Zoom v. Fixed focal length

[jonhawkins]

I am looking to buy a new lens for bird photography in particular. I have noted the very positive comments re the Bigma which is high on my list but I am concerned that it is often said that it is only at its best in good light. I fancy the Nikon 200-400 but definitely can't afford it!

I have also looked at fixed focal lengths that can be used in poorer light conditions, but they lack the versatility of a zoom.

Does anyone have any particular views on this matter?

Jonathan

[pressld2]

If money were no object I'd go for the prime lens every time, mainly because of their speed - Nikon's 500 and 600mm primes are both f4 and their 400mm is f2.8. Stick a 2x teleconverter on that and you have 800mm at f5.6. The reality is that these lenses are way out of my reach and likely to stay that way for many years to come.

Fortunately some of the more affordable zooms still give excellent quality results. I use the Nikon 80-400 VR which you can now get for under £1,000. If I didn't already own that lens I'd look very seriously at the Sigma 50-500 now that I've seen the results that other WAB members get with it.

Dave P.

[peterjclarke]

I have the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR lens and it works great with a 1.7x tele converter but as this lens is only a bit cheaper than the 200-400 it is expensive.
Peter

[jonhawkins]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I use the Nikon 80-400 VR which you can now get for under £1,000. If I didn't already own that lens I'd look very seriously at the Sigma 50-500 now that I've seen the results that other WAB members get with it.

Dave P.

I thought about this lens, it is somewhat more expensive than the Sigma 50-500 (£605 on Amazon). Your comment above leads me to believe that the Sigma might be a better choice.

Jonathan

[SteveHL]

You may also want to look at the weight of the prime lenses as they are considerably heavier than a zoom. So getting that extra stop of light on a prime can be expensive in the weight that you have to carry.
regards
Steve

[Snakeman]

I use a sigma 100-300mm f4...cracking lens works well with a 1.4x converter too..

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by jonhawkins

I thought about this lens, it is somewhat more expensive than the Sigma 50-500 (£605 on Amazon). Your comment above leads me to believe that the Sigma might be a better choice.

Very possibly, Jonathan. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no complaints about the Nikon 80-400, in fact I've got a few shots with that lens that I'm extremely pleased with.

When I first started out in photography with a Nikon FM film camera I bought a few non-Nikon lenses including an Optomax wide angle, a Vivitar teleconverter and a Tamron zoom. All of these were nice and cheap but ultimately a waste of money as the quality simply wasn't there, so when I switched to digital I told myself that I'd only buy Nikon glass. That was my mindset when I bought the 80-400 and I didn't even look at any other manufacturer. This was before I found WAB, of course!

Since then I have broken my "Nikon-only" rule with a Sigma 150mm macro which is a superb lens - absolutely no problems with the quality there - and seeing the results that others get with the "Bigma" I would very seriously consider it if I were buying now. Take a look at Graham's (glsammy) gallery for some excellent examples (albeit on a Canon camera).

The two things that just might put me off the Bigma are

1. The absence of VR (although you'll usually use it on a tripod or monopod so not that big an issue) and
2. The f6.3 max aperture at the 500mm end of the zoom (but if it gives you f5.6 at 400mm which it probably does - I'm sure someone will soon confirm - then you've lost nothing).

Dave P.

[GerryNick2]

The problem is Jonathan they just do not make the ideal lens. If you want both the reach and capability to shoot in low light without raising the ISO then you will have to pay for it in both the £ notes and the weight of the beast.

If you are looking for an affordable lens with the versatility of a zoom I would seriously consider the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D AF VR Lens. the alternative would be the bigma but you need to consider the extra weight if you want to handhold, no VR.

Gerry

[Hobjob]

One other small thing against primes (apart from cost) is the difficulty
sometimes in finding the target.

I often find myself pulling in the the pump (100-400) to "lock
on", and then zooming out again.

But if I had the money for the 600mm prime ..................

[John D]

Originally Posted by Snakeman

I use a sigma 100-300mm f4...cracking lens works well with a 1.4x converter too..

I also use the Sigma 100-300mm f4 lens with 1.4tc and find the combination provides very acceptable images. It is used mainly with the aid of a monopod but on occasions I handhold.
There is no such thing as the 'perfect lens' some may be better than others but at times a compromise has to be made whatever the cost.
Two weeks ago I was standing next to someone with a 500mm prime and he was cursing that Goldeneye were getting to close to him, you obviously can't win at times.
John D