellent. Be it the new VR one or the older AFs model. It’s perfect for creative Bokeh and is wonderfully sharp and much faster to focus than the 18/200 will be. The 300 AFS is the Lens I started with and I loved it, they also have a 1.5m close focus that is still pretty great for larger insects especially when used with a TC. To save some ££ both the 300mm F4 AFS and the 105mm can be tracked down at excellent second hand prices - around £450 for the 300 / £400 for the 105 that is great value. It all comes down to what your focus is going to be on most / budget. Long term you’ll want both but to pick you’ll have to decide what you want to photography most (sorry)! If you like your insects and want to try out some Bokeh then the 105 would be ace, adding the 300mm a little later as funds allow. Hope that helps a little, any extra questions, I’m here!
Thanks for replying so speedily- very sound advice! The problem is I want to do both, haha- every photographer's problem I'm sure! If only lenses weren't so expensive..at the moment I think I'm more keen on the 300mm f4 prime. Are there any good websites you'd recommend checking out for 2nd hand lenses on apart from the obvious eBay? thank you so much for all your help- much appreciated
Hey Sarah, no worries, you'll love the 300 f4! - Personally as there are so many available used on places like Wex and others I'd avoid ebay full stop to make the most of the warrantee's given by a dealer. Wex have a 300 f4 for £580 in pretty much mint tidd.ly/57f03334 but also others like MPB also have some for about the same but only offer a 6 month warrantee whilst Wex offers 12. but might be worth holding off till after Xmas if you can see see if any are traded in in the new year! Cheers, Tom
Oh Brilliant-I'll check that one out for sure and good point about the warranty. Seeing as my birthday is after Christmas that's a good shout! thank you!
Tbh it depends on a few factors such as intended purpose as well as camera requirements. For example I love the D850 46mp as it allows such awesome quality however it would be overkill if I only delivered smaller files or for posting in the net. Also the lower res sensors have better low light performance in general so the D5 offers advantages there. However for myself, quality, resolution and dynamic range are my key concerns. The D850 nails them all.
Hey Tom, great video, i am currently shooting with a D7000 & Sigma 150-500, my photography is moving on nicely, but i am getting frustrated with the image quality i am getting, i want to upgrade to a D500 , as i mainly shoot birds and at the moment primes are out of the question, which lens would you suggest i go for, is the Nikon 200-500 a good upgrade ?, thanks Dave
Hey Dave, Regarding the D500 it is excellent and paired with the 200-500. The Nikon it is indeed a marked upgrade on the Sigma, giving you a 5.6 aperture at 500mm that is very good for the price. If you are looking for the ultimate in regards to sharpness and performance a prime will do better (maybe a 300 f4) but you will loose a lot of reach, that will result in you having to work harder for the shots, not necessarily a bad thing as it will teach you more about using primes if you do eventually look to a super telephoto. If you shoot mainly birds, the 200-500 and the D500 would be a awesome combo and even wide open will look awesome due to using the sharpest bits of the lens on the DX sensor. I'm looking into the 200-500 for a travel lens, I just love my fast aperture primes! Hope that helps, anything else you need, just let me know! Tom
I disagree with your video and think it is a disservice to people starting out with wildlife. I recommend people buy a used Sig/Tam 150-600 or a Nikon 200-500 until they figure out if they actually want to commit themselves to the pursuit of wildlife. They can also learn the basics and decide what focal length suits them best. After a year or two they can sell the lens for essentially what they paid for it. I specialize in birds/raptors and I can tell you that here in CT for example you aren't going to get anything with a 20mm or a 70-200mm. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and never use it. I think you should quantify that geographic location is a huge impact on what lenses you actually will need. Your investment lenses aren't much of an investment if people have no use for them.
As a professional wildlife photographer I think superzooms really don’t aid people to grow as a photographer in the same way that great glass does. Learning to understand how to get close to wildlife, have flexibility within aperture and better quality optics far outweighs the extra reach. The points made about the 20mm are that people often put to much weight onto focal length rather than how a subject looks and feels in a given frame. Zooming in is all well and good but it doesn’t always make the best wildlife images. Having worked all over the world I’ve always been able to produce the images I’ve been after with my 300mm, yes some subjects can require extra focal length but when starting out I feel the benefits of the low cost pro level glass - often cheaper than the stated super zooms - are far better for the learning development of new photographers. Everyone has their opinions and I totally agree that many love the wide focal range of the 150/600 especially for smaller birds - but those lenses often produce results that are inferior to sharpness and IQ coming out of the shorter 300 f4 for example. You’ll have to work harder with the lens, but in the long run it’s a far better learning path. Thanks for you comment / really appreciate you lending your thoughts and experience! Tom
@@TomMasonPhoto Having the ability to travel the world is certainly a nice benefit and allows you to get access to areas that many will never see. Your video makes perfect sense for someone living in Florida where the wildlife is plentiful and tend not to be very shy. I personally shoot with a 300 F2.8 DII and 500 F4 VR-G. I'm a semi-pro and unfortunately my real job doesn't afford me the time to travel. I have shot with many lenses and made my way up from the big xxx-xxx zooms. They are a great learning tool. When people ask me for lens advice I often ask them where they live and what they plan on shooting. There is no one size fits all answer. I do highly respect your opinion but wanted you to see the flip-side. I am also associated with a certain brand of lens because I did a promo video with them, however that is not the lens I always reccomend. I still think there is merit for people starting out with a xxx-xxx lens until they figure out what they want to shoot. True beginners don't even know how to set there cameras up for wildlife. It's no different than normal photography. I tell people to shoot with there kit lens until they figure out what focal length they prefer. Anyways, just my humble opinion. Cheers
@@krisrowe6598 i just bought me my first 70-200 f2.8 a few weeks ago and i got some really great pictures(compared to my old equipment, this is just the best lens i ever bought, a true allrounder! totally agree with Tom Mason), but exactly as you mentioned, only in city areas where the birds and animals in general arent that shy. As soon as i leave town and go into more rural areas, i simply dont have the reach to get animals i want to photograph. i got some basic army training, so i know a little bit about camo, being silent, packing your gear so it doesnt make bell sounds every step and from the karl may books i learned coming from the leeward side, but still, most of the times i get spotted by one or another animal. Plus where i live the nature reserve areas are access constrained, so you can see the birds/animals in the distance but with the 200mm and no chance to move in closer? Its hard to pull off. btw i got a nikon d7500 and im struggling between 200-500 and those 150-600 lenses, i watched a ton of reviews and cant decide.. local stores dont have ANY on stock to kinda test them.. pls halp
@@benjaminzerhusen4941 Yep the 70-200 is indeed a great lens but not long enough for most wildlife. The Nikon 200-500 is a bit sharper than the Sig/Tam 150-600 but the 2 copies I tested were very slow with Acquisition speed. If you plan on photographing more static images then it would be a great choice. However all the xxx-xxx (as with most lenses) will have sample variation so it's important you can buy from an authorized dealer in case you get a lemon. Used can work out if you find a trusted seller. That's what I was talking about though when I first posted here. You can check my flickr page and scroll through albums, I have many different lenses listed. I did not shoot extensively with the 200-500 though. www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn
hey @@krisrowe6598 , thanks for the quick answer, small question: "the 2 copies you tested refer to which model? (im not a native speaker) I actually had severe issues with setting up my 70-200. But i got it figured out i think, except for extreme long range, where the AF(in view finder) isnt hitting anything, and with manual its a mess as well. only live view works. Gotta do some testing, although i dont have those "lens firmware set up things" Just checked your flick, holy moly, those images are superb!
