Which lens

My new D5300 will be accompanying me on all my future hunting trips in BC, Alberta and the Northwestern US. My favored form of hunting is spot and stalk which involves sitting for long periods surveying an area of wilderness or ranch land. While sitting I am presented with many opportunities to photograph bird and animal species. It is these opportunities that are largely responsible for my re-kindled my interest in photography. I often visit my favorite sites out of hunting season as a sort of reconnaissance but these would now become primarily sessions to photograph deer, elk, moose, bear, antelope and other animals and birds. It is likely that I will also take some scenery pictures and sunrise/sunsets. My hunting trips are largely timed to be out and watching at dawn and dusk.

My question is, what lens or lenses do you guys suggest I look at for this situation? I realize a telephoto lens is needed and that my 55-200 is not sufficient, but what other model/models and why? I will have a tripod but are there any other items of equipment that would be beneficial?

Much of this depends on your budget.

I like my Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens $590 or so
Many people here like their Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens $1,070 or so

Lots of differences in the 2. Like I said "Much of this depends on your budget"

But you are right about the 55-200. The quality of that lens really leaves a lot to be desired.

Thanks for the reply Don.I have found a couple of used lenses that sound similar to yours at very reasonable prices on Kijiji locally. I am confused by all the letters in the descriptios. Can you tell me what is the difference between these lenses and which is to be preferred? They are all similarly priced.
AF-S VR 70-300 f4.4-5.6 IF-ED
70-300 AF-S DX VR
70-300 AF f4-5.6D ED

It looks like the first two are the same as they state VR but i think the last one is older,if budget will allow look for something longer,300mm will struggle a lot of the time,it can be used but longer is a lot easier.

Thanks Mike, I agree that longer is better but at the moment the budget won't allow. Also, I'm a very sneaky character and can usually get pretty close to my targets.

I have researched further and discovered that the third one listed is in fact a 55-200 so that's out. The main difference between the other two is that the first is full frame and the second is DX format. The full frame has a couple of extra features and is obviously a better lens so that's the one I'm going to try for. The price is less than half retail and it is close enough for me to inspect before I buy.

canuck257 said:

. My hunting trips are largely timed to be out and watching at dawn and dusk.

My question is, what lens or lenses do you guys suggest I look at for this situation? I realize a telephoto lens is needed and that my 55-200 is not sufficient

Click to expand...

Is it not sufficient due to the focal length?

I'd suggest the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR, specifically. There are other, cheaper variants of this lens so be sure you know what you're looking at. Also, here's a Guide to Nikon Lens Nomenclature.
....

The type of lens depends on how large and how far the creatures will be from your location.

. If the size and distance are highly variable - Large animals moving within 50 yards and small birds at 400 yards, then you need a good wide range zoom, and the 150-600 is the most affordable one.
. If most of the creatures are quite far away and the light is low, then you need a fast long prime. The most cost effective is the 300mm F4 + TC 1.4 combination.

Stay away from the various versions of the xx-300 zooms, they are quite soft at longer end and not fast enough. Instead of getting an inexpensive zoom and regretting later, better save up and get a good zoom/prime lens.

I wouldn't recommend the FX 70-300, because you'd have to manually focus it and the FX 70-300 I have was a real bummer to focus that way! Saving for a better zoom or long range prime is what I'd recommend too!

The nikon 70-300 VR is one of better budget lens around. Although the 70 - 200 f2.8 is a faster lens, it is more expensive and shorter. With better ISO performance cam, I want to believe the 70 - 300 will do a good job. My 2-cent

I have the Tamron 70-300 VC (equivilant of VR) lens. I haven't used the Nikon version,except briefly in the store and that didn't tell me much, but I like my Tamron and most reviews I've read put it pretty much on par with the Nikon but for a lower price.
I'm finding at around 270mm and stopped down to f8 when the light allows it gives decent results.

Only drawbacks I've found with it are that the colours aren't quite as good as the Nikon but that's an easy fix, and my copy has some lens creep. I don't know if the Nikon suffers from lens creep at all?

Good luck finding the right lens for you, the longer the better and happy hunting!

Your hunting terrain is different than a lot of midwest whitetail country here, but i bought the Tamron 150-600 for similar reasons. I haven't actually taken it out in the field yet - but have used it plenty in the yard for deer, turkey and birds. It seems like a perfect fit so far. Later on i will be using it at the farm in a blind on the edge of a food plot and maybe on a few scouting trips on public land in the ozark hills. Might take it bowhunting and self film this fall, but the 18-140 is lighter and more manageable in a tree stand. During the rut i get a little too serious to take a chance fumbling around too much, but if they change to a one buck rule and i tag out early enough, i might get more serious about hunting mature bucks with it. Right now the bow wins hands down.
If i had it to do all over again i would get the exact same lens. The upside i didn't see coming is shooting birds on the back porch. It's a lot of fun