Hi there. I have a Nikon d60 digital slr. I'm interested in hearing what people think about a good lens for wildlife photography: specifically birds: specifically birds of prey.
I've used (but don't own) a 50-200mm and I loved it. I got some great pictures. A friend is suggesting a fixed lens, and I really don't know that much about the differences between the two (fixed vs. not).
Speaking of expenses, I'm on a 500 dollar budget. I know this means I won't be getting the best possible lens on the market, but what do you you all think would work for my situation?
I'll check back soon in case you have any pertinent questions that can affect your recommendations.
Thanks so much for helping me out!
I truly appreciate the answers I've gotten so far. Thanks!
In response to the first: Honestly, I can't afford anything more than 500 right now. Even if it isn't perfect, I want as good as I can get. I currently use an 18-55 lens and it just doesn't cut it for me (obviously). I guess I'm now aware that I shouldn't expect that much out of 500 dollars. As I said, the best I can, whatever that may be.
In response to the 2nd: Very good considerations, all. My interest is in a multitude of species, but I suppose narrowed down broadly into those raptors living in southern California: red-tails, red-shoulders, coopers, sharpies, kestrels, kites, osprey...
I definitely see the problem with expecting one lens to be a final solution for shooting all those birds. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.
Generally, though, I don't need to shoot a Red-tail soaring. I do a lot of hiking, and some sitting and waiting as you described earlier. I'll stick to a smallish area and scan with my eyes
I truly appreciate the answers I've gotten so far. Thanks!
In response to the first: Honestly, I can't afford anything more than 500 right now. Even if it isn't perfect, I want as good as I can get. I currently use an 18-55 lens and it just doesn't cut it for me (obviously). I guess I'm now aware that I shouldn't expect that much out of 500 dollars. As I said, the best I can, whatever that may be.
In response to the 2nd: Very good considerations, all. My interest is in a multitude of species, but I suppose narrowed down broadly into those raptors living in southern California: red-tails, red-shoulders, coopers, sharpies, kestrels, kites, osprey...
I definitely see the problem with expecting one lens to be a final solution for shooting all those birds. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.
Generally, though, I don't need to shoot a Red-tail soaring. I do a lot of hiking, and some sitting and waiting as you described earlier. I'll stick to a smallish area and scan with my eyes
There's also a Red-tail nest in a very accessible location, with some decent angles. This is where the 50-200 was satisfactory for me.
A good portion of those birds above are perchers, and around where I live quite acclimated to people (though I'm not saying it's easy to catch them sitting still). So, depending on my luck, whatever I choose ultimately will work equally well or as close as possible for all of them - in those rare, ideal situations.
I've used (but don't own) a 50-200mm and I loved it. I got some great pictures. A friend is suggesting a fixed lens, and I really don't know that much about the differences between the two (fixed vs. not).
Speaking of expenses, I'm on a 500 dollar budget. I know this means I won't be getting the best possible lens on the market, but what do you you all think would work for my situation?
I'll check back soon in case you have any pertinent questions that can affect your recommendations.
Thanks so much for helping me out!
I truly appreciate the answers I've gotten so far. Thanks!
In response to the first: Honestly, I can't afford anything more than 500 right now. Even if it isn't perfect, I want as good as I can get. I currently use an 18-55 lens and it just doesn't cut it for me (obviously). I guess I'm now aware that I shouldn't expect that much out of 500 dollars. As I said, the best I can, whatever that may be.
In response to the 2nd: Very good considerations, all. My interest is in a multitude of species, but I suppose narrowed down broadly into those raptors living in southern California: red-tails, red-shoulders, coopers, sharpies, kestrels, kites, osprey...
I definitely see the problem with expecting one lens to be a final solution for shooting all those birds. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.
Generally, though, I don't need to shoot a Red-tail soaring. I do a lot of hiking, and some sitting and waiting as you described earlier. I'll stick to a smallish area and scan with my eyes
I truly appreciate the answers I've gotten so far. Thanks!
In response to the first: Honestly, I can't afford anything more than 500 right now. Even if it isn't perfect, I want as good as I can get. I currently use an 18-55 lens and it just doesn't cut it for me (obviously). I guess I'm now aware that I shouldn't expect that much out of 500 dollars. As I said, the best I can, whatever that may be.
In response to the 2nd: Very good considerations, all. My interest is in a multitude of species, but I suppose narrowed down broadly into those raptors living in southern California: red-tails, red-shoulders, coopers, sharpies, kestrels, kites, osprey...
I definitely see the problem with expecting one lens to be a final solution for shooting all those birds. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.
Generally, though, I don't need to shoot a Red-tail soaring. I do a lot of hiking, and some sitting and waiting as you described earlier. I'll stick to a smallish area and scan with my eyes
There's also a Red-tail nest in a very accessible location, with some decent angles. This is where the 50-200 was satisfactory for me.
A good portion of those birds above are perchers, and around where I live quite acclimated to people (though I'm not saying it's easy to catch them sitting still). So, depending on my luck, whatever I choose ultimately will work equally well or as close as possible for all of them - in those rare, ideal situations.