I did a full review on the 200/500 on my channel. I feel the faster lenses are better investments long term, however the 200/500 is a fantastic all rounder for most people
I have a 300mm F4 Nikon with a +1.4 converter on a Nikon D300s. OK for big birds. Hopeless for small birds. I wish I'd never bought it. 600mm would have been the best choice. I can't afford that so I am selling the lens and tele converter.
I’m surprised you think it’s hopeless for small birds, 600mm equivalent on DX is more than enough reach even for kingfisher sizes birds if you work to get close, are you using a hide or any type of concealing strategies? I’ve photographed many birds on a 300 with a 1.4 on FX, be great to hear what your thinking of swapping too? The 200/500?
The 70-200 f4 is a great lens, especially if weight and size are primary considerations, however due to the reduction in light transmission the ability for working with depth of field + tele converters is especially reduced making it less flexible for wildlife photography.
you get the reach of a 300mm, which is what really matters. that and that you lose a stop of DR / low-light performance. the subject separation / bokeh nonsense is fairly unimportant. You get plenty at 200mm even with at slower apertures.
Hey Andy - I Shall hopefully be getting hold of the 300 PF in the next few weeks again for a full review but in regards to do you need to 2.8... well it depends on what you are looking to gain? Do you want the shallow depth of field? Will the 1 stop help in low light conditions? Are you happy adding the extra weight? Personally The 300 Pf seems to be darn good and yes you will get 5% more sharpness, faster focus, better bokeh.. but also maybe if you want those a 400 2.8 might be a wiser move... a little more focal length, combined with the aperture for even better shallow depth effects (and if you save the money for the new one, its not even drastically much heavier)... although of course their is a cost increase! Largely it depends what you are mainly looking to gain - if the 300 f4 does most of what you need then why spend £4k on a new lens rather than lost of exciting time watching wildlife and focusing your craft?
Nikon 200 - 500mm, is a great lens to have in the kit bag
I think Nikon 200-500mm is one of the best investment lens for starter photographers....
The Nikon 70-300 AF-P is still one of my favourite lenses. It has so much reach and optical quality is pretty good while remaining a SUPER small size. you can fit it anywhere, in any bag, without losing too much space.
It's just something I can't do with my Sigma 150-600mm Sports for example which is still reasonably small for a 600mm
I have been photographing wildlife for 30 years and agree that a 70 - 200mm f2.8 is a good starting point for someone who is only able to afford one lens. Coupled with an APS-C camera it provides reasonable reach. This reach is further extended by the addition of a 2 x teleconverter. A Nikon or Canon 70 - 200mm f2.8 lens will still provide cracking results with a 2 x TC. In fact, Tony Northrup found the Canon 70 - 200mm f2.8L IS II sharper at 400mm with the 2 x TC than the Canon 100 - 400mm f4.5/5.6L IS II. My Canon 300mm f2.8L IS produced stunning results with the Canon 2 x TCIII fitted. If, like me, you shoot Nikon and have a reasonable budget but cannot afford (or justify) a used, let alone new, 300mm f2.8 etc., take a look at these two. Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikkor TC14EIII. Fantastic lightweight lens, produces brilliant images even with the 1.4TC. Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 - a bit heavy but simply stunning on the end of a D500. I tend to use it in preference to my 300mm f4 PF VR. For macro I use a Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS. Other focal lengths are covered my my Olympus system. Always consider "used" lenses/cameras from a reputable shop/trader.
Love that 20mm1.8g, superb & versatile lens. Totally agree re: 300mm f4, it's a bargain - produces much better images than my consumer 70-300mm. Great channel Tom, I'm enjoying exploring your videos.
Neil Ford do you have any advice for wildlife videography?
Great video, I don't know how many times I've watched your Wex videos and there was no question about subscribing. I think your enthusiasm is so contagious, and there is no doubt about your passion. One of my favourite images was taken with a 75m, on a 645 using Delta 100, my favourite instance of the best camera being the one you have with you. There are some great enthusiast lenses to be had from third parties, I have the Sigma 150-600 Sport and got some decent images with it and I believe the new Tamron is at least as good. Great to see you with your own channel.
Yes, invest on the good lens. As a nikon user, I'll stick to Nikon lens only. Third party lens is only good for a few years and they're having compatibility issues to new camera body.
I'm entering the photography world completely green, yet I have my father to try and guide me. For as long as he's here anyway. I bought myself a Canon 77D, 100mm Macro and a 70-300mm IS lens. Having been out on my own, I am now either considering digiscoping or winning lottery with a 600 or 800mm lens. Or get a 1.4x converter. Just so annoying seeing an oystercatcher, lapwing and shoveler for the first time and not being able to catch them. Going to Formby tomorrow with the old Pa and hopefully see and shoot some red squirrels. As an aside, learn a thing or two about my camera, because there's so much! It's a mine field for us uneducated you know!
Film photographer here. I used a manual camera nikon F2as and a 300 2.8 mf lens. It amazes me how people think they need 500mm or longer for wildlife ..being quiet , patient and observant, is more important than gear .
The 300mm 2.8 has and will be an all time favourite lens of mine, although having just added a 600mm to the kit I certainly know it can be handy! The 300mm for me just has a special look and feel as a lens, and certainly won't be going anywhere from my kit bag in the future!
This helped me so much with deciding what lens to invest in next. I'm working on adding to my equipment. Thank you so much for this vid!
Glad you found it helpful Amanda! If you need any other Qs answered let me know! New vids from Africa this weekend
AF-P 70-300mm is great one to start with, super sharp, cheap as chips used (esp. the DX version). Fast it is not but the VR is one of the best I've used and the transmission is excellent. I've shot it successfully in fairly low light and it's a lot more capable than the specs would have you believe. The DX version of the lens will work fine on FX cameras too: just crop two sides to get a square aspect ratio image. And it's a keeper no matter what else you get later on because it's a featherweight champ of convenience.
Bro what about tamran 100 400 mm for wild photography..plz let me know
In (mainland) Europe, where wildlife is very shy, 400mm is the bare minimum, really.
Thanks Tom, here in April 2019, I have a 70-200 f2.8 - I am dx but plan to go Full Frame in a year or two - I currently own the plastic fantastic DX 55-300 and I'm looking to upgrade : I'm torn between the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (new) and the 200-400 f4 (2nd hand) for similar cost. I wondered what you would choose in my circumstances?
How about the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR? Its focus is great.!
It’s a great lens I’ve done a full review on this channel! A good pick for a variety of subjects
I was lucky enough to get the Nikon 500 mm f5.6 PF, and it has changed everything. All the reports are true, it is only a bit longer than my 70-200 f2.8 and weighs the same. It is incredibly sharp and has great vibration reduction. I now leave my Nikon 600 f4, my big tripod, and my Wimberly mount at home. Coupled with the D850, it is the best camera/lens combo available.
