300mm or 200mm?

Nigsxr

New member
Hi,
I'm relatively new to photography and have a d5300 with the standard 18-55 kit lens. I have been taking lots of photos along a local river and the limitations of the lens are very obvious so I'm looking for a zoom lens at the very cheapest end of the market.
I'm wanting to photograph birds etc on the far bank of the river so I'd be around 20m from the subject, will a 200mm lens do the job or should I go for the 300. Most reviews for entry level lenses say that performance drops at 300mm anyway
 

Texas

Senior Member
Reviewers are sort of obligated to complain about something, but I like my 70-300 VR even at 300mm. It is impressive at 300, and with very little chromatic aberration. Contrast/color/sharpness is great.
There's newer versions of this lens that the reviewers are saying are even better than the old one/s.

Check on the new DX VR version, maybe even AF-P, but be sure it is compatible with your D5300 - there's some compatibility fine points with all the many Nikon 70-300 versions.

I'm selling off my 18-200 which has been a good friend to me and keeping the 70-300 based on what gets used most.
 

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
I agree with the above, I got a 55-200 with my first camera, then sold and bought the 55-300, sold it for the 70-300, so save yourself a few steps and aim for the 70-300.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
200 is not long enough for birds. Even 300 you will be wishing for longer, I have the afs 70-300 vr, I have got some great shots using that lens, but I do have to work a bit harder to get close than if I am using my 150-600.

there are quite a few different models of the 70-300, some are not so good, do your research and ask questions here before you buy.
 

TKC_D500

Senior Member
I agree with the answers above. A lot depends on your budget, obviously. An 18-200 got me hooked on Bird photography and that lead to a 300 PF, then a 200-500. With birds, you always seem to need Just a bit more reach. While I would Love to have a 600mm, the 200-500 has been pretty much all I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like my 70-300 VR even at 300mm. It is impressive at 300, and with very little chromatic aberration. Contrast/color/sharpness is great.


.

I agree with the above, I got a 55-200 with my first camera, then sold and bought the 55-300, sold it for the 70-300, so save yourself a few steps and aim for the 70-300.

My wife has the 18-200 which she likes because she does not like to change lenses. She shoots my 70-300VR when I am shooting my 150-600. I shoot the 70-300VR on my D750 and love it. Skip the 55-300 and the 55-300 because the quality really suffers with them.

Remember, you get what you pay for.
 

pforsell

Senior Member
Hi,
I'm relatively new to photography and have a d5300 with the standard 18-55 kit lens. I have been taking lots of photos along a local river and the limitations of the lens are very obvious so I'm looking for a zoom lens at the very cheapest end of the market.
I'm wanting to photograph birds etc on the far bank of the river so I'd be around 20m from the subject, will a 200mm lens do the job or should I go for the 300. Most reviews for entry level lenses say that performance drops at 300mm anyway

20 meters distance and small birds is a tough challenge. The most cost-effective solution is a better vantage point a lot closer. If you are shooting waterfowl then the problem solves itself since the birds are bigger and less skittish.

Below are my quick drawings of a great tit (very common here) with three different focal lengths. The drawings are in-scale and the green area represents the whole image. The bird will be very small even with a 800 mm lens. If this particular bird is not familiar, it is about 4-5 inches long from beak to tail. Chickadees, warblers and other backyard songbirds are in the same size category.

Less than 10 meters distance and 600 mm would be fine, but even the low-end 600 mm lenses are at least $1000 in the second-hand market and the good ones go beyond $5000. Best is, if you could borrow or try a friend's 200 mm or 300 mm lens before making any further decisions... just to avoid buying something disappointing.

200.jpg

300.jpg

800.jpg
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I too agree with going as long as possible. When I used my 70-300mm on some birds, I really enjoyed it. Wound up getting a 300mm f/4 which still isn't long enough, but with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter, that really helps.

Your D5300 is going to limit you. There's an older AF-D 300mm f/4 screw drive lens that Nikon made years ago. The AF is slower, but it is immensely sharp. Unfortunately the AF won't work with your current body...and make note that this particular lens won't work with a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter. But the price used is quite good especially for the sharpness.

Whatever lens you choose, try to find out ahead of time if it would be compatible with a Kenko 1.4x 300 pro teleconverter. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...T7tOm6gLfhonqn2__N6C1q4XEMFkfDZcaAlHxEALw_wcB

Not as sharp as a Nikon teleconverter, but it is compatible with many more lenses than the Nikon tele.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I used the Nikon 18-200mm lens on my D200 and often wanted more power. I then purchased a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary (the Nikon 200-500 was NOT compatible with the D200, not sure if it would work with your D5300). I couldn't be more happy with this lens and it is great on my D7200 now (which is a 225-900mm equivalent on my D7200 and your D5300). It even works pretty well with my Kenko 1.4 teleconverter (making it a 315-1260mm at F8). If you really want to get serious about birds, would recommend either the Sigma or Tamron 150-600.
 
Last edited:

chiefams

Senior Member
I love my AF-P 70-300 VR on my d5500. You can get refurbs at adorama for $175. Mine is very sharp even at 300mm!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

captain birdseye

Senior Member
I would be wary of a used tamron 150-600 as they were notorious for AF issues where the lens would freeze and need to be dismounted then remounted to get it working again. I know about 8 owners of this lens and 6 of them had to return it for problems.
The Sigma C is far less problematic but, even this is a little soft towards the long end (I owned one for over a year).
IMO the nikon 200-500vr is the way to go in this ball park even if you have to wait a while to save up to get one.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I suggest you reconsider buying any lens that's at "the very cheapest end of the market". Just like anything in life, you get what you pay for. If you buy cheap, you're gonna get cheap and regret it later. You might consider used or refurb and, as others have mentioned, the 70-300VR FX lens is a good choice. It can be found for under $400.
 

Mitch-in-NC

New member
The only thing I can add to the discussion is: consider renting the lens your interested in first, before you buy it. There are several companies that rent lenses by the day / week or month, usually for an average of $80 - 120 per week, (more for professional grade lenses).

Its a good way to try out an expensive lens before you commit to purchasing it.
 
Top