Thread: Bird photos without a kit lens

Thanks NM - yeah those pro lenses really can make you look good! They really are a step up in quality and give you the ability to capture what you couldn't before (with the reach, extremely quick focus, amount of light they let in etc)

I really splurged when I bought mine.. I got a pay out from a company I worked for... although my wife reminds me still it could have been spent on more important things! The lense was about $6000 which was a really good deal from the States at the time.. had a good exchange rate etc.. and somehow it got into the country without me having to pay import duty which I was expecting to pay.. dunno how... I didnt complain though..

Great shots!


If people are sick of their kit lens, they could get one of these..

Hands on with the Canon EF 1200 f/5.6L Lens|Outdoor Photo Gear

Very nice captures, the 200-400 is an awesome lens and perform very well with the X 1.7 teleconverter

lol @ werdan! mate... if you could order me a couple and I could pay you back later? That'd be great thanks...

yes rather serious.. wonder if it has a nikon mount available with my D300 it would be an effective 1800mm..

Originally Posted by djambalawa

lol @ werdan! mate... if you could order me a couple and I could pay you back later? That'd be great thanks...

yes rather serious.. wonder if it has a nikon mount available with my D300 it would be an effective 1800mm..

remember that the equal to 1800mm is regarding the frame but not the magnification

yeah i've seen some beaut flamewars about crop factors on various forums

I for one subscribe to the following (obviously biased coz I use a D300 );

The physical lens focal length never changes obviously... a 200mm lens is always that... but because my D300 has a smaller sensor (as compared to 35mm film) I get an effective magnification because of the smaller frame. But I disagree when Full Frame advocates claim that this is just the same a cropping the picture - as my camera is still using its full sensor just the way it was designed to! 35mm equivalence really has nothing to do with it... unless I was cropping out pixels on my sensor which I am not!

Sure you can argue the pixels from FF are better quality etc (they are in low light at least) but my very capable D300 is not running in any less than optimum mode than at its best when I am getting 600mm from my 400mm lens...

I have the D200 so I agree with you
Perhaps we can say that a camera like the d200/300 are better for wild life, birds and flora because the subject fill the frame more than in the case of a full frame camera using the same lens.
For landscaping using a wide angle lens like my Tokina 12-24 I would love to have a D3

By the way, regarding the 200-400 i have a friend that use this lens on a D2Hs and his photos are awesome.
He just got the 600mm f/4, have a look his report [ame="http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php't=35297"]HERE[/ame]

Cheers

Mate I can't argue with you there

Yeah for a serious bird photographer etc you couldnt beat the 600mm... as well as the extra cost I just couldn't justify not going for the versatility of the zoom when spending that much... but I'd love to have one if I could!

I have the Tokina 12-24 too - great little lense - and yeah it would be nice to have a D3 or that new extra high rez one - D3X or something I think? Lotsa dosh tho