The 500 PF is a lens I’m hoping to get my hands on for testing this year, looks awesome however for me personally I’ll miss my 2.8 too much to probably switch to one. The 120/300 2.8 is what I want!
Excellent video.
I know this is outdated since full frame cameras are more affordable now but perhaps you could mention the advantages of crop versus full frame for wildlife?
The debate is now getting very interesting in 2023/24. There is now a significant overlap in prices and specs between them. Eg a 20MP FF or a 32MP APS-C? Used to be APS for affordable long lenses. Not so much anymore. Lots of videos supporting both sides. Many conclude on APS for reach v weight v price. But now look at Canon IS 100-400mm zoom reviews! Other brands too. Canon R body and that zoom under 1.3kg in either format from about $USD1,500.
I've seen a video comparing 100MP mid-size, 50MP FF and 36MP APS. Guy printed off subject matter at same size (ie full image for APS and cropped for the others). Had to get prints up to A1 before he could see any real difference worth noting. Also, as he said, if you are not printing but putting up on a screen, then you become restricted by the screen resolution anyway.
It used to be a weight v sensor v image quality (body& lens combos) v price debate. The lines are blurring.
Don't forget its the composure which counts. A great shot and people don't pixel count!
Hi Tom, Love the vlogs, your hare approaching the river is great... I have a question for you if you don't mind, I'd appreciate your help.. :Hi Paul, hope you're safe and well, and not too bored.. Don't know if you remember but my wife Pam and I came to you for a wildlife workshop last April.. I got a question for you if you don't mind.:. There's a rule of thumb regarding shutter speed and focal length I.E. SS=or>FL for sharp photos.. Would it be that Ss needs to be increased for cameras with a crop factor,.. say a 300mm lens with a 1.5 crop, should SS now be at least 1/450...? . Looking forward to more vlogs. Steve & Pam Roberts.. Cheers
Hey Steve and Pam, yes I’m regards to the standard tele rule the crop factor does impact the speed, so a 300mm + DX camera (1.5) would mean 450mm so a minimum of 1/500 is what I’d work with. Often now however with higher and higher res sensors I’d try and double this where possible, shooting 1/1000 sec for a 500mm lens etc. Hope that’s helps, cheers, Tom
Thanks Tom... Keep up the good work..
I don't agree with the recommendations you have suggested so far for wildlife photography.
Atleast it depends on your subjects, lighting and location before any recommendations can be made.
If your subjects are birds in flight or really wild animals you will need a long lens for that (400mm +)
I find 300mm as the very minimum lent to consider when its animals you can get fairly close to without disturbing them (25+ feet's)
Sure I agree the 300mm f4 & f2.8s great lenses but that would be more suitable for sports than wildlife. So anything 400mm and above would be the better range to choose.
For someone with a decent size budget for professional wildlife photography would consider a few long primes like 400 f 2.8 / f4, 500 or 600mm f4 or long zooms like the sigma 300-800mm f5.6 or sigma 200-500 f2.8 if they can afford to rent or purchase it. If on a beginners budgets $1,000 - 2,000 then the sigma 150-600mm or 200-500mm f5.6 for Nikon user
Nisalah Armstrong so, no teleconverter?
Teleconverter down grade the IQ a bit, better use only 1.4, or most 1.7.
I think a 500 F4 with 1.4 as back up is very good for someone on budget and want to shot smaller wildlife and BIF. It is kind of handhold-able, and much longer reach than 300 F2.8. Also lighter than 400 and 600, so no need for tripod.
Nisalah Armstrong if you use a 300mm on a dx camera you have an 450mm and the low light is better
Some interesting inputs here. Do you have recommendations for wildlife videography?
300mm on DX is very good, you have a 450 f4 and a 600+ f5.6 with the 1.4 tc.
The last Nikon 1.4 tc has basically 0 degradation on good lenses, and you can find used 300 f4 for good prices.
The 500 f4 isnt really budget at all, not even the Sigma, eventho greatly cheaper than Nikon/Canon.
I bought the Nikon 300 mm + 1.4 TC 15 years ago , after 10 years heavy use I burnt out the focusing motor I sent it to Nikon & £500 later it is still in use. It's dead sharp & not to heavy.
What version of 300mm? Do Nikon still repair the older lens?
Hey Tom. Been really enjoying your videos. I am a commercial photographer by trade, shooting ad campaigns in the fashion and fitness market. But I’ve been picking up bird photography as a hobby during the pandemic and really enjoying it. Mostly I’ve been shooting birds at a local sanctuary, but my trusty old 70-300 variable aperture lens is being pushed to its limits. As wildlife isn’t my main genre, I can’t spend too crazy. But I was looking at everything from the $1300 250-500 f5.6 to the 500pf that I think was in the $3500 range US. I like the versatility of the zoom. But also like the lighter weight of the prime. I’d like to spend wisely and don’t mind spending for quality. But as I’ll likely only be buying one in the near term, which lens for the Nikon system would you suggest for bird photography if you only have one?
Hello! I have the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and I'm somewhat satisfied with it. I like the built, the flexibility, the image quality and the overall lens itself. The only things I don't like that much is the weight and the autofocus motor. For bird photography in full frame world, 500mm is almost never too close. And if you want to photograph birds in flight, a good autofocus motor is very helpful. I'm not saying that the 200-500 is not capable, but it is quite slow to acquire that inicial focus on the bird in flight. I use this lens paired with the nikon d500 (that has one of the best nikon dslr focus system). If I had the money, and if my main subject is birds and birds in flight I would buy the 500mm f5.6 PF without a doubt.
Hope I was helpful :)
@@JoaoRodrigues_photo Thank you Joao!
Funny that you think of 5 years as being an investment in a lens. To me it’s more like 30 years. 300mm is too short for most wildlife. That’s all I have but end up cropping enormously.
The 70-300 ii doesnt make that noise ,that was a problem with the first one
Yes I was talking about my old old old version, the newer AF-S and AF-P are far superior, the AF-P is a great lens!
Hey! Great video! I'm a amateur photographer trying to get more into wildlife, I'm currently using a tamron 100-400 f/4-6.3 and am looking to upgrade for the low light capabilities and the better bokeh which are both meh on the tamron. I'm really torn between a 500mm f/4 (Canon or Sigma which I heard is really good) and a 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm is cheaper but I fear it would feel too short for what I'm photographing (birds/deer), especially after being used to the tamron 400mm. On the other hand the 500 is so expensive and heavy but if I'm going to use a 1.4x on the 300 all the time why not get the 500.. Thank you for your advices!
Maybe a bit late for you. Canon now has a FF RF100-400mm worth considering. Only fits canon R series. I loved my Tamron 18-270mm on my APS-C I bought 11 years ago. But technology has moved on and Canon won't allow third party RF mount lenses. But at the price and quality for that . .?
@@johnwinter6061 late indeed! I saved up and recently treated myself with a second hand EF 500mm f/4 IS II. But thanks for the feedback!
