Lens progression advice, please

Lens progression advice, please

Author
Discussion

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Just wondering if anyone can advise me on this one..

I have a Nikon D5500, twinned with what is my only lens, currently - a Tamron 18-200mm F3.5-6.3.
My issue with the lens is that it`s pretty soft, especially towards the 200 end (the sweetest spot actually appears to be around 55mm)...

My dilemma is that I`d like to maintain, at least, this focal length, as, being pretty new to photography, I`m finding I`m leaning towards bird-photography. Yes, I know that 200mm is pretty much nowhere near to what I need (500mm etc), but I`m thinking of moving the Tamron on for a Nikon 700-300mm lens, which should - hopefully - give me both more reach, and, most importantly, better image-quality towards the long end.

Any thoughts please ?

K12beano

20,854 posts

274 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
My gut feel is to suggest that you *may* get better IQ from the 70-300 Nikkor (depending upon which variant you are considering), but.....


BUT you must understand that the results will, as you go longer, be highly dependent upon your technique and the stability of the tripod/monopod you use.


So - whilst you should "go for it" it's not always a panacea to just throw money at a lens.

Personally, my solution for birding is quite (relatively) an expensive route - a secondhand 300mm f/4 AF-S without or with either a TC14 or TC20 on a heavy Manfrotto with a fancy RRS Ballhead......

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
If you want to shoot birds yeah get a better long zoom, no idea on budget but 400-600mm is good.

But as said above long lens technique is a shocker, its not just grab a longer lens it takes time to learn how to shoot them. Big difference between 200 and 400

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
K12beano said:
My gut feel is to suggest that you *may* get better IQ from the 70-300 Nikkor (depending upon which variant you are considering), but.....


BUT you must understand that the results will, as you go longer, be highly dependent upon your technique and the stability of the tripod/monopod you use.


So - whilst you should "go for it" it's not always a panacea to just throw money at a lens.

Personally, my solution for birding is quite (relatively) an expensive route - a secondhand 300mm f/4 AF-S without or with either a TC14 or TC20 on a heavy Manfrotto with a fancy RRS Ballhead......
Noted Beano, and cheers. Admittedly, I would love to go down the expensive route straight away, but I`m just trying to feel my way into this, rather than putting in too much money straight away.
This Tamron lens has thrown me a bit, and disappointed me also. I expected better, to be honest, in IQ, although from what I`ve read since (always in hindsight, of course) it seems that it`s felt that zoom-lenses are never best when constructed to zoom beyond a 3 or 4 x zoom-range - unlike the Tamron`s 11x zoom range.

I suppose it`ll teach me to do my homework better next time - hence me asking for advice on here now...

Cheers

K12beano

20,854 posts

274 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Well - you could do more homework, but I'd always recommend just getting something and giving it a go!

Ebay is your friend when you want to move on - somebody somewhere will buy that off you as you transition towards your ideal lenses!!

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
If you want to shoot birds yeah get a better long zoom, no idea on budget but 400-600mm is good.

But as said above long lens technique is a shocker, its not just grab a longer lens it takes time to learn how to shoot them. Big difference between 200 and 400
Cheers Rob, sounds good advice; many thanks !
I`m looking to stay using the camera hand-held; certainly for the moment, and whilst the weather`s poor, so would my intended Nikon 70-300mm do the job, bearing in mind the effective 450mm crop factor, or would it prove too difficult trying to shoot hand-held with a 300 lens ?

(I`ve not even held the 70-300 lens yet, so I know I`ll need to try that first)

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
You just need to keep your shutter speeds up and have good hand holding technique (google..)

I shoot a 400/5.6.

1/focal length says 1/400th, but on a crop thats really 600mm so 1/500th minimum, and to be honest if you are shooting small birds etc then they often move fast so anything slower will have motion from the bird spoiling it anyhow.

One reason I dont have an IS/VR lens because most of what I shoot I dont need it as I need the faster shutter speeds.

So it helps to have a lens thats usable wide open, and you will have to push the ISO even in decent light at times.

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
I think the Nikon 70-300VR is a very good lens before things start getting big, expensive and heavy. It would be a worthy step up from where you are.

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
You just need to keep your shutter speeds up and have good hand holding technique (google..)

I shoot a 400/5.6.

1/focal length says 1/400th, but on a crop thats really 600mm so 1/500th minimum, and to be honest if you are shooting small birds etc then they often move fast so anything slower will have motion from the bird spoiling it anyhow.

One reason I dont have an IS/VR lens because most of what I shoot I dont need it as I need the faster shutter speeds.

So it helps to have a lens thats usable wide open, and you will have to push the ISO even in decent light at times.
Understood Rob, and I must admit, you`ve already told me something I didn`t realise in relation to the VR on lenses, in that it may not help too much if shutter speeds are fast ?
If I`m shooting birds, I`m generally shooting anything that`s going to maybe move off quickly at 1/1000th, but I`m still disappointed when the pics aren`t too sharp if I`m at a fast shutter-speed, as wide in aperture as the lens will permit at the given focal-length, and pretty low ISO...
Maybe I`m just expecting too much from a relatively cheap lens ?

Would you have a quick look at my Flickr account link, at the top 18 pics on the page, when you have a minute, and give any critical feedback please...

This goes for anyone else, by the way, who can help, as we`ve all been beginners at some point, so any help/comments would be appreciated.

Cheers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/138015784@N06/

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
I think the Nikon 70-300VR is a very good lens before things start getting big, expensive and heavy. It would be a worthy step up from where you are.
Excellent, Simpo, coming from the likes of yourself, that`s a pretty-good recommendation in my book, so thanks ! cool

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
nomad63 said:
Understood Rob, and I must admit, you`ve already told me something I didn`t realise in relation to the VR on lenses, in that it may not help too much if shutter speeds are fast ?
If I`m shooting birds, I`m generally shooting anything that`s going to maybe move off quickly at 1/1000th, but I`m still disappointed when the pics aren`t too sharp if I`m at a fast shutter-speed, as wide in aperture as the lens will permit at the given focal-length, and pretty low ISO...
Maybe I`m just expecting too much from a relatively cheap lens ?
Can't look at work sadly..

IS/VR is about negating camera shake, it /can/ help with autofocus ( it keeps the lens more stable when tracking etc) so isnt a bad thing, just not something I felt was super important to that kind of shooting at those shutter speeds. In other situations ( even on tripod..) at long focal lengths it can help.

As to soft images, its one of the following
Camera motion - 1/1000th means unlikely
Focus - Check your camera/lens combo is actually hitting focus because.
DOF - depth of field at longer focal lengths is shallow even with small apertures. Use a DOF calculator to check how much DOF you have/had on some images, coupled with a slight mis focus it can cause issues.
lens quality - cheap lenses, especially ones with a lot of zoom ( 18-200 is an 11 * zoom, good ones are 2-3-4 times) are soft, esp at longer focal lengths, especially wide open. Often they need to be stopped down to get reasonable images, this means less light, so higher ISO etc...

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Can't look at work sadly..

IS/VR is about negating camera shake, it /can/ help with autofocus ( it keeps the lens more stable when tracking etc) so isnt a bad thing, just not something I felt was super important to that kind of shooting at those shutter speeds. In other situations ( even on tripod..) at long focal lengths it can help.

As to soft images, its one of the following
Camera motion - 1/1000th means unlikely
Focus - Check your camera/lens combo is actually hitting focus because.
DOF - depth of field at longer focal lengths is shallow even with small apertures. Use a DOF calculator to check how much DOF you have/had on some images, coupled with a slight mis focus it can cause issues.
lens quality - cheap lenses, especially ones with a lot of zoom ( 18-200 is an 11 * zoom, good ones are 2-3-4 times) are soft, esp at longer focal lengths, especially wide open. Often they need to be stopped down to get reasonable images, this means less light, so higher ISO etc...
All has been noted there Rob, and again, thankyou - especially for replying when you`re at work - cheers !

Nigel_O

2,858 posts

218 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
My son uses a Nikon 70-300 on his D7100, with some very good results - it would definitely represent a significant step forward from your 18-200

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
nomad63 said:
If I`m shooting birds, I`m generally shooting anything that`s going to maybe move off quickly at 1/1000th, but I`m still disappointed when the pics aren`t too sharp if I`m at a fast shutter-speed, as wide in aperture as the lens will permit at the given focal-length, and pretty low ISO...
Maybe I`m just expecting too much from a relatively cheap lens ?
Rob's answered this, but one thing - when you say 'I`m still disappointed when the pics aren`t too sharp if I`m at a fast shutter-speed' don't confuse focus with subject movement.

Patience and practice. Accurate focus, steady hand, anticipation would seem to be the things here. Analyse your results, see where they fall short and move forwards.

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Nigel_O said:
My son uses a Nikon 70-300 on his D7100, with some very good results - it would definitely represent a significant step forward from your 18-200
Noted Nigel, and thankyou. I`m feeling that that`s the route I`ll be going down at this stage, so your comment helps - cheers.

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Rob's answered this, but one thing - when you say 'I`m still disappointed when the pics aren`t too sharp if I`m at a fast shutter-speed' don't confuse focus with subject movement.

Patience and practice. Accurate focus, steady hand, anticipation would seem to be the things here. Analyse your results, see where they fall short and move forwards.
Thanks Simpo. Would you be able to have a look at my Flickr link please - the 18 pics from top downwards were all taken on the D5500, with this Tamron lens.

You`ll see that there aren`t many bird pics, as I`ve not yet felt I`ve had too many keepers, but please feel free to comment on the ones that I have been able to display.

I would add that those were shot in RAW, and then retouched in Lightroom...

I`ve done all of this backwards really, LOL, as I`ve been using Photoshop for donkeys years (and now Lightroom), so the post-editing comes pretty easily to me; it`s the initial photography work that`s the MASSIVE learning curve for me, but boy, I`m finding it really addictive !!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/138015784@N06/


Edited by nomad63 on Monday 16th January 21:27

K12beano

20,854 posts

274 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Haven't looked at the photos yet, but what process(es) are you using for sharpening when you convert and process the RAWs?

nomad63

Original Poster:

143 posts

171 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
K12beano said:
Haven't looked at the photos yet, but what process(es) are you using for sharpening when you convert and process the RAWs?
I`m using the sharpening tools under the "Detail" tab in Adobe Lightroom, latest version.

I`ve also got a reasonably sized PC monitor -27" - so when I use Lightroom, if I view at 1:1 size, most of my pics look quite soft (taken from any given day when I`ve been out shooting), but I`m aware that I need others to compare with, which is where Flickr comes in for me.

When I go on Flickr, and look at some of the bird shots on there, some of them, even stationary pics, not just birds in flight, etc.., look much sharper to me. Yes, I know, that usually, in Photography, you appear to get what you pay for, and the better (more expensive) kit you use, can usually equate to better clarity/sharpness pics, and this is what I`m wondering if it`s mostly down to my cheap(ish) lens, or if I`m doing my Tamron a dis-service, and it`s more down to my poor shooting technique ?

Thanks for helping with this, BTW, (which goes to all); as I said, it`s much appreciated. cool

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Looking at the tdp iso crops for the 18-200, at 200/6.3 it is utter garbage.

Compared to the (I think, not sure on nikon lenses) decent nikon 70-300:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Monday 16th January 2017
quotequote all
Tamron 18-200 compared to my 400/5.6L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...