Lizard lens for Nikon

[Jackson Shedd]

I have joined the DSLR club and am now shooting with a Nikon D90. I have one 90mm macro lens for herp photography, but I really enjoy shooting heliothermic lizards in situ as they bask on rocks, especially photogenic desert spp. like chucks, leopards, collareds, banded rock lizards, spiny's, etc., as well as others that don't necessarily bask on rocks (i.e. fringe-toes), but definitely do not allow close approach. Does anyone have experience or advise re: the pros/cons of a Nikon/Nikkor lens vs. something like a Sigma or Tamron for crisp shots with a 200 to 500mm range? Opinions on prime vs. zoom?

This quote from bgorum in Marisa's "Lens Suggestions" post is exactly the type of advise/info I'm looking for:

I'm not a Canon guy, so take that into account when you consider my advise. Looking at the specs for the three Canon lenses mentioned I see one big downside to the 400 f5.6 and that is it's minimum focusing distance (11.5 feet). That's not close enough for many in situ lizard shots. A while back I was making a similar choice between Nikon's 300 f4 afs and the 80-400 vr. I ended up choosing the 300 because it focused to about 5 feet compared to 8.5 feet or so on the 80-400. A five foot minimum focus on a 300 is just about right for most lizards. Having said that however I often wish my 300 was a zoom lens.

Thanks for the input,

JS

[bgorum]

Jackson,

See my quote above I f you are using Nikon I really think the 300 f4 afs is a sweet lens for lizards. It is very sharp and focuses nice and close. Many people complain about the tripod collar it comes with however. I don't know anything about how good the original tripod collar is, since I bought mine used without a collar and then added the Kirk replacement which is very solid. The other alternative that I considered was the 80-400 vr. As I mentioned I did not go with that lens because it did not focus as close as the 300 did. I thought about using a low power diopter with it, but the only two element (ie- decent quality) ones that I know of are the long discontinued Pentax T244 (I think thats the right number) and one made by Tokina for their 80-400, which I have never actually seen for sale. The Nikon 70-300 vr is supposed to be pretty good, and focuses to 5 feet, but the lack of a tripod collar is a real negative for the way I work. Sigma makes a 120-400 that focuses to about 6 feet, but it has received some fairly poor reviews. I really would prefer to use a zoom, but until somebody makes a really good one that focuses close I'll make do with the fixed 300.

Bill

[rip18]

My .02.

Unfortunately, you've got lots of choices. Given what you've said, and money not really limiting, I'd go with one of two (or perhaps both...) lenses: Nikkor 80-200 or Nikkor 200-400. I'd likely get a teleconverter to go with the 80-200, and probably get an extension tube to go with the 200-400. On the D90, those would functionally be 160-400 and 400-800.

A much cheaper option would be a 70-300 with macro switch (available in both Nikkor & Sigma brandings...). I found the 70-300 to be a bit short on a full frame body for skittish lizards, but it would probably be fine on a DX sensor like the D90.

Another option would be a Sigma 50-500; again I'd probably get an extension tube to allow closer focusing.

I've got two prime lenses (400 mm and 600 mm) and both work well. I've rented the Sigma 50-500 and used a Nikkor 200-400 a good bit as well, and was happy with both of those. I really like the ability to recompose "on the fly" with the zoom lens where I don't have to physically move myself to recompose (and risk scaring a basking lizard/turtle or perched bird) like I do with my prime lenses.

Hope that helps & doesn't muddy the water to badly. Good luck with your choice.

[chrish]

I don't shoot Nikon, but I do have very good (sharp) lenses in this range. I have pro-level lenses in 300 f/4, 100-300 zoom, and 100-400 zoom. The 100-300 is a little bit less sharp, so I'll ignore it for the purposes of discussion.

Frankly, I get more "WOW" shots from the 300 f/4. While my 100-400 is tack sharp, the 300 f/4 is just a tad sharper and my shots with that lens are just a bit better.
It is also significantly lighter and easier to shoot with in the field. The 100-400 at 400mm does create occasional loss of sharpness when handheld, even with Image Stabilization due to its longer focal length, greater weight, and slower minimum f/stop.