I gave up and bought a Panasonic FZ80 with 1200mm (1680mm in 4K crop) built in. The FZ80 costs AU$500. The stills can be very sharp. The 4K is brill. There is one requirement for wildlife - reach reach and more reach. 300mm is not enough
Hi Edwin, I totally understand that 300mm can seem short when your starting out but I can assure you it more than enough for great wildlife images - I've used my 300 2.8 for years professionally. The quality of the images produced are stellar so I just work harder to get close - Ill certainly do a video on field craft at some point to help people get closer to wildlife, but enjoy your FZ80, sounds like a impressive little camera!
and yet you're right. When I'm good enough... 300mm will do the job. But I have to learn how to sneak up a bit better. Especially with King Brown snakes... :) [DOWNWIND..DOWNWIND!!]
I'd love to see loads of your bird pictures using a 300mm. I don't mean penguin pictures, I don't mean birds that sit there for hours without moving and let you walk up to them. I mean birding, the sort of bird pictures that most wildlife photographers take. I have never seen a birder with a lens so small.
The Canon 100-400 seems to be an excellent lens especially the mark 2, added to the 7d mk2, give you plenty of reach and 1.4tc and 2x options available.
Wildlife photography is such a variable I think you were asking too much. Maybe look at a certain aspect of wildlife photography and then recommend a certain lens for that?
How much nature will you disturb by sneaking up? I have stalked deer and birds through a forest for hours to get a picture. But looking back on that I think that maybe I shouldn't, I am spooking the target, distressing them if you like. It would be better to be able to take pictures from a distance that does not disturb the animal.
Hey Tom, great video as always. I was wondering what do you think about the newer 24mm vs the 20mm you mention. Keep it up with such great content.
I have a D3400 and use a 70-300mm af-p lens for shooting wildlife... At zoos lol
Shooting at national park and zoos I think 70-300 on a APS-C sensor make sense. I use D5300 and 70-300mm which is giving me pretty much great result. While shooting in zoos try not to include "HUMANS". Wild animals are pretty..
Few samples of my work: yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/1656047
Please do give me your opinion. I have decided to buy the nikkor 200-500 f5.5 for my d7000. I am a landscape, wildlife and macro shooter. I have a dedicated macro lens and 18-105 kit lens. I need a dedicated wildlife lens. And then I'll invest on a good wide angle for landscape. What do you think. Should I go for the 200-500mm ?
Hey Tom, im a amatur wildlife photographer from Norway, and im considering to update my gear. I have a Nikon d7000 with a really old 300 mm f4 AF and a tamron 24-70 f2.8 G1. Im gonna work with puffins and seabirds for 7 weeks this summer. Any lens u think I should invest in?
With faster seabirds the AF will be the issue on the older AF lens (D type I'm guessing) updating here will likely speed things up. Depending on budget, stepping up to the slightly never AF-S 300 F4 (£600 ish mint used) will speed up your AF.Of course a newer body (D500 etc) will give a major boost to speed and right now used you can find some great deals.
I’ve just bought from wex a second hand sigma 150-600 sport and it’s fantastic,what do you think of the lens ? I know it’s heavy,around 7 pound in weight and heavy to hold. I would like some advice on this lens,I’m using a Nikon D4
Great video Tom, thank you for sharing. I'm new to wildlife photography, I own a Nikon D5500, but unsure which lens is compatible with my camera body. I have a budget of around £500 - 600 to purchase a lens or two. Any advice would be appreciated.
Many thanks
Paul.
Hi Tom, many thanks for posting. I've a Sigma DC 18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 MACRO HSM lens and would be grateful if you could answer the following questions please. Is this a lens that will allow me to take 'macro' photo's of insects and do I have to set my Canon EOS 77D to the Macro function position to be able to do this? For most of my wildlife (particularly bird) photography, I'm getting my best results with a Tamron 150-600mm lens and if I could afford it, like to get a bigger reach as the subjects are nearly always too far away. You've said that great shots can be got with lenses of smaller range and I see other people posting shots with such gear. Is this because the shots are taken where you can be pretty much assured that the subject won't 'fly
un away'? I'm pretty much a beginner and appreciate there are a whole bunch of factors affecting what's best for what shot.
I'm hoping to one day get the 600 F4 or the 180-400 F4 😅
I have a Canon t5. Is the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC G2 going to work well with the body I have?
So ive been looking online for a used 70-200 one. The one he had just used but i cant find any used ones. Could someone help me out and send me a link or something please :)?
Thanks for great advice I'm in the market for my first camera lens etc haven't a clue where to start ◉‿◉
What do you think about Sigma 100-300mm F/1:4?
Hi Tom. Just discovered your channel and really enjoying it 😊 can you tell me, is there much difference between the 300mm f4 you're recommending and the cheaper AF 300mm f4 ED? Cheers
Yes there is a huge difference and that’s the AFS motor, the motor means it works with more cameras but also improves the speed and accuracy of the focus. The newer model also will work with the newer TCs and has an around better build and feel. For the extra £100 or so the 300 F4 AFS is certainly the one to be looking at!
@@TomMasonPhoto good to know, thanks for the quick reply too 👍
I have a Nikon D500 and Nikkor 200-500 f5.6 lens.I am planning to buy Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for mammals and near subjects specially for low light conditions. Is this lens a better option than a Nikon 300mm f4 PF for wildlife photography?
Hey Tom I am thinking of upgrading my camera setup for wildlife! I’m thinking of going for the Nikon D850 camera body and the 300mm F4 PF ED Lens with the 1.4x mark 3 teleconverter! I would love to know your thoughts on that kinda setup?
70 200mm f4,urrr. Got a great deal under 700. Looking into 500mm f4 or 5.6, awsome images
Hi Tom , I want to which lens should be better for wildlife photography a long zoom or a long prime thank you
A hard question to answer as it’s dependant on your style of shooting and the situation. Personally however my 300 2.8 has been a mainstay for 7 years in my kit bag, it comes on every trip and is a work horse of a lens, zooms (bar a small handful) never match the quality of the primes and of course the wide aperture at 2.8 makes it very flexible for working in the field
@@TomMasonPhoto I want nice lens and I am confused whether I should get a 300mm f4 pf (with 1.4x tc) or 200-500mm lens for my nikon d500 to shoot birds front of my home , water birds at lakes and rivers , birds in tree faraway trees in wildlife and bird santury. I am confused which one to get because zoom is very versatile and prime has better image quality , autofocus and fast aperture
Hello Tom
I want to buy a long lens for my camera nikon d850, and whats your advice about these lens? whats better?
AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 FL ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 FL ED VR
thank you very much
which used 300mm f2.8 lens to avoid, i am currently looking out for sigma and nikon. As per you which wildlife lens from 300mm or above is known to give super sharp images, like name top 3 super crisp and sharp lens of your choice. :)
Hey there, personally i'd certainly go for the Nikon over the Sigma if you can afford it. Both the 300 2.8 VR I and II are exceptional (I personally have the 300 2.8 VR II) They can be found for £2300-£3000 used. The older 400mm 2.8 and 500 f4 VR's are also super lenses that are now often seen on the secondhand market for good prices however they will set you back around £4k. The Sigma lenses I know are a tad cheaper, but certainly the Nikon versions are slightly sharper and better built. Thanks for watching! Cheers, Tom
Thank you for your reply, really liked your video and the way you responded. Looking forward for more videos from you. Have subscribed cheers :)
Hey Tom, I recently discovered your channel, and I love the videos! I know there was already a comment on this, but I am curious would the sigma 300mm 2.8 not have more value at half the price compared to the Nikon version? Is it the VR that changed everything? How important is VR to you?
