d70 getting to 1000mm on a budget. (1 Viewer)

abirdy · Nov 23, 2004

I would like to have 900 or 1000mm of lens power or close to it.
With the 1.5 mag factor included in.

Looking at the sigma 500mm lenses with possibly a 1.4 teleconverter or some combination of the Nikon 300m or 400mm lenses with either the 1.4 or 2 teleconverters. Wondering how much detail I would lose with the teleconverters.

Looking for the best compromise of photo quality/detail vs. dollars. On a fairly tight budget.

Looking for opinion or people experience on either combination. Feel free to offer alternative suggestions. At the price of this equipment I want to try to get it right the first time. Thanks.

Doug Greenberg · Nov 23, 2004

A REALLY important consideration is how much money you are willing to spend. Can you give us at least a "ball park figure?"

abirdy · Nov 23, 2004

$1000. ideally but could maybe streeeeettchh it to $1500. That is just for lenses.

JonB · Nov 28, 2004

Sorry to say, that you won't be getting to 1000 mm that way. If it were that easy (cheap), we'd all be doing it! You need very good optics to offset the quality losses once you start adding teleconverters. To get to 1000, you'd need either a 300 mm or 400 mm and stacked (2) teleconverters (a bad solution - image quality completely sucks - I've done it), or a 500 or 600 mm lens with a single converter (would give decent quality, but would run a minimum of four or five thousand just for the lens).

I'd buy a good quality 400 mm lens and brush up on your stalking techniques! As a matter of fact... that IS what I did

Doug Greenberg · Nov 28, 2004

On your budget you really can't get to top-quality AF supertele technology, but you could get close if you're willing to eschew autofocus. You probably could find a manual focus Nikon 500mm. f4P used for $1500-$2000 if you watch the ebay listings and are patient. The Kenko Teleplus Pro 2x teleconverter costs $200.

To get to 1000 mm. more cheaply you could go for the Sigma 50-500mm. zoom ($800, more or less) plus a 2x telextender (Kenko Teleplus Pro). I'm not sure what the quality would be at 1000mm. with this combo. Other alternatives:

Buy a used Sigma or Tokina 400mm. f5.6 tele, either of which are available regularly on ebay. The Tokina usually goes for around $200 at this point. It apparently works fine with the D70 (with the D100 it needs rechipping). Add your teleconverter and you've ended up spending maybe $400. At 800mm. (f11) the quality will be decent, though not as good as if you used a more expensive prime lens.

Buy a 500mm. mirror lens (Nikon or Tamron) and add your 2x telextender. The quality here is actually pretty good, but you end up with a really, really slow lens (f16, or even slightly worse). And you will be metering manually. With a dSLR this is an inconvenience, but is not as horrible as you might think, since you can do trial-and-error exposures so quickly. You could go this route for less than $500 all told.

Buy a used recent-vingage 1000mm. Nikon mirror lens (f11). Excellent optics, but again, you will be metering manually.

The last option is to simply go to digiscoping technology. A Pentax scope, William Optics DCL-28 eyepiece, and Coolpix 4500 camera will cost in the end less than $1500 if you shop carefully.

JonB · Nov 28, 2004

Doug's suggestions are good compromises from an equipment standpoint, but... you're going to get some seriously slow shutter speeds, and focusing manually means you'll be missing a lot of shots. Mirror lenses also do some strange things to highlights as well - you tend to get donut-shaped highlights rather than circular ones. Not a big problem, but it should be mentioned. You're going to need a very sturdy tripod and head, some very good long lens technique, and at such narrow apertures (slow shutter speeds) you'll still get a lot of motion blur if the bird moves *at all*. I really don't believe you'd be happy with the results. To "do it right the first time", you're talking thousands. There's just no way of getting around it.

I'd still recommend a shorter lens and getting closer. Once you've mastered that, you can always add on a TC later. A 400 mm with the 1.5 crop gives you 600 mm, and once you add a 1.4x TC you'll be at 840 mm. I know from experience, that you're better off getting it all down pat with a really good shorter (400 mm) lens without the TC first. Or, like Doug said, have a look at Digiscoping. It has its own challenges, but I've seen some very good results (as well as some not so good).

abirdy · Nov 29, 2004

This is the problem I am struggling with.
I am wrestling with the fz20 Panasonic or getting the d70 and lenses.
The problem I am wrestling with is that because of the budget issues I not be able to afford the type of lenses that are going to give me the best quality photos, even the 400mm 5.6 lenses in the $400 to $800 range.
The lens on the fz20 yields some good quality pictures.
Granted there are many other plus features to the dslr on top of the photo quality available with the good quality lenses.

So will the photos with the less expensive lower quality lenses yield enough better photo detail and quality over the fz20 to make it worth spending the extra money to go dslr. Basically struggling with the final decision between the $500 fz20 vs. a $2000 outlay for the dslr with lenses. 95% of my photo activity is birding.

Ryder · Nov 29, 2004

abirdy said:
I would like to have 900 or 1000mm of lens power or close to it.
With the 1.5 mag factor included in.