A good, sharp, fast focusing 300 f/4 is a great overall wildlife lens. I have taken great herp, bird, and mammal shots with it. Sure, I wish it was a bit longer, but it is sharp enough that I can crop my shots easily. And unlike a 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4.5, it is easily handheld.

Make that 1 vote for the prime.

[bgorum]

Jackson,

Considering rip18's response, how much are you willing to spend/carry? The Nikon 200-400 f4 is a great lens, but it is big, heavy, and expensive. For many years I owned a Nikon 400 f3.5 which is about the same size and weight as the 200-400 and while I did occasionally use it with extension tubes to photograph lizards it was so heavy that I usually left it at home unless I was working from a car or primarily intended to photograph birds or mammals. The nice thing about lenses like the 300 f4 or 80-400 vr is that they are small and light enough to hike with. Since lizards are most active when the sun is well up in the sky the relatively modest maximum apertures are not a hindrance.

The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is a great lens that I used with two element diopters for many years instead of a regular macro lens. On it's own it focuses to 5 feet. It is capable of really stellar results, but the af-d version with the tripod collar, (the only one still available new) has a known back focus issue at the long end of the range and even if you focus manually it has a weak spot optically when you combine minimum focusing distance and maximum focal length. Here's a picture from that lens at minimum focus distance and 200 mm.


The lens actually performs better near 200mm with a Pentax T132 diopter attached and the focus set close to infinity than it does on it's own at minimum focus distance, (the actual working distance is roughly equal in both cases). Here's a picture with the lens at 185mm w/ the diopter.


I did occasionally use that lens with the Nikon tc14b teleconverter, which is a manual focus converter that was considered quite good in it's day. From what I've read the current tc14e is even better optically, but it must be modified in order to mount on non af-s lenses like the 80-200 af-d. Here's a picture with the lens and tc14b.

It's a decent combo, but it really does not compare to the 300 f4 af-s. Here's a picture from the 300.


Here's an unsharpened 100% crop of the above image to give you some idea of the sharpness that lens can deliver. If you want to see what it would look like after running it through whatever sharpening routine you usually use feel free to download it and try it out.


Interestingly I occasionally use the 300 with the Pentax T132 and find it is not as sharp with the diopter as the zoom was. I'll probably just buy an extension tube for those times when I need to get even closer than 5 feet. I think extension tubes make more sense on fixed focal length lenses anyway, while diopters are more convenient on zooms.

Finally here is a picture from the old Nikon 75-300 lens at it's minimum focus. That lens has the same focal length range and minimum focus distance as the current 70-300vr, so results should be similar between the two lens, though I would expect the newer lens to be better optically.


P.s., I realize I only provided web resolution pictures of all but the 300mm af-s shot, making a meaningful comparison of sharpness between the different combos impossible. I figured you might be most interested in the frame filling capabilities of the different combos. If you actually want to see 100% crops of any of the others or need to see additional pictures I'd be happy to put them up.

Also, considering Chris's response, you do have or are planning to get a good tripod right? If not I'd make vr an essential requirement for whatever lens you buy. Come to think of it, get the tripod wether you get a vr lens or not!

[jason folt]

I don't know if it is long enough, but I have been eying the newest Nikon 70-200VRII for a while now. It will be my first choice for lizards, with one of the nikon teleconverters.

Jason

[MHollanders]

I don't know much about telephoto lenses at all, but here's a shot I took with the Nikkor 80-400mm, handheld.

[Thor Hakonsen]

imho,

The best solution for you, since you have a crop-camera, would be a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro together with a teleconverter 1.4 - this will give you a 210 f/4, a bit shorter than the 300 f/4 that some recommends. BUT - the sharpness is way better, and will allow you to crop that last bit you don't get (210mm vs 300mm) - and the best of all, you get one of the best macro lenses for reptiles out there.