Hey Stephen, Personally I wouldn't go with the Sigma super teles. Although they are half the price the performance is certainly a little lacking from what i've seen, the AF speed isn't as fast and they also as you say lack the VR that can be very handy at times (The AF and sharpness reductions are more then issue for myself than the VR as if course I very often am using a tripod - although do love working handheld with my 300mm). The Nikon ones can be found second hand for £2k (for the VR I) and so although expensive, I really feel they are a much better investment. The Sigma is a little old now as well so really are not the best performers on some of the Latest DSLRs, the IQ is certainly lacking more in the corners on FX. Thanks for joining the channel!
So would you say if I was looking for a cheaper option, then the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 would be solid option or would I want a longer focal length? I do have a D7000 so there is a crop with it. Are there any other options you would recommend that are on cheaper level than the Nikon 300mm 2.8?
Thanks!
Great info Tom, thanks. I used to use the Nikon 70-300 for years on my old D80 and D90 (I currently have a D500, D750, and D4S), before I got smarter about lenses. Looking back, it really was a crappy lens. :) Have you ever used 3rd party lenses like Sigma and/or Tamron? I currently own the Sigma 100-400 and think it's a great lens for the money. Much less expensive than the Nikon 80-400, with more consistent AF. Do you plan on getting the newish Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens? I have one on order (still backordered here in the States). I live an hour north of Yellowstone National Park, which is great if one is mainly a wildlife photographer (which I am).
Hey Mac, personally I’ve never used 3rd party lenses after I invested in my 300 F4 aged 15, I’ve used the Nikon 80/400 but the 200/500 is better all round.
I’d love to test out the 500 PF - hoping to get my hands on one this weekend for a whole few first thoughts - I’ll try make a quick video!
For me however I know that the slow aperture will always make me want my 300 2.8! However I’m super tempted to pick up a 300 f4 PF for hiking in the future!
@@TomMasonPhoto Thanks Tom. Have heard great things about the 500 PF. Not the fastest 500mm lens around, but way cheaper and lighter than a 500mm f/4! It's super sharp too. If you get your hands on one (mine has been backordered for months), have fun!
Have you used the macro lens on your D500? Can you please share your thoughts and experience?
Hey there, I have used the 105 on the D500 a few times now, not a huge amount but thats just down to time of year and what I was shooting this year. I works well just as it would on any DX body, giving a 150mm equivalent rather than 105, that is great for working with wildlife and insects. You get a larger depth of field with DX cameras as well due to the sensor size that can be handy for getting those little tiny things perfectly in focus!
Do you have any suggestions for wildlife videography?
at closest focus distance you still get the same depth of field out of aps-c as on fx dont you?
I love using my macro lens on a crop body
Nice Video! What do you think about the 24-70 on DX?
The 24-70 is stunning but on DX although you gain some reach at the long end, loosing the 24mm for me defeats the use really, something like the 17-55 2.8 might be a better choice if sticking to DX, although if your planning to upgrade to FX in the future, the 24-70 is excellent!
Great video. Very smooth and well spoken 👏
forever grateful for recommending that 20mm lens . can you please answer my query ? 1. D500 with nikon 200-500 vs d850 with nikon 200-500? which is better ?note I already have a nikon d810 .
Glad you loved the 20mm recommendation, it’s one of my favourites. Personally I’d go D850 over D500 with the 200/500 due to the extra MP and FX sensor. The crop mode on the D850 is pretty much the same as the D500 and you’ll only loose 3 FPS without the grip or only 1 if you add the grip making it a stunning all round performer. The D850 will be my go to in 2018 when I’ve finally got round to picking one up! Cheers, Tom
Thanks tom !! very useful info Re: the FPS ,will buy 200-500 now and will wait for d850 price to cool down a bit in 2018. Happy new year in advance ..Cheers !!
I am ready to replace my Nikon D7000 with a new Nikon camera, either a D7200, D500, or a D750. I am seriously considering a D750 with the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR "kit" lens. I noticed the AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens at $1400.00. I think that I would have an easier time learning how to use the D750 over the D500.
I can easily afford the D7200 with the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lens. The price would be about the same as the D750 and the 2 f/4 "G" lenses. With the D7200, I would be using a AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II lens, which I already own. If you do not like the 18-200mm lens, what other similar lens would you recommend. Yes, I can afford the D500. The issue is how much time I would need to learn how to use the D500 properly.
Based on the above information, which camera and lens(es) would you recommend for me?
Thanks in advance for the information.
Hi Tom...loved ur insight regarding the different lenses❤.Could u just suggest which lens would be better among 300mm f4e pf ed and 70-200mm f2.8e fl ed for photographing somewhat close landscape of large animals in africa(lions, elephants).Thanks
Hi there! So between these two lenses there are a few things to think about. If close in shots of subjects are something you'll be after, the longer reach of the 300mm PF will certainly help, however the prime is somewhat restricting when it comes to more landscape images and a variety of shots. The 70-200 FL is certainly a sharper lens, and the 2.8 aperture will be ideal for morning game drives and lower light scenarios. What I would suggest here, especially if you are after landscapes + wildlife, is go the for 70-200 FL + a 1.4 TC III, this would give you the additional reach up to 280mm for some tighter wildlife shots whilst also giving you the flexibility of the zoom and aperture for wildlife and low light. I love 300mm fixed lenses but the PF is one I'm less of a fan of as I feel its IQ lets it down a touch!
@@TomMasonPhotoThanks for the explaination..answers all my queries❤
What about the 200-500 f5.6? I've read really good reviews about that lens. Of course it is not a pro lens but would you recommend it for enthusiasts?
The 200-500 is a super lens for the price and has excellent performance on modern Nikon cameras. The sharpness and reach is perfect for birds and wildlife. I’ve used the lens a few times and have found it to be great, the only downside is the 5.6 aperture that is fine for working in decent to average light but can be a bit of a problem in darker conditions where a f4/2.8 lens really comes into its own. Personally it think the 200/500 is priced exceptionally for its performance and what it offers and know a few pros who’ve added one to the bag for its versatility!
I love my 200-500 - for what I shoot, it is superb: 500px.com/w00ster/galleries/nikon-200-500mm
Thank you for your answer. It is really tough to choose between the 300mm f4 pf versus the 200-500 :)
I have a D500 and the 300mm would make a great combo i think. Lightweight and nice reach.
Although I am a bit worried because I'm not sure if the 450mm eqv. field of view is enough for small animals.
Hey Tom!! Which lens would you pick between a 300mm 2.8 VR I or a 400mm 2.8 Af-s non VR??
As a 300mm 2.8 owner myself I’d have to go with that! The lens is so well balanced, super fast and the VR can be very helpful, paired with the 1.4 Tc it’s a dream, also a hell of a lot smaller than the 400 Afs non VR! But if you shoot little birds and always find yourself far away, the 400 might suit you better, but you’ll be Tripod bound most of the time, where as the 300 is highly flexible for all kinds of shoots, the whole reason I picked mine up! Also the bokeh quality on the 300 is second to none!