Hi:
This is a tough situation. I have the D70 and it's a nice camera. The problem with most birders is that they are quite fussy and feathers present a pretty good challenge for resolution and contrast. I've tried a number of cost effective things and have not been too happy. As someone said in this thread, if it were easy and cheap everybody would be banging out great bird shots. I think you can waste a lot of money running through unsatisfactory solutions.

Your millage may vary but I have not found a 2x tc that is up to birding.
The resolution suffers and you lose a lot of light.

You might go to a camera forum like here where a guy is using a Sigma 50-500 and 1.4. This combo might be among the cheapest alternatives for you.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=11233822

Another good place to look is Fred Miranda's "Nature and Wildlife" section:http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

I've been looking at a Sigma 500m used for about 2k like that here:http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=NA&cid=08&sid=newused&crid=9273250

The trouble w/ hte Sigma 500mm is that you lose an f stop with a 1.4 tc (two f stops with a 2x)
and the lens is 4.5 to begin with. It will be difficult to take into the woods and get really great results.

The sad truth is that a good 1000m reach on a lens with a dslr is about 4-5k.
Then you need to have a good tripod and mount which isn't cheap either. Also, one of the real disadvantages of a D70 is that it does not have MLU (mirror lock up). At 1000m the movement of the mirror can cause troubles on a camera. Also the viewfinder is too small for really good manual focusing. Both of these are issues with good bird shots or any shots at 1000m. If you get a lens that requires manual focus, or like to use it as I do, you will likely find youself cursing the D70's viewfinder. (you lose auto focus with a lens sometimes if you add converters. Understand this before you buy!) These problems didn't stop me from getting the camera but they are two of the most glaring weaknesses on the camera and I think my next camera will resolve these issues.

You can go shorter then 1000mm but you need a lot more time, luck, and patience and skill. Rereading this I don't want to discourage you. You're not trying to submit prints to National Geographic and if you are dealing with 8x10(and smaller).... I've seen great shots with the "Bigma" 50-500 handheld. You'd likely have a ball with it. And it's not usually the lens but the person behind it.

Cheers,
Craig Ryder

Doug Greenberg · Nov 29, 2004

The comments regarding the problems encountered from slow apertures and shutter speeds are important, as this indeed is a consideration when buying/using equipment. However, one big advantage of using a DSLR is that you can use a very high ISO and still get good results. I routinely use ISO 1000 to take bird photos, and on occasion I have even gone as high as 3200. I am attaching a photo taken in Hawaii of a Shama in poor light using a 400mm. f5.6 Nikon lens at ISO 3200. If there is too much noise in the photos you can reduce the problem by using noise reduction software. Your skills in post-processing become very important when you switch to digital. I should add that your expectations regarding size of enlargements have to be realistically limited.

I often take photos handheld using a 600mm. mirror lens, and if there is adequate light these can be surprisingly good.

As for the image degradation from telextenders, this is largely a function of the quality of the lens that is being telextended. I have gotten good results using a 500mm. mirror lens with a 1.4x Kenko Pro Telextender, even hand-held. With a first-rate prime lens like a 500mm. f4, the results are quite excellent. Using telextenders with zooms is usually disappointing, however.

J_K · Dec 1, 2004

Hi
Take a look at the sigma 120-300 EX f2.8, I use it with a 2x matched converter on a D100, with what I think are good results. My latest up loads have been taken with this combo, still retains good auto focus and without the converter it's excellent.
J_K

Jay Turberville · Dec 2, 2004

Doug Greenberg said:
Buy a 500mm. mirror lens (Nikon or Tamron) and add your 2x telextender. The quality here is actually pretty good, but you end up with a really, really slow lens (f16, or even slightly worse). And you will be metering manually. With a dSLR this is an inconvenience, but is not as horrible as you might think, since you can do trial-and-error exposures so quickly. You could go this route for less than $500 all told.

Buy a used recent-vingage 1000mm. Nikon mirror lens (f11). Excellent optics, but again, you will be metering manually.

The last option is to simply go to digiscoping technology. A Pentax scope, William Optics DCL-28 eyepiece, and Coolpix 4500 camera will cost in the end less than $1500 if you shop carefully.

I routinely use a 1000mm f/10 Rubinar catadioptic as a scope in tandem with a Televue 32mm eyepiece for digiscoping with a Coolpix 5000. A Coolpix 5000 is a 5Mp camera, so its resolving power is fairly close to that of a D70.
My best results respond well to moderate to aggressive sharpening. I'd have to think that if this lens was used directly - unencumbered by the additional eyepiece and camera lens optics - it would provide very good results. I wouldn't expect the image quality equal to the very best optics, but you may find it worthwhile. This would be manual focus and fixed aperture of course. With the adapter for a Nikon and after shipping, the lens would run slightly more than $300 US.

Someone mentioned slow shutter speeds. I shoot at 1500mm to 2500mm equivalent focal lengths and shutter speeds as low as 1/60 second are not uncommon. If you can get up to 1/125 or so and have a good solid tripod, you should get a lot of keepers - assuming the optic performs as well as I'd expect.

