Thanks guys

Now I'm even more confused it would seem that I should really go for the Nikon 70-300 with VR, but now I think it would be a waste of money as the range is not that much greater, and I should save up and get something that goes up to 400mm or 500mm, but again I come up with the same problem, what will autofocus on the D40. I will have to dig out a post I seem to remember about compatible lenses

I have the Nikon 70-300VR and it's brill! I don't use it too much though! It's quite heavy with all those VR workings and motors etc. plus quality optics inside. However, it will give you much more range. On a 35mm film SLR 200mm would give 4x magnification and a 300mm 6x. On a Nikon DX cameras the mag factor of any lens is actually 1.5x so the difference is 1.5x greater. It's still not a great deal of magnification for wildlife some distance away. Problem is of course camera shake and slower lenses as the magnification gets greater and the price goes up and up for any decent quality glass. somewhere you have to compromise between what you can afford, how mobile you need your lens to be i.e. tripod or not etc. etc. As a starting point I think 200mm is too small a telephoto and 300 would be minimum but with a VR it is possible to hand hold it. Rule of thumb used to be focal length = approx. min shutter speed handheld 300mm = 1/250 sec or faster. A long heavy lens will also upset the balance of your camera too. Hence they tend to feel better on the bigger heavier bodies like the D200/D300. Autofocus is least of issues...Nikon AF-S or lenses with inbuilt motors (Sigma HSM? etc.). Just some considerations that may help!

Lenses aside...... most wildlife photos are taken close-up within range of any 200/300mm lens. The key to effective wildlife photography is planning and preparation.

Some of the best shots are contrived and planned to bring the creature in closer to the camera, rather than the other way around.

This is where fieldcraft, reconnisance, planning and preparation will pay greater dividends then the reach of any lense you may decide upon.

http://www.yophotographer.com/page.p...ompatable+lens

That Sigma macro zoom is available at www.sigma4less.com for $129. Wow that's cheap!

Thanks guys

I'm begining to think that a better quality 200/300mm lens would be better than going for 400/500mm lens, and improving my stalking skills I must admit what I consider to be my better shots are from when I've taken time, hung around, blended into the background and let the wildlife get used to me, so I've just added thermals and a big dose of patience to my growing list of things to get

My next question is which lenses are the better quality lens, I know that the one I have at the moment is one of the cheaper ones

Thank you

easy answer any f2.8 lens

Bazza

Eh? Presumably only on an assumption that it will be faster and more expensive and likely designed more for enthusiast or profesional use but not simply because it is an f2.8 lens. You could easily have a slower lens that has more resolving power or colour rendition etc. Often the wider apertures are useful and you get your low light shot but don't perform best until stopped down two or three stops.

It's weird this digital photography lark, 35m SLR film cameras 20 or 30 years ago often had fast lens i.e. 50mm f1.2, 1.4, 1.8 prime, 28mm f2 or f2.8, short zooms 35-70mm at around f2.8.

BC

I said f2.8 lens in general because having now got a couple the difference in quality really stands out. its not until you actually own and use one that you really appreciate that type of lens.

Having recently bought a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens it is more or less stays on the camera as a general all purpose lens. The only drawback is the range when I swap to the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens or the Sigma 170 -500mm lens if I want further reach.

Yes it is better in dull conditions which is the norm for most days it seems, and I am guessing for indoor photos as well.

I shall be looking to get more lenses in f2.8 and get rid of the others I have in my kit at a later date.

Bazza

I agree they are more practical and offer more flexibility, and are more useful in these grey and dingy days! Even the fact that because they are faster the viewfinder is brighter and maybe more encouraging. I just couldn't agree that a lens would be better quality simply because it was f2.8. However, in practice they do tend to be good quality because it seems faster lenses, even at f2.8, are more upmarket and expensive. As I pointed out, 25 years ago you would buy a film camera and get a standard lens that was f1.8 or even f1.4 as a norm. Many prime lenses then were f2, f2.8, 200mm at f3.5 or f4. Now it seem acceptable to be palmed off with some standard zoom on a camera that is f3.8-f5.6 as a kit lens. Not good!

If you are selling off your stuff get it on here!