@@TomMasonPhoto Thanks!! Moreless what I thought, will go for the 300mm 2.8. Thanks dude!
@@TomMasonPhoto And how would you compare the 300mm 2.8 VR with the AF-S non VR?? Is there much difference?
The older Afs model is out of production in regards to repair, so if there are any problems you’ll find it harder to get serviced, the newer models will be a much better bet. Optically the newer versions coatings are fantastic.
Tom Mason thank you!!
I purchased a Sigma APO 300mm f/4 for $67. My only issue is it's manual focus.
Yes Manual focus can certainly make it harder for fast moving subjects!
is the 80-400mm sharp? paired with the d500.
Great video Tom Mason! What is your take on using a 1.4TC with a 300 PF on a D500 versus a 500 Prime on a D500. Of course, I have cost in mind. The 1st combo would cost me 2500$ and a Sigma sport 500 mm prime would cost me 6000 $. Pretty sure Nikon would better a 3rd party lens, just not sure whether the 300 PF+ 1.4 TC would trump a 500mm prime, even if from a 3rd party. Your thoughts on this ?
Hey Pakhers, good question.
Personally I've never been a fan of Sigma lenses, always found them to be a disappointment. I know that the 300 PF and 1.4 is an excellent combination ( sharpness, speed, IQ) and so would have no problem recommending it. Also it would be hugely lighter and cheaper than the Sigma.
With recent announcements however I personally would be tempted to wait for the new Nikon 500 PF. At £3600 its cheaper than the Sigma, but will have excellent sharpness, Nikon quality build and performance, giving you the extra reach and being far more compact and lightweight, whilst still being able to work with the 1.4 tc. Personally I am hoping to have one for a review in the next few months, but right now if I was in your position, I'd be looking to the 500 PF. Cheers, Tom
Thanks for the sound advise Tom. Will wait for your review on the 500 PS.
Do you still using the Nikon 200-500? I remember you made a review few years ago.
Hi there, I never owned the 200/500 but have used it many times for reviews and certain jobs, the lens is great for enthusiast wildlife photographers. Personally I choose the 300 2.8 VR II at the moment as it’s just stunning for images
@@TomMasonPhoto I am thinking about to purchase wildlife lens. Your review is honest and so convinced. I am owed the Nikon D500 right now. And you think the Nikon 300 have enough reach?
Very informative. I feel very informed
Hi Tom, I've recently acquired my first full frame Nikon DSLR (the D750). I currently use a 200-500mm f5.6ED VR for wildlife photography. I'm keen to do more early morning/early evening wildlife photography where light may be restricted. I'm considering trading in my 200-500mm and swapping to either the 300mm f4 AFS VR or the 300mm f2.8 VR II lens. This will be primarily for low light badger, otter and brown hare photography. Out of the two lenses, can you say which would be the better option please? Thanks for your time, Andy.
I use the 300mm 2.8 VR II every day, it’s a fantastic lens, works with TCs, stunning optics and prefect for low light shooting, I have worked with otters and badgers with the lens and wouldn’t change it for the world, bar maybe the new 120/300 2.8 FL! Certainly gets my recommendation
@@TomMasonPhoto cheers! I appreciate your advice👍🏻 Keep up the good work, your video’s are superb 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Hey man, I'm looking to get into wildlife videography (specifically birds). Do you have any recommendations of a cinematic camera (that can go slow motion) that either has an internal stabilizer or also a gimbal?
Personally as I'm only getting started in videography myself and do more stills I'm probably not the best to ask, however Sony FS5/FS7 or Canon C200 are certainly good options (pricy). On a smaller budget the Sony A6500 is a camera I love to use with 120fps and great AF and lens options and at £1500 is a much more reasonable starting point. Good log profiles and ISO performance make is great for use as well as the small form factor 5 axis stabilisation mean it works well in many situations - I very enjoy using mine. But will certainly be looking to up my video game over the next few years with this channel etc - Hope that helps. Cheers, Tom
Tom Mason thank u so much!! Do I use a gimbal when u film?
Great, sensible video. Thanks a lot!
How is 70-200 better than 70-300? Don't you have more options with 300mm?
Hi Rebecca, the 70/300 is a f4.5-5.6 consumer zoom, where as the 70/200 is a 2.8 zoom. The 2.8 aperture allows for much better low light performance and control over depth of field effects for more options in regards to the look of an image. The Af speed is also a major improvement that is paramount when working with fast subjects. The 2.8 aperture also allows for the use of Teleconverter that mean the 1.4 can create a 100-280 lens that still has excellent AF and a faster aperture for low light work. Coupled with a pro spec body and it’s a very very flexible combination and one that’s excellent to build a system around. Thanks, Tom
How about Nikon 18-400mm lens?
Can you use these big lenses on the Nikon D3400 camera?
Yes any of the lenses with the AF-s motor will work and autofocus on the entry level Nikon cameras so you shouldn't have any problems with these on the D3400! Cheers, Tom
Hi tom I love your videos can you help I have the Sigma 150-600 sport but I find that at f6.3wide open it seems very soft I shoot with the Nikon d500 and soon will be getting thed850 I mainly shoot birds what other lens would you recommend I was thinking of the Nikon 200-500 thank from Sam
Hi Sam, Certainly the D500 and D850 will push the capabilities of the lenses you use because of the high pixel density and resolution. The 200-500 is well known for being an excellent performer and at £1200.00 Uk its a really great option for wildlife photographers. I've tested it a number of times and also know a good number of people who have invested and love it. The sharpness is great and the overall performance of the lens will most likely be a good upgrade from the 150-600. The only way to get a much better performance would be upgrading to a 300 2.8/ 500/4 etc for the highest optical qualities but that would be £4000.00 + , Hope that helps, Tom
Thanks Tom I will save and get 500 f4 one day
What about the prime lenses, specifically the 400 2.8?
The 400 2.8 / 600 f4 are all great lenses for wildlife photography but it’s much about your personal style and wants from a lens, be it the extra reach or the low light performance of the ultra wide open lenses
Hi Tom,
Can you tell me if my beautiful Nikkor 300mm F2.8.D (White) is compatable with the Z6 F mount adaptor please?
Cheers,
Don.
Which camera and lens would be best for beginners , from about 2000 to $3000
In the beginning you'll want to invest more into the lens than camera, something like a 300 f4 or the new 200-500mm from Nikon ($1400) are great starting places. Paired with a decent body such as the D7200 or even a second hand D750 or full frame model will give you great headroom in terms of features as you develop. Hope that helps, Cheers, Tom
investments pay for your headstone, just live
I used a Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 on a crop sensor D500 and D7500, and shooting birds I was at the maximum zoom (750 mm effective) pretty much all the time AND it was hard to fill the frame with the subject. I'd say for medium size birds 850-900 mm effective focal length would be great. 300 mm, 400, and even 500 mm is too short. I wanna try Sigma 150-600 mm with a DX camera, but most people say Nikon 200-500 mm is sharper ..