Romy Ocon · Dec 9, 2004

I sometimes use a Sigma 2x TC with my Sigma 50-500, but on the 20D and 300D (MF only, on tripod), for a total length of 1600 mm (including the 1.6 crop factor). Picture quality is usable if things are done right.

As the Sigma zoom and TC are equally available for Nikon Mount, I reckon these pics give you an indication of what can be done with the lens/TC combo. EXIF is intact so you can also note the shooting data.

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/33577526

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/33578421

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/34807265

Cheers.

abirdy · Dec 10, 2004

Romy,
I am really glad you posted on this.
I finally decided on my long lens and have a 50-500 on the way to me, I received my d70 on Tuesday.
I was wondering about the quality of photos with a converter and you settled that issue for me.
I will be ordering the 1.4 as I am sure I do not have the technique skills you have to use the 2.0.

Those pics are surprisingly good with the 2x. Nicely done.

Romy Ocon · Dec 11, 2004

abirdy said:
Romy,
I am really glad you posted on this.
I finally decided on my long lens and have a 50-500 on the way to me, I received my d70 on Tuesday.
I was wondering about the quality of photos with a converter and you settled that issue for me.
I will be ordering the 1.4 as I am sure I do not have the technique skills you have to use the 2.0.

Those pics are surprisingly good with the 2x. Nicely done.

I just bought a Tamron 1.4x and 2x TCs (the cheaper versions), to complement my Sigmas. The Tamron 1.4x allows the AF to work with the Bigma and 20D/300D, although it hunts a little in low light as the combo is an effective f/9. My 400 5.6L + Tamron 1.4x has fast AF with the 20D/300D bodies.

In using a TC, I try to reduce the Bigma's aperture one full stop (f/8 natively, which is actually f/9 considering that wide open is f/6.3) for better results.

Cheers.

stevo · Dec 11, 2004

Hi abirdy

You might like to have a look at this site www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk most of the shots on this website are taken using the Sigma 50-500mm lens the camera used is a Fuji s2 pro which is a Nikon/Fuji hybrid.Hope this helps.

Regards Steve.

Brian Stepanek · Feb 13, 2005

Hi there,

I am new to DSLR cameras, I just bought a D70 and a Sigma 170-500mm. I must say I am very happy with the quality of the lens and camera. The camera is about $1200 and the lens was an extra $650. I am going to buy an 1.4x extender some time.

I am posting a shot from today, it was hand held at 440mm and in bad light so please forgive the somewhat dark shot.

FeistyRdHd · Apr 13, 2005

Brian, good shot for just starting out! I just got my D-70. I have taken a few decent pictures and many lousy ones. But I am having fun, and I will get better

Lydia :girl:

rka · Apr 13, 2005

Why not try digiscoping ?

Brian Stepanek · Apr 14, 2005

Well, I think money is a problem for me, it was a stretch for me to even get this camera and lens. But maybe in the future, I definitely am interested in it though.

cfagyal · Apr 19, 2005

Brian and Abirdy,

Brian,

A few suggestions

1) Please please please please please stop using jpeg fine and move to RAW mode. You lose SOOO much not using RAW, most importantly the ability to adjust the exposure in raw mode prior to conversion which gives you the ability to fix improperly exposed photos without compromising the image quality, to an extent. If the shadow detail isn't there, you are just going to get noise. And just as important, the 4 pixels you are giving up for every pixel in your image just means you are losing lots of detail and contrast.

2) The shot you posted could have probably been lightened up by shooting 1/250th or 1/400th at f/6.3. It'd probably be sharper at f/8. Most zooms don't perform very well wide open, and the 50-500 is wide open at 6.3 at that focal length. Some fill flash would also help bring the shadows out and add a catchlight to the eye. Sans flash, i'd shoot at higher apertures, larger isos (iso200, iso400 maybe, though i'd try to stay at iso200), and lighten up the exposure by shooting at -1/3 to +2/3 and then add a catchlight and compensate any additional necessary in photoshop or whatever photo editing tool you are using (PS Elements 3.0 is a great purchase for 99$ when on a budget)

Abirdy,

Please take note of the f/stop that Romy used when taking these images he posted. F/16. It is very important to stop down when using converters, ESPECIALLY with zoom lenses. The 50-500 is a surprisingly good performer, though i'd personally hesitate to stick a 2x on any zoom lens, even the best in the world the 70-200 f/2.8's from Canon and Nikon. I'm barely happy with the results from my 70-200 f/2.8L and a 1.4x, but then again i'm super picky.

As for those asking about digiscoping....The quality of images from a DLSR are so many light years ahead of digiscoping it is really not worth considering moving away from a DSLR. Yes you can get decent images from digiscoping, but you can't get anywhere near what you can get with a DSLR and a high quality lens. The glass used in digiscoping just isn't that good in comparison. The resolution certainly isn't nearly as good. The lack of a flash (and no the popup flash on your Nikon Coolpix 4500 doesn't count) seriously hinders things as well.

d70 getting to 1000mm on a budget. (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Lekker by die see

Virginia is for Bird Lovers

ttbirds

Lekker by die see

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread