Is it worth upgrading one stop for wildlife photography?
I have just purchased the following lens to accompany my Nikon D500:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £1,349 (see here)
However, having purchased this lens a few hours ago, it has been pointed out to me that the following lens would be better if I could cover the extra cost:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - £2,849 (see here)
How essential is a larger aperture when it comes to wildlife photography? More specifically, African wildlife that will be photographed from a vehicle (no tripod) during dusk and dawn.
The additional £1,500 is doable, but I only want to spend this extra amount if it will make a big difference to the sharpness and quality of the photos I take.
Update - Just to mention, this will not be my primary lens when photographing wildlife, my primary lens is the Nikon 200-500mm.
lens nikon equipment-recommendation aperture wildlife
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I have just purchased the following lens to accompany my Nikon D500:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £1,349 (see here)
However, having purchased this lens a few hours ago, it has been pointed out to me that the following lens would be better if I could cover the extra cost:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - £2,849 (see here)
How essential is a larger aperture when it comes to wildlife photography? More specifically, African wildlife that will be photographed from a vehicle (no tripod) during dusk and dawn.
The additional £1,500 is doable, but I only want to spend this extra amount if it will make a big difference to the sharpness and quality of the photos I take.
Update - Just to mention, this will not be my primary lens when photographing wildlife, my primary lens is the Nikon 200-500mm.
lens nikon equipment-recommendation aperture wildlife
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I have just purchased the following lens to accompany my Nikon D500:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £1,349 (see here)
However, having purchased this lens a few hours ago, it has been pointed out to me that the following lens would be better if I could cover the extra cost:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - £2,849 (see here)
How essential is a larger aperture when it comes to wildlife photography? More specifically, African wildlife that will be photographed from a vehicle (no tripod) during dusk and dawn.
The additional £1,500 is doable, but I only want to spend this extra amount if it will make a big difference to the sharpness and quality of the photos I take.
Update - Just to mention, this will not be my primary lens when photographing wildlife, my primary lens is the Nikon 200-500mm.
lens nikon equipment-recommendation aperture wildlife
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have just purchased the following lens to accompany my Nikon D500:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £1,349 (see here)
However, having purchased this lens a few hours ago, it has been pointed out to me that the following lens would be better if I could cover the extra cost:
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - £2,849 (see here)
How essential is a larger aperture when it comes to wildlife photography? More specifically, African wildlife that will be photographed from a vehicle (no tripod) during dusk and dawn.
The additional £1,500 is doable, but I only want to spend this extra amount if it will make a big difference to the sharpness and quality of the photos I take.
Update - Just to mention, this will not be my primary lens when photographing wildlife, my primary lens is the Nikon 200-500mm.
lens nikon equipment-recommendation aperture wildlife
lens nikon equipment-recommendation aperture wildlife
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
asked 4 hours ago
Ben Carey
1374
1374
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ben Carey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago
1
1
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Hmm... To be honest, I'd have gone for something longer. For European wildlife, I use a Nikon 80-400 VR zoom lens, and mostly towards the long end. A wider aperture will give you a brighter viewfinder image - but I suspect you'll probably end up shooting at somewhere around f8 to get an adequate depth of field; That's what I usually end up doing if I want to get nose/beak and eyes both sharp.
Some years ago we had a speaker at our photo society who did a lot of wildlife photography, and could afford a "big glass" fast telephoto - and when I asked, he said he usually shot stopped down to get the depth of field he wanted.
I used to have one of the old Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 AF zooms; that was one of their best lenses - really sharp (and to my mind, noticeably better than the 70-200 f2.8 non-VR replacement) - but once I got the 80-400 VR, I hardly ever used the 80-200 - the VR on the 80-400 helped compensate for the smaller aperture, and the bigger zoom range and longer focal length meant I used it more. Eventually I swapped the the 80-200 for the 180 f2.8 AF-D prime lens - almost as long a focal length and a lot lighter.
However, it's quite likely that the f 70-200 2.8 is going to be higher quality than the f4 version - especially since it has a fluorite element. I have a small fluorite refractor and really like the performance. Best suggestion is probably to have a hunt around on the web for photos taken with both lenses and see how they compare. The brighter viewfinder image with the faster lens is another plus, though I've never found f4/5.6/8 lenses to be a problem.
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Ben Carey is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103814%2fis-it-worth-upgrading-one-stop-for-wildlife-photography%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Hmm... To be honest, I'd have gone for something longer. For European wildlife, I use a Nikon 80-400 VR zoom lens, and mostly towards the long end. A wider aperture will give you a brighter viewfinder image - but I suspect you'll probably end up shooting at somewhere around f8 to get an adequate depth of field; That's what I usually end up doing if I want to get nose/beak and eyes both sharp.
Some years ago we had a speaker at our photo society who did a lot of wildlife photography, and could afford a "big glass" fast telephoto - and when I asked, he said he usually shot stopped down to get the depth of field he wanted.
I used to have one of the old Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 AF zooms; that was one of their best lenses - really sharp (and to my mind, noticeably better than the 70-200 f2.8 non-VR replacement) - but once I got the 80-400 VR, I hardly ever used the 80-200 - the VR on the 80-400 helped compensate for the smaller aperture, and the bigger zoom range and longer focal length meant I used it more. Eventually I swapped the the 80-200 for the 180 f2.8 AF-D prime lens - almost as long a focal length and a lot lighter.
However, it's quite likely that the f 70-200 2.8 is going to be higher quality than the f4 version - especially since it has a fluorite element. I have a small fluorite refractor and really like the performance. Best suggestion is probably to have a hunt around on the web for photos taken with both lenses and see how they compare. The brighter viewfinder image with the faster lens is another plus, though I've never found f4/5.6/8 lenses to be a problem.
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Hmm... To be honest, I'd have gone for something longer. For European wildlife, I use a Nikon 80-400 VR zoom lens, and mostly towards the long end. A wider aperture will give you a brighter viewfinder image - but I suspect you'll probably end up shooting at somewhere around f8 to get an adequate depth of field; That's what I usually end up doing if I want to get nose/beak and eyes both sharp.
Some years ago we had a speaker at our photo society who did a lot of wildlife photography, and could afford a "big glass" fast telephoto - and when I asked, he said he usually shot stopped down to get the depth of field he wanted.
I used to have one of the old Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 AF zooms; that was one of their best lenses - really sharp (and to my mind, noticeably better than the 70-200 f2.8 non-VR replacement) - but once I got the 80-400 VR, I hardly ever used the 80-200 - the VR on the 80-400 helped compensate for the smaller aperture, and the bigger zoom range and longer focal length meant I used it more. Eventually I swapped the the 80-200 for the 180 f2.8 AF-D prime lens - almost as long a focal length and a lot lighter.
However, it's quite likely that the f 70-200 2.8 is going to be higher quality than the f4 version - especially since it has a fluorite element. I have a small fluorite refractor and really like the performance. Best suggestion is probably to have a hunt around on the web for photos taken with both lenses and see how they compare. The brighter viewfinder image with the faster lens is another plus, though I've never found f4/5.6/8 lenses to be a problem.
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Hmm... To be honest, I'd have gone for something longer. For European wildlife, I use a Nikon 80-400 VR zoom lens, and mostly towards the long end. A wider aperture will give you a brighter viewfinder image - but I suspect you'll probably end up shooting at somewhere around f8 to get an adequate depth of field; That's what I usually end up doing if I want to get nose/beak and eyes both sharp.
Some years ago we had a speaker at our photo society who did a lot of wildlife photography, and could afford a "big glass" fast telephoto - and when I asked, he said he usually shot stopped down to get the depth of field he wanted.
I used to have one of the old Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 AF zooms; that was one of their best lenses - really sharp (and to my mind, noticeably better than the 70-200 f2.8 non-VR replacement) - but once I got the 80-400 VR, I hardly ever used the 80-200 - the VR on the 80-400 helped compensate for the smaller aperture, and the bigger zoom range and longer focal length meant I used it more. Eventually I swapped the the 80-200 for the 180 f2.8 AF-D prime lens - almost as long a focal length and a lot lighter.
However, it's quite likely that the f 70-200 2.8 is going to be higher quality than the f4 version - especially since it has a fluorite element. I have a small fluorite refractor and really like the performance. Best suggestion is probably to have a hunt around on the web for photos taken with both lenses and see how they compare. The brighter viewfinder image with the faster lens is another plus, though I've never found f4/5.6/8 lenses to be a problem.
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
Hmm... To be honest, I'd have gone for something longer. For European wildlife, I use a Nikon 80-400 VR zoom lens, and mostly towards the long end. A wider aperture will give you a brighter viewfinder image - but I suspect you'll probably end up shooting at somewhere around f8 to get an adequate depth of field; That's what I usually end up doing if I want to get nose/beak and eyes both sharp.
Some years ago we had a speaker at our photo society who did a lot of wildlife photography, and could afford a "big glass" fast telephoto - and when I asked, he said he usually shot stopped down to get the depth of field he wanted.
I used to have one of the old Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 AF zooms; that was one of their best lenses - really sharp (and to my mind, noticeably better than the 70-200 f2.8 non-VR replacement) - but once I got the 80-400 VR, I hardly ever used the 80-200 - the VR on the 80-400 helped compensate for the smaller aperture, and the bigger zoom range and longer focal length meant I used it more. Eventually I swapped the the 80-200 for the 180 f2.8 AF-D prime lens - almost as long a focal length and a lot lighter.
However, it's quite likely that the f 70-200 2.8 is going to be higher quality than the f4 version - especially since it has a fluorite element. I have a small fluorite refractor and really like the performance. Best suggestion is probably to have a hunt around on the web for photos taken with both lenses and see how they compare. The brighter viewfinder image with the faster lens is another plus, though I've never found f4/5.6/8 lenses to be a problem.
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
answered 1 hour ago
JerryTheC
2,740312
2,740312
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
Thanks you for your answer, I should have probably mentioned in my question that I already have a larger lens (Nikon 200-500mm). You are absolutely right, I will be using this larger one a lot more than the one in question, but I want to make sure I purchase the correct one nevertheless.
– Ben Carey
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Ben Carey is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ben Carey is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ben Carey is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ben Carey is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103814%2fis-it-worth-upgrading-one-stop-for-wildlife-photography%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
How often will you be photographing "African wildlife [...] during dusk and dawn" in the future apart from the upcoming occasion? Why buy something close to what you have, if you could rent something that would make more of a difference? What about a 300mm 2.8?
– null
2 hours ago
@null - Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the question - I am not open to renting any lenses as my trip is for 3-4 weeks, and I am likely to be going again later in the year so renting will save little money in the long run
– Ben Carey
2 hours ago