Personally I find I can produce images of birds with 200-500m on an FX and with DX it certainly adds that extra flexibility. Personally I find working from hides and some good fieldcraft can get you within 10ft of most subjects, where a 500mm will be more than suitable. Do you work from hides much? Cheers, Tom
So I'm not happy lmfao, just found out I'm spending more than the cost of my Sony a9ii on glass lol, if you could only have 3 lenses what would they be? (As I'm going on a bit of a trekking trip soon and want to invest into some decent lenses but I only have room (and budget lol) for 3 )
I wish sony would make a 300 f4. I have to use a 70 200 f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter.
What about Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm?
Personally I don't really like either of those lenses in terms of focus speed, sharpness or ergonomics, I know some people like them, but I think the money is better saved and used towards higher quality glass. The Nikon 200-500 is a good bet and I have reviewed that, but still a pro spec 300 f4 is always one of the first lenses I recommend for people getting into wildlife photography. Cheers, Tom
Lmao already got the shit 70-300mm
Same... uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh aaaaaaaaaaaaaah. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh aaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Bane of my life.
Hi, help me please, which is better Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR with 2x teleconverter (or without) or Sigma 150-500 for wildlife?
Hmm the 70-200 f4 with a TC will be pretty poor, but also I'm not a huge fan of the 150-500. Personally the Nikon 200-500 would be a better investment, giving more reach, great sharpness and better AF performance with your Nikon camera. Cheers, Tom
and what you think about nikon 300mm f4?
Cannon on Nikon should i take
I love your work.
What about new 70-300 AF-P lens? Dx and Fx version... :)
which lens to use with nikon coolpix p900 for hd photos
What does it mean to photograph something at one to one?
It means that an object is recorded on the sensor at its real size, so if something is 5mm across it will be recorded at 5mm on the sensor. Highly useful for small insects, plants and details, Cheers, Tom
And in a true macro is that at the minimum focusing distance? Or at what distance?
So with macro lenses the minimum focus distance will get you 1:1 reproduction (with Nikon cameras) Canon do a 5:1 (so 5 times life size). The thing to consider is the minimum distance as you'll have to be that close for max magnification, hence for wildlife/insects its recommended for a macro 100mm + so that you're not right on top of your subjects.
Great thanks. Yeah I saw a 65mm 5:1 macro, I really want it but It's pretty expensive haha. Plus I don't have a cannon so I would need an adaptor.
Hi Tom- I really enjoy your content and have found this video very helpful!
I have a Nikon D5100 and a 18-200mm f 3.5-5.6 lens, which I've been doing nature photography with
for the last 4/5 years-it's served me very well! However I'd now like to invest in a new lens. I'm particularly interested in bee / close-up flower/plant/mushroom photography, so was considering the 105mm macro lens. My dilemma is I'd also love to experiment more with bokeh and getting closer shots of animals so was considering a 300mm f4 prime, as I feel my current lens is limited in low light and my images aren't as sharp as I'd like. If you had to pick one which would you recommend? I appreciate this is probably a difficult question! All the best and keep up the great content :)
Sarah Clews hey Sarah! Really glad you are enjoying the videos! So to answer your question... both lenses do two quite different jobs.
If insects/bugs and flowers are your focus the 105mm 2.8 VR macro for Nikon is amazing. I love mine. The lens is super sharp and beautifully built and will last a lifetime! It also is great for Bokeh with closer subjects thanks to the 2.8 aperture (that stops down when into the super close focus).
If birds and mammals are more you’d thing then the 300mm f4 is excellent. Be it the new VR one or the older AFs model. It’s perfect for creative Bokeh and is wonderfully sharp and much faster to focus than the 18/200 will be. The 300 AFS is the Lens I started with and I loved it, they also have a 1.5m close focus that is still pretty great for larger insects especially when used with a TC.
To save some ££ both the 300mm F4 AFS and the 105mm can be tracked down at excellent second hand prices - around £450 for the 300 / £400 for the 105 that is great value.
It all comes down to what your focus is going to be on most / budget. Long term you’ll want both but to pick you’ll have to decide what you want to photography most (sorry)! If you like your insects and want to try out some Bokeh then the 105 would be ace, adding the 300mm a little later as funds allow. Hope that helps a little, any extra questions, I’m here!
Thanks for replying so speedily- very sound advice! The problem is I want to do both, haha- every photographer's problem I'm sure! If only lenses weren't so expensive..at the moment I think I'm more keen on the 300mm f4 prime. Are there any good websites you'd recommend checking out for 2nd hand lenses on apart from the obvious eBay? thank you so much for all your help- much appreciated
Hey Sarah, no worries, you'll love the 300 f4! - Personally as there are so many available used on places like Wex and others I'd avoid ebay full stop to make the most of the warrantee's given by a dealer. Wex have a 300 f4 for £580 in pretty much mint tidd.ly/57f03334 but also others like MPB also have some for about the same but only offer a 6 month warrantee whilst Wex offers 12. but might be worth holding off till after Xmas if you can see see if any are traded in in the new year! Cheers, Tom
Oh Brilliant-I'll check that one out for sure and good point about the warranty. Seeing as my birthday is after Christmas that's a good shout! thank you!
Best telephoto lens for Nikon D3300 under 450$ please help me sir
Nice video, great advice!
great video and suggestions
Thanks!
Those lens you have listed is not for wildlife
What's your suggestion on buying d750 for wildlife photography ?? Im upgrading from d3200. Thanks in advance.
That's a really big step up in quality, but I'd go for it if u can afford to
For wildlife photography
How many mega pixels would you want to have
Tbh it depends on a few factors such as intended purpose as well as camera requirements. For example I love the D850 46mp as it allows such awesome quality however it would be overkill if I only delivered smaller files or for posting in the net. Also the lower res sensors have better low light performance in general so the D5 offers advantages there. However for myself, quality, resolution and dynamic range are my key concerns. The D850 nails them all.
Hey Tom, great video, i am currently shooting with a D7000 & Sigma 150-500, my photography is moving on nicely, but i am getting frustrated with the image quality i am getting, i want to upgrade to a D500 , as i mainly shoot birds and at the moment primes are out of the question, which lens would you suggest i go for, is the Nikon 200-500 a good upgrade ?, thanks Dave
Hey Dave, Regarding the D500 it is excellent and paired with the 200-500. The Nikon it is indeed a marked upgrade on the Sigma, giving you a 5.6 aperture at 500mm that is very good for the price. If you are looking for the ultimate in regards to sharpness and performance a prime will do better (maybe a 300 f4) but you will loose a lot of reach, that will result in you having to work harder for the shots, not necessarily a bad thing as it will teach you more about using primes if you do eventually look to a super telephoto. If you shoot mainly birds, the 200-500 and the D500 would be a awesome combo and even wide open will look awesome due to using the sharpest bits of the lens on the DX sensor. I'm looking into the 200-500 for a travel lens, I just love my fast aperture primes! Hope that helps, anything else you need, just let me know! Tom
Hey Tom, thanks for getting back so quick, i really appreciate your advice, food for thought, very helpful, all the best Dave.
No worries Dave!