To check pout the picture quality of the lens, take a look at my http://www.flickr.com/photos/thorhakonsen

[Jackson Shedd]

Thanks for the great feedback all--great stuff. I'd still like to put in more time for researching various lenses, but the 300 f/4 is sounding like a great option. As for tripods, I thought this subject might come up. I've never really liked the "sedintary" aspect of a tripod...I really dig the more "active" approach of creeping up on a basking lizard and then following it around a boulder shooting pix as it shifts positions. This can be possible with a tripod, but they get clunky in these situations and a lot of times you find yourself climbing rock after rock to keep up with the Petrosaurus that doesn't completely flee, but manages to stay just out of range or moves a lot once it knows its being watched. It would be interesting to hear people's take on lenses + photo techniques + lizard behaviors factored in.

Bgorum, your info w/ images is especially helpful and yes, price is certainly an issue. The 300 certainly seems doable.

Chris, thanks for the vote for prime.

Thor, thanks for the feedback and the link. Beautiful shots, I think I remember some of them from your posts.

[bgorum]

Thanks for the great feedback all--great stuff. I'd still like to put in more time for researching various lenses, but the 300 f/4 is sounding like a great option. As for tripods, I thought this subject might come up. I've never really liked the "sedintary" aspect of a tripod...I really dig the more "active" approach of creeping up on a basking lizard and then following it around a boulder shooting pix as it shifts positions. This can be possible with a tripod, but they get clunky in these situations and a lot of times you find yourself climbing rock after rock to keep up with the Petrosaurus that doesn't completely flee, but manages to stay just out of range or moves a lot once it knows its being watched. It would be interesting to hear people's take on lenses + photo techniques + lizard behaviors factored in.

This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart! I think that shooting lizards in situ is the most challenging of all types of herp photography in many ways. You have a lot working against getting good images. Active subjects, high magnification, long lenses, etc. I also think it is among the most enjoyable and rewarding types of herp photography. The approach you describe sounds like fun, but you definitely will need to get a lens with vr in order to do it. Unfortunately Nikon's 300mm f4 afs does not have vr! It's one of those things that Nikon users have been scratching their heads about. Canon has offered such a lens for years, but Nikon seems more interested in bringing yet another 18 to something consumer kit lens to market every year while many of the higher end lenses get ignored. Having said that however, I really don't find using a tripod to be so limiting when shooting lizards. Once you are familiar with the operation of your tripod moving around following an active lizard and shooting from the tripod is really no more difficult than trying to properly position and brace your body to get the same shots hand held. There is definitely a certain learning curve involved though, and at first you may be tempted to chuck the tripod off the nearest cliff! In many instances the tripod really makes your life much easier. For instance many desert lizards have supraocular scales that cast a shadow over the eye and and tend to make photos of the lizard look rather lifeless. If you can get the lizard to tilt it's head just a bit you can often get a catchlight in the eye that makes the lizard look much more alive. It is hard to hand hold a camera, maintaining focus as your breathing causes you to move the camera back and forth ever so slightly especially as your arms begin to tire and shake, as you wait for the lizard to shift it's head position enough to get the catch light. However, with the camera firmly mounted to a tripod you can comfortably wait, or even wave a hand in the air to encourage the lizard to shift it's head position. Same goes for waiting for behaviors like push-up displays, etc.

I'm looking forward to seeing some pictures from you once you decide what to get and start using it. I always enjoy post that are heavy on in situ lizard shots.

[evilzard]

Whatever dude, I guess the advice Yam and I gave you just wasn't good enough. We're just chopped lizard to you. Heh.

Anyway, you know what I shoot with, but just to clarify, Nikon DX has a 1.5x crop factor, not a 2.0x crop as rip18 said above, so a 80-400mm, becomes a 120-600mm, not a 160-800mm.

-Farbinator

[Will Wells]

In situ lizards has always been a goal of mine when in the field. I also have the Nikon D90 and a Nikon 70-300mm. I use it when I first spot the lizards in case that's all I get, but my best shots come when I get closