My first lens (1 Viewer)

Hello to all. Sorry for my English but is a translator automatic...

I would want to acquire my first lens to photograph little birds.
Many friends have adviced against to me zoom, even if see that many in this forum use to them. Therefore I would want to ask a council to you for a good purchase!
First of all zoom or fixed lens?

I would have in mind these possibilities:

Zoom
Nikkor 80-400/4.5 + teleconverter 1.4
Sigma 80-400/4.5 + teleconverter 1.4
Sigma 50-500/4
Sigma 120/300/2.8 + teleconverter 2.0 (perhaps this is too much expensive)

Lente fissa
Nikkor 300/4 + teleconverter 1.7
Sigma 300/2.8 teleconverter 2.0

You to which advised me of these? Or you have other suggestions? :h?:
The camera is D70s.

Thanks and ciao!

Ciao, Mirox, and welcome.

I own the Sigma 80-400. It is a sharp lens, with good colour and contrast. It also has image stabilisation, which can be very useful.

I like it a lot - two examples attached.

If it is used with a teleconvertor (I have the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x) the image stabilisation does not seem to work.

Also, here is a review of the Nikkor 80-400mm, by Andy Bright - another very good lens.

http://www.digiscoped.com/Nikon80-400.html

Finally, many people on here use the Sigma 50-500mm and get fine images. If you search in the gallery for "sigma 50-500mm" you will find many pictures.

It is all a matter of budget .
A prime lense ( like 300\2.8 or 500\4 etc ) is better optically but VERY expensive. ( 2600$ and 6500$ respectively )
Nikon 200-400 VR is a wet dream ( 5000$ !!!) .
So you are left with the list you asked about :
Nikon 300\4 ( no IS ) is around 950$
Nikon 80-400 VR- ~ 1300$
Sigma 80-400 ~ 1000$
The Nikon is thought to be better optically and sharper.
At the 500m"m Range: Bigma - Sigma 50-500 ~ 1000$
Sigma 170-500 ~ 750$
Tamron 200-500 ~ 850 $

It all depends how professinal you want to get .
Remember that using a TC can slow down the AF and adds 1-2 F stops.
A tripod is almost a must with the heavy lenses ( Bigma , etc )

The Bigma has a lot of fans and is thought to be a good sharp lense.
The 170-500 is slower , less sharper ( i tried it in the past and did not like it ) .

I personally have bought the Tamron 200-500 and i am VERY pleased with it.
( you can see examples in my gallery ) .- I have a D-70.
Remember : the lense is only an excuse ( for bad or good pics ...) - you can get some awsome pictures from a simple Sigma 70-300 -If you use it right.

DOC said:

The Nikon is thought to be better optically and sharper.

Click to expand...

There's actually a very large body of evidence to the contrary, DOC - many reviewers consider the Sigma to be optically superior (I know my pictures aren't evidence of that..! )

I read several hundred opinions/reviews in making my decision to buy the Sigma, and the overall trend was significantly in favour of the Sigma - and many commentators also regard it as good as or better than the Canon 100-400L IS, which I understand is praise indeed.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=223&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

I have not tried the Sigma 80-400 or the Nikon. As far as i know - the Canon 100-400 IS is thought to be an amazing lense and if you say the Sigma is as good or even better - then i rest my case... :t:
Just for knowledge : I hear there is a new Sigma 170-500 DG out there now.
Apart from that - lets go out there and enjoy bird photography!

Sorry if i desapeared, but i dont understund anything, so i had to waith for my wife to get the translation.

Thank you very much for the answers. After a long reflection and after aving watched a lot of pictures in the gallery i’ve concluded that the Sigma 500 is an exellent lense. But very expencive.
So i’ll buy the Sigma 50/500 to practize and if i’ll like it maybe in the future i’ll search for an used Sigma 500.

I’ll buy a Sigma 50/500 only if you’ll be able to reassure me that whit it i will not be obliged to use a tripod (wich i hate).
Otherwise i’d buy a Sigma 80/400, even if i fear that a 400 will not suffice, because i like the little birds.

Keith reeder: about the 2 pics attached, you made them with or without the teleconvertor? and with or without tripod?

Thanks in advance!

Mirox said:

I’ll buy a Sigma 50/500 only if you’ll be able to reassure me that whit it i will not be obliged to use a tripod (wich i hate).
Otherwise i’d buy a Sigma 80/400, even if i fear that a 400 will not suffice, because i like the little birds.

Click to expand...

I use the Tamron 200-500mm (similar spec to the Sigma, but a bit lighter). Anyway, i use this mainly at the 500mm end, and mainly without a tripod. Check out my gallery for examples. I have included details of shutter speed, aperture etc on most of the photos. Most were taken with the Nikon D70 and Tamron 200-500 combo.

Hi Mirox,

no tripod, no teleconvertor...

I've tried/own most of the lenses mentioned here. The least expensive of the group which I like the most are the 80-400VR which can be used hand held and the 300/4 AFS with or without TCs.
I use the 300/4 with all three Nikon TCs I have - TC-14E, 17E and 20E, (resulting in 420, 510 and 600mm respectively) and I find this lens very sharp and lighweighted in comparison to it's bigger brothers and often prefer to take it with me than drag my heavier and bigger lenses. The lens collar should be replaced with a Kirk collar (another $150) at it is not doing justice to the optics. With the TC-20E is focuses rather slowly, but still manageable in good lighting. MF is always there...
A tripod is a must as well as a good, stable head.
Here's a shot taken with this lens and a TC-20EII, (600mm total) stopped down only 1/3 stop (f:9).
It's highly recommended - as it also focuses very close and has a great bokeh.