I disagree with your video and think it is a disservice to people starting out with wildlife. I recommend people buy a used Sig/Tam 150-600 or a Nikon 200-500 until they figure out if they actually want to commit themselves to the pursuit of wildlife. They can also learn the basics and decide what focal length suits them best. After a year or two they can sell the lens for essentially what they paid for it. I specialize in birds/raptors and I can tell you that here in CT for example you aren't going to get anything with a 20mm or a 70-200mm. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and never use it. I think you should quantify that geographic location is a huge impact on what lenses you actually will need. Your investment lenses aren't much of an investment if people have no use for them.
As a professional wildlife photographer I think superzooms really don’t aid people to grow as a photographer in the same way that great glass does. Learning to understand how to get close to wildlife, have flexibility within aperture and better quality optics far outweighs the extra reach. The points made about the 20mm are that people often put to much weight onto focal length rather than how a subject looks and feels in a given frame. Zooming in is all well and good but it doesn’t always make the best wildlife images.
Having worked all over the world I’ve always been able to produce the images I’ve been after with my 300mm, yes some subjects can require extra focal length but when starting out I feel the benefits of the low cost pro level glass - often cheaper than the stated super zooms - are far better for the learning development of new photographers. Everyone has their opinions and I totally agree that many love the wide focal range of the 150/600 especially for smaller birds - but those lenses often produce results that are inferior to sharpness and IQ coming out of the shorter 300 f4 for example. You’ll have to work harder with the lens, but in the long run it’s a far better learning path.
Thanks for you comment / really appreciate you lending your thoughts and experience! Tom
@@TomMasonPhoto Having the ability to travel the world is certainly a nice benefit and allows you to get access to areas that many will never see. Your video makes perfect sense for someone living in Florida where the wildlife is plentiful and tend not to be very shy. I personally shoot with a 300 F2.8 DII and 500 F4 VR-G. I'm a semi-pro and unfortunately my real job doesn't afford me the time to travel. I have shot with many lenses and made my way up from the big xxx-xxx zooms. They are a great learning tool. When people ask me for lens advice I often ask them where they live and what they plan on shooting. There is no one size fits all answer. I do highly respect your opinion but wanted you to see the flip-side. I am also associated with a certain brand of lens because I did a promo video with them, however that is not the lens I always reccomend. I still think there is merit for people starting out with a xxx-xxx lens until they figure out what they want to shoot. True beginners don't even know how to set there cameras up for wildlife. It's no different than normal photography. I tell people to shoot with there kit lens until they figure out what focal length they prefer. Anyways, just my humble opinion. Cheers
@@krisrowe6598 i just bought me my first 70-200 f2.8 a few weeks ago and i got some really great pictures(compared to my old equipment, this is just the best lens i ever bought, a true allrounder! totally agree with Tom Mason), but exactly as you mentioned, only in city areas where the birds and animals in general arent that shy. As soon as i leave town and go into more rural areas, i simply dont have the reach to get animals i want to photograph.
i got some basic army training, so i know a little bit about camo, being silent, packing your gear so it doesnt make bell sounds every step and from the karl may books i learned coming from the leeward side, but still, most of the times i get spotted by one or another animal. Plus where i live the nature reserve areas are access constrained, so you can see the birds/animals in the distance but with the 200mm and no chance to move in closer? Its hard to pull off.
btw i got a nikon d7500 and im struggling between 200-500 and those 150-600 lenses, i watched a ton of reviews and cant decide.. local stores dont have ANY on stock to kinda test them.. pls halp
@@benjaminzerhusen4941 Yep the 70-200 is indeed a great lens but not long enough for most wildlife. The Nikon 200-500 is a bit sharper than the Sig/Tam 150-600 but the 2 copies I tested were very slow with Acquisition speed. If you plan on photographing more static images then it would be a great choice. However all the xxx-xxx (as with most lenses) will have sample variation so it's important you can buy from an authorized dealer in case you get a lemon. Used can work out if you find a trusted seller. That's what I was talking about though when I first posted here. You can check my flickr page and scroll through albums, I have many different lenses listed. I did not shoot extensively with the 200-500 though. www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn
hey @@krisrowe6598 , thanks for the quick answer, small question: "the 2 copies you tested refer to which model? (im not a native speaker)
I actually had severe issues with setting up my 70-200. But i got it figured out i think, except for extreme long range, where the AF(in view finder) isnt hitting anything, and with manual its a mess as well. only live view works.
Gotta do some testing, although i dont have those "lens firmware set up things"
Just checked your flick, holy moly, those images are superb!
Can't believe you haven't mentioned a 200-500 here..
I did a full review on the 200/500 on my channel. I feel the faster lenses are better investments long term, however the 200/500 is a fantastic all rounder for most people
vivek yadav I have that lense and it is slow,heavy,the barrel extends which throws off balance and does not work well with an extender,it is for sale.
thanks
Nikon d850 ahhhh 😫🥵
I have a 300mm F4 Nikon with a +1.4 converter on a Nikon D300s. OK for big birds.
Hopeless for small birds. I wish I'd never bought it. 600mm would have been the best choice.
I can't afford that so I am selling the lens and tele converter.
I’m surprised you think it’s hopeless for small birds, 600mm equivalent on DX is more than enough reach even for kingfisher sizes birds if you work to get close, are you using a hide or any type of concealing strategies? I’ve photographed many birds on a 300 with a 1.4 on FX, be great to hear what your thinking of swapping too? The 200/500?
All of them.
What about 70-200mm f4?
The 70-200 f4 is a great lens, especially if weight and size are primary considerations, however due to the reduction in light transmission the ability for working with depth of field + tele converters is especially reduced making it less flexible for wildlife photography.
200mm is 200mm. You can't make it 300mm because it is on a crop body. You get a field of view of 300mm but it is still 200nm. 😅
you get the reach of a 300mm, which is what really matters. that and that you lose a stop of DR / low-light performance. the subject separation / bokeh nonsense is fairly unimportant. You get plenty at 200mm even with at slower apertures.
Hi. What about a report on lenses for mirrorless, like the Sony a7ll full frame camera?
I will possible look into these at some point!
Can u put one LAMB infront of
Tom, I have a D500 and a 300mm F4 PF and want a 300mm F2.8. Do I need it though that is the question or should I save my money?
Hey Andy - I Shall hopefully be getting hold of the 300 PF in the next few weeks again for a full review but in regards to do you need to 2.8... well it depends on what you are looking to gain? Do you want the shallow depth of field? Will the 1 stop help in low light conditions? Are you happy adding the extra weight?
Personally The 300 Pf seems to be darn good and yes you will get 5% more sharpness, faster focus, better bokeh.. but also maybe if you want those a 400 2.8 might be a wiser move... a little more focal length, combined with the aperture for even better shallow depth effects (and if you save the money for the new one, its not even drastically much heavier)... although of course their is a cost increase!
Largely it depends what you are mainly looking to gain - if the 300 f4 does most of what you need then why spend £4k on a new lens rather than lost of exciting time watching wildlife and focusing your craft?
I swear on these two lenses:
1. NIKKOR 180-400mm 4.0 FL
2. NIKKOR 600mm 4.0 FL
7:28 the corners of 24-70 are blurry, don't buy this lens!