Lens progression advice, please

[nomad63]

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 ?

[nomad63]

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

[nomad63]

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)

[nomad63]

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]

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 !

[nomad63]

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 !

[nomad63]

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]

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

[nomad63]

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.

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

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...

WOW ! I`m speechless Rob !

As you say, the Tamron is horrendous compared to both of those you have posted; it really is shocking !

This has now, though, given me major encouragement that I should be able to get far more sharpness from the Nikon 70-300.

Many thanks mate, I really do appreciate this !

Edit: Also - I was initially thinking, before, that I`d lose some lens-speed (slightly) in swapping my Tamron for the Nikon, as the widest aperture on the Tamron is F3.5, due to the 18mm wider angle, and the Nikon being widest at only F4.5.....however, having checked my Tamron, by the time I`m at 70mm on that, my widest aperture is only F5 in any case.

Edited by nomad63 on Monday 16th January 22:13

[nomad63]

Right; update on this:

Been a busy boy today, and after the advice given, (cheers Beano, you were right about sometimes just "going for it") I nipped out first thing and bought myself Nikon`s latest version of the 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 lens, to attempt to cover my increasing bird-photography needs, and also a Nikon 35mm F1.8 prime to cover things at the shorter end. The Tamron, which was supposed to be (somewhat) fulfilling these roles all-round, has been part-ex`d against the 300 lens.

To all those that have contributed to this thread - RobDickinson, Beano, Simpo and Nigel - gents, what can I say, other than a MASSIVE thankyou !
I haven`t yet tried the prime lens, which I know will be good anyway, as everyone that uses one states that, but the 70-300 has been an absolute revelation; seriously, it`s completely changed my photography (short a time-span as it has been so far..) in a way which I wouldn`t have believed - this lens is just SO sharp, all the way to the 300; it really is that good, and with the longer reach, surprisingly for only an additional 100mm over the Tamron, it has enabled me to do just what I wanted; certainly for now at any rate.

I`ve managed to get out today, despite the crappy weather, and haunt some of the bird-hides at my local nature park, to try this lens out. In a way, the weather did me a favour, because it was exactly the same as last time I was down there - dead pan grey sky, ready to rain at any moment etc - so I was able to replicate the shooting conditions, light, and location probably as well as you`re ever going to on two different days a few weeks apart, and on loading the pics into Lightroom later this afternoon, I was immediately able to see the enormous difference in sharpness, clarity and tone in my pics compared to those taken last time.

Basically a huge difference, which has now given me a good basis to crack on from here, as I really did feel that the pics should have been so much better from a DSLR...
I guess maybe I was expecting too much from the Tamron; certainly at that price range and zoom-spread, but it`s certainly taught me a valuable lesson in that a large part of this game really is all about lens-quality.

Anyway gents, thanks again; I really do appreciate all the help I was given last night with this !!

Edited by nomad63 on Tuesday 17th January 21:43

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

awesome, ok so its not a cheap solution but imo your better off taking shots that are worthwhile than worth throwing away

The 70-300 nikor is pretty well liked for that zoom range. Its a little unfair for me to compare your old 11* zoom tamron to a quality 400mm prime

Anyhow the extra 100mm is 50% more 'reach' and in crop terms you have gone from 300mm effective to 450mm effective.

The VR will be useful at times esp for larger birds and when you are pushing the margins.

Yes, absolutely Rob !

To be honest, the deciding factor really was that comparison you posted up between the Tamron and the Nikon 70-300..
I couldn`t believe the difference in sharpness, so seeing that really gave me the confidence to splash out a bit this morning, and wow....has it paid dividends !

I know the thanks is probably getting a bit boring now mate, but seriously, your advice has helped me greatly, and I really appreciate it.

Maybe the 400 prime is one for the future for me !

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

If only nikon made a 400/5.6 prime !

TBh the current crop of super zooms 100-400mk2, nikor 200-500, sigma 150-600 etc are all pretty decent.

I'm thinking of switching my 70-200/2.8 and 400 for the 100-400mk2 myself.

Oh another advantage of a sharp lens on top of that extra 100mm is you can crop more and still get a usable image

Well talking about the Sigma 150-600, I happened to try one of those out in the shop today, although it was fitted to a Canon 750D, as they had no Nikon fitment one in.

I`ve never tried a camera with a 600 lens on it before, could NOT believe the size and weight of the thing !

However....on holding on to it for a bit longer, and altering my grip further up towards the end of the lens, I found that the weight somehow added to the stability of the thing, sort of made it all feel more solid, if that makes sense ?

Probably one for the future for me, once my pockets have deepened a bit, and I`ve learned my trade a bit (read: "lot") more !!

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

Yep hand holding heavy lenses is a technique, (left)hand under the balance point elbow tucked into chest to provide a support. You get used to it.

Have shot with a 400/2.8 at 4kgs its fun but hard work lol

Will-do mate; definitely need to try that one !

[nomad63]

Simpo Two said:

Happy to help; now you know that if you take your photos seriously, cheap and lightweight are not good parameters on which to choose!!

NB: For big lenses (eg 70-200mm f2.8 upwards) think of it as a lens with a camera on the back, not the usual way round.

Absolutely Simpo - In the last couple of days I really have seen the value in paying a bit more (or a lot more if it suits) for decent lenses. It seems that you`re rarely going to get decent quality on a low-budget, and I definitely won`t be making that mistake again.

Thanks again for your help bud; I really appreciate it.

