nature and telecovert with 55-200?

[ahquan]

hi, i would like to know if anyone mange any awesome wild life capture with af-s 55-200 VR? from wad i see 70-300 seem really sharp and all how does 55-200 flare? anyone can post some of there masterpieces of nature or wildlife with the 44-200 here?

ps: if i use a tele-convertor 2X is it still possbile to do auto focusing on my D40X? what are the setbacks and advantages? say 200m becomes a 400mm?

[DeSwitch]

Wildlife with these lens? must be crazy. You need speed and reach for wildlife. Unless you are talking about (Captives) birdpark and zoo.

[hlw8888]

i think it is still achievable with 55-200mm vr. take a look at the link below.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=niko...ildlife&m=text

[psychobiologist]

Originally Posted by hlw8888 i think it is still achievable with 55-200mm vr. take a look at the link below. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=niko...ildlife&m=text

it is always achievable. its how near you are thats all. even on 35mm you can shoot wildlife upclose, except that the subject will be in your face, either waiting to eat you, or you scaring it away

[hacknet]

but the teleconverter already costs more than the lens. why not look for a better alternative like the 70-300. or if you're serious, a 300mm 2.8 or something like that.

[ahquan]

i dun really mean wild life as in safari style but capturing birds and small animals like dogs. ya captive the word! 55-200 vs 70-300 both using Vr technology which at say within it's own range is sharper and all?

[psychobiologist]

Originally Posted by ahquan i dun really mean wild life as in safari style but capturing birds and small animals like dogs. ya captive the word! 55-200 vs 70-300 both using Vr technology which at say within it's own range is sharper and all?

small animals like dogs.. either the 55-200mm vr and 70-300mm vr is good. both are quite usable, sharp too.

its just how much budget you have. cuz if you have sufficient budget, of course the 70-300mm VR is better cuz it gives you a longer reach, handling etc, mount etc is better too

[ahquan]

no budget for 70-300 for now. just like to the how much the difference in sharpness and color reproduction.

[LL1971]

I use my 55-200mm non VR for zoo and birdpark shoots which performs well but for true wildlife that would be tough for wildlife as I experience when I bring the same combo out to Darwin trying to shoot eagles on trees or feeding that is tough only if the wildlife is drawn out then it would be possible. Another problem I faced is poor lighting so my guess would be that 70-300mm may have the reach but not the brightness. I'm also considering on this point to get the 70-300mm but due to the lighting condition still holding back and to consider anything with a bigger aperture would be very much more costlier which I'm still cannot justify with myself to buy since I would be only using maybe once a year for my vacation trip.......

[ExplorerZ]

even IF AF is still available, you are shooting at 400mm f11, practically "unholdable" except at the most optimal lighting or with a tripod... etc

[ahquan]

Originally Posted by LL1971 I use my 55-200mm non VR for zoo and birdpark shoots which performs well but for true wildlife that would be tough for wildlife as I experience when I bring the same combo out to Darwin trying to shoot eagles on trees or feeding that is tough only if the wildlife is drawn out then it would be possible. Another problem I faced is poor lighting so my guess would be that 70-300mm may have the reach but not the brightness. I'm also considering on this point to get the 70-300mm but due to the lighting condition still holding back and to consider anything with a bigger aperture would be very much more costlier which I'm still cannot justify with myself to buy since I would be only using maybe once a year for my vacation trip.......

yes i agree. perhaps it better off renting one during vacations :P actually i have the 55-200 vr but yet to have a chance to test it.. seems to perform alil inconsistent. then again might be the poor lighting mostly. maybe my next step is flash :P

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ even IF AF is still available, you are shooting at 400mm f11, practically "unholdable" except at the most optimal lighting or with a tripod... etc

Or using very high ISO?

[TriggerHappy]

Apart from the small aperture problem, if i remember correctly some people also commented that the 70-300mm lens was not usable with a teleconverter. Think it was a mechanical issue. Wonder if it is the same with the 55-200 lens..

[ahquan]

i see so tele conv can be used only on prime lens?

[tkbonz]

You can see from http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunkaibonz/page6/ how i use 50mm and 55-200VR to shoot birds at our own birdpark.

You can practically use any lens for wildlife. Unless you're talking about those WILDLIFE in the WILD, eg.AFrica... then 55-200VR is inadequate.

If you want captive shots, like dogs (hdb style) or zoos, the 55-200VR is a good budget choice. Best is the 70-300VR. I used to own a 55-200VR before, it was great!

[ahquan]

Originally Posted by tkbonz You can see from http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunkaibonz/page6/ how i use 50mm and 55-200VR to shoot birds at our own birdpark. You can practically use any lens for wildlife. Unless you're talking about those WILDLIFE in the WILD, eg.AFrica... then 55-200VR is inadequate. If you want captive shots, like dogs (hdb style) or zoos, the 55-200VR is a good budget choice. Best is the 70-300VR. I used to own a 55-200VR before, it was great!

very nice photos. all with 55-200? anyway, is there a difference in photos quality eg colors with D80 and d40X? the censors are the same right so should reproduce cethe same results except the in built motor in the camera only tat d40x lacks am i right?