Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-933.html)

Thanks again Aroy. Will go through the site and download the suggested software.

This might be already answered, but couldn't find it and its like searching needle in a haystack with all 933 pages to search.

I am planing to get a lens for my Nikon D7000.

I am interested in all sorts of Photography with the priority being landscape, nature and wildlife, priority (I like street photography too). So I require a decent telephoto lens. I have seen this 70-200 ED VR F2.8, but it sells at 1.5 lacs. My maximum possible budget is 80-90k (Its the max. budget, I will be happy to get something in the lower side of 50k).
And now there is a new lens of 200-500 F 5.6 (Fixed) which retails at ~85k. But my worry is that it starts at 200.
Then there was something like 80 - 400 (variable F), but that is around 1.5k with VR.

I don't know much about photography, but I know that fixed F gives better image quality, but is expensive.

Any pointers towards a lens with decent IQ, decent telephoto zoom, and decent price from Nikkon or similar one in Tamron/Sigma?

The crop factor is 1.5. A 100mm lens is equivalent to a 150mm on a full frame sensor. The interest you have mentioned can be covered from effective 50mm to all the way upto (limitless for wildlife). But landscape i would say anything at at least 17mm on D7000 makes sense.

This range is very high and the usual compromise is a 70-200, 50-500 Sigma(slower lens) or even the 150-500 (Which is a good compromise). Again the lens is slower but its difficult to get anything faster at this price point.

Since it has a 1.5X crop an option is to see if you can get like a 150mm Macro lens and use a tele converters. This can help in multiple ways.

No one lens will cover this range and be high quality and fast as well as withing the cost. For example the sony 24-240 is the only 10X zoom lens that has got rave reviews for usability and versatility

Alternate options are the Tamron 70-200 then the sigma 70-200. I prefer the Tamron over the Sigma where the Tamron has exceptionally better oof rendering than the sigma.

Wildlife is going to touch and go simply because of the available lights, distance and multiple compromises. On good lights the 150-500 is tough to beat for versatility and shooting at F8 is pretty normal at those distance. Its a compromise you need to live with. I simply went with a P900 from Nikon for those wildlife which came to be cheaper to afford both a fast prime around 135mm while have something for those long distance wildlife. I cannot afford a 500mm F4 or a 600mm F4 lens.

Get the 200-500. It is a very good telephoto zoom lens, Do not worry about the 200mm minimum. When you are shooting wild life in natural surroundings, even 500mm will feel less. Unless the animals are big and come near you, 200mm is good enough.

The longer the zoom range, the lower the IQ, so I would stay away from zooms that have a large lens. You must be having the kit 18-55 or some other lens for closer work, carry it along with 200-500. As long as you do not shift from long range to short range constantly, you can use the longer lens for distant shots and then switch over to the other lens for closer shots.

Oh that was too much of information for me to comprehend.

Pl correct me if I am wrong, So what I understand/analyze is that to have 2 lens, one a prime lens with 17mm (I guess 35 mm comes cheap at 7-8k). (And I have the kit lens of 18 - 105, but I feel it is just some normal lens without any specialties) and second is to have a lens like 70-200, 200 - 500, 150 - 500, out of which I feel 70 - 200 is the right choice as the combo of having 35/50 mm with 70 - 200 will be good.

I guess there is one 70 - 200 F4, almost half the price of F2.8. Any other lens in the range of 70 - 200/ 70 - 300 with fixed F is available from any other brands?

If you are starting from scratch, I would say even though you have the cash, start with the basic 18-55 and actually see what you tend to shoot more. Then expand slowly on the glass. A 50mm (or an 85) or a macro or a telephoto or a wide angle or long zoom etc. Dont look at all of them in one go. Take one step at a time.

Can the 200 - 500 be used for everyday shooting, like when we go for short trips and all? What does 200 mean in practical sense. My kit lens is 18-105 mm, so the 200 will start with double magnification as that of kit lens?

Also a noob question. Which is the lens which can give the lines in eyes when we zoom/take close up of eyes? Does the normal 35/50 mm provide that solution? And I guess for telephoto we need lens with fixed F to achieve that, right?


Oh that was too much of information for me to comprehend.

Pl correct me if I am wrong, So what I understand/analyze is that to have 2 lens, one a prime lens with 17mm (I guess 35 mm comes cheap at 7-8k). (And I have the kit lens of 18 - 105, but I feel it is just some normal lens without any specialties) and second is to have a lens like 70-200, 200 - 500, 150 - 500, out of which I feel 70 - 200 is the right choice as the combo of having 35/50 mm with 70 - 200 will be good.

I guess there is one 70 - 200 F4, almost half the price of F2.8. Any other lens in the range of 70 - 200/ 70 - 300 with fixed F is available from any other brands?

I actually purchased this camera 3 years before. I am not getting satisfaction with the kit lens any more (18 - 105). And you know human behavior, we need everything, at the rate of common salt stupid:

The issue is that I don't have much cash, but the current desire inside me is flaming and I thought maybe I will buy this time without thinking much. Anyways let me look at my financials once more and seek more knowledge from here.

I don't do wildlife shooting every month, but we go to some wildlife destination once in a year. And every opportunity we get, we go for short trips. And those are the only times, I open the camera bag. So I need the photos to be perfect when I open the lens cover. lol:

As suggested first get the new 18-55 VR-II and use it extensively. It has much better IQ than the older lens you have.

Next look out for deals on the 35mm F1.8DX. That is must have lens if you shoot indoors and have only the kit 18-55.

Unless you are an avid wild life shooter or shoot mostly in Zoos, 200mm is barely enough to catch animals in the wild. For small birds even 500mm is short, so the 200-500 will serve you well when you go on trips to game reserves. It can even be fully utilized for shooting small birds around your house.

If you are happy with taking snapshots, that is fine, but shooting only when you do your trips is not the way to improve:)

200-500mm + camera is a 3 kg kit, will weigh ~3x your current camera + lens combo. You want to carry that for everyday shooting?

I would recommend you get a 70-300mm AF-S VR, you can decide later whether to get a longer lens or not. Reach is not the only thing, flexibility matters a lot IMO.

Don't get distracted about fixed focal length, if you don't know why you need one, and the pros and cons, then no point at this stage. Also, best to take advice from people who have practical experience in that genre. If you shoot portraits, check with portrait shooters. Same for landscape and wildlife. Lots of people can give theoretical advice without understanding the practical pros and cons.

70-300mm VR

Also see https://500px.com/nilanjanray. 4 out of the first 6 photos (wood spider, chameleon, tiger cubs and blackbucks) were shot with the 70-300mm. The boat was shot with a 18-105mm.

80-400mm VR


200-500mm VR


If you have decided that you want very long reach, then you can decide among Tamron 150-600mm, Nikon 200-500mm and Sigma 150-600mm C.

If that is the case, get some thing like 24-105/24-120 kind a range lens. That should keep you happy. Wild life is more a focused effort, which you should get into only when you are dedicated towards it.

The difference between a 18-105 - in terms of compositional flexibility and reach (without getting into sharpness, microcontrast etc.) - and these lenses is minimal.

If by Decent you dont mean 'Tack Sharp', you can look at the Tamron 16-300 lens. Brilliant all-purpose walkabout lens which gives an IQ better than the kit lens but not as good as the better "gold ring" lenses. And for half your budget too.

I just meant the kind of a range the OP should be focusing at. That was the idea.

@Nilanjan.. again great pictures. Loved the first one.

I am convinced to say that you dont need to buy lenses for once a while trip to wild life sanctuaries and the probability of spotting wildlife is as good as getting a great image with the best lens possible. Meaning minimal. You should look at renting lenses during those trip.

No lens has specialties except the Petzval 85mm or a trioplan 100mm or even the canon 0.95 dream lens. The specialty is the guy behind that lens. I know a person with magical eyes using the oldest 8Mp generation canon rebel series with 18-55 and 55-250 lens. Yet you will be amazed by the art he creates for his is the specialty there :)

Like Nilanjan said, there are cheaper options including the sigma 70-300 which is far cheaper as well.