[nomad63]

eps said:

I took a quick look at the photos posted on flickr - according to the info on there you seem to have the ISO cranked up quite high - I would have been expecting somewhere between 100 and 400 but you were at 3600 and upwards which seems massively high to me. Of course this depends on the light available.

Have you tried bracketing or shooting RAW?

What focal points have you got set (e.g. single point or multiple auto?) and how are you setting the exposure sample (centre point, centre weighted or whole area?) and White Balance set to Auto on the camera?

Are you taking a single shot or burst / continuous?

I'm not so sure you need to be setting the shutter speed quite so fast on a lot of those photos, as the subject is sitting there. But of course they do flit off!

Thanks for your input mate, much appreciated.

In relation to ISO, if you`re referring to the last few taken yesterday, yes, it is up pretty high as I have it set on auto-ISO. The weather was really dull and grey, and trying to drizzle a bit, and I was inside one of the nature hides, so light was really poor.
I had the shutter speed set around 1/1000th as invariably the small birds flit off again almost as soon as they`ve landed, and even whilst relatively stationary, they still move their heads quickly to feed, etc, so that was my thinking behind that. Of course, I know that that will also bump-up the auto-ISO, but with the aperture open as wide as I could, at F6.3, something had to give, and it was the ISO...

I must admit, I`ve not particularly tried bracketing, as I tend to fix most things in post, if they`re fixable, unless you can tell me it`s advantageous, and I`ll give it a go ? I do shoot only RAW, so I can take full advantage of any post re-touching etc.

As for focus I shoot single-point, as I like to use back-button focus, and then re-frame if I need to. I`ll also be quite honest about this in that I`ve always used single-point focus from day one, and then just re-framed whilst holding down the shutter-button if I needed to (before I got into BBF), as I don`t really get the advantage of all these multiple focus-points - please forgive my ignorance though here; i`m well-aware that again, it may be advantageous to shoot using the multiple-points, and it`s probably something I need to look into a bit more...

White balance I always set to auto, again to correct in post if I need to (Adobe Lightroom), a bit lazy, I know, and something else I need to brush-up on, LOL, for situations that may arise when I really need to over-ride the camera !
I also shoot in burst-mode; certainly for the bird-stuff and animals, and I generally leave the camera set to that as I`ve learned to be very light on the shutter not to crack off another 4 shots I just don`t need (5 fps on the D5500).
Lastly, I have metering set to matrix, to take in the whole scene. Again, being honest here, I`ve read so many differing view on whether it should be set to matrix, centre point, or c/weighted etc..

As I said mate, input much appreciated, and feel free to continue pointing me in the right direction if you feel it`s needed..........cheers.

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

bracketing for wildlife is a nightmare imo and wont change the ISO for you anyhow ...

Yeah, cheers Rob.
Must admit, that was the only part of EPS`s question I wasn`t sure why he was asking, but again, I`m the beginner here, so grateful for any advice.

[nomad63]

Rob, Simpo: Good enough for me if you two are both using centre-weighted metering, so my setting`s already changed in anticipation for next time I`m out...

As for auto-ISO, I`m going to revert back to how I was shooting a little while ago.....by that I mean, full manual, and using the exposure meter to show the correct exposure. I think the auto-ISO use comes from finding that you (or me, anyway) usually know the aperture you need, and the shutter-speed, almost straight away, so to me, if those two are correct, and cannot be deviated from for that particular shot, then the only thing that can be altered can be the ISO ?
Due to this then, I was finding that I was nearly always having to increase the ISO, so I just thought I would give the auto-ISO a try, but, as has been pointed out by EPS, the ISO has soared in my last few pics, making them somewhat towards un-useable.

I think I`ll go back to using the exposure meter next time, and see if I can keep the ISO`s lower again maybe; we`ll see...

By the way gents, all of this advice is really helping, so keep it coming please, as-and-when; cheers !

[nomad63]

RobDickinson said:

Just remember that in manual mode the metering indicator is a guide.

The metering has no fking clue what you are shooting and is trying to blat it down to 18% grey.

This works perfectly for 18% grey subjects. and not for the other 82%.... *

• well technically the other 99% of subjects but you only have so much control over exposure so one correct for 18% grey will be fine for %15 too %25 grey or whatever...

Edited by RobDickinson on Thursday 19th January 23:32

See, again GREAT advice Rob, as I had no idea about this with the meter, and pretty much took it to be gospel. I have started trying to get into the habit of checking my histogram after each shot - although "started" means literally the other day, after I had just bought the new lenses. The histogram was showing, actually, that my pics appeared to be somewhat underexposed, so given that I couldn`t alter my aperture, or my shutter speed, then (as I`m fond of saying, it would seem) it would be the ISO that has to give, but again, it`s already been shown to be coming out at too high an ISO - eps was right, I think most of them were coming out with ISO no lower than 3600, which made them VERY noisy.
In that situation though, when the light is bad, but you`re shooting subjects outside, ie: wildlife, you can`t exactly whip the flash out, so what else can you do, what would you advise Rob ?

[nomad63]

Thanks for the very lengthy reply Rob, much appreciated as your typing fingers must now be sore LOL !





Exif:

ƒ/6.3 300.0 mm 1/1000 9000 Flash (off, did not fire) Hide EXIF

As you can see Rob, ISO at a whole 9000, so before I set to work on it in Photoshop, the background especially was very noisy.
Cheers

Edited by nomad63 on Friday 20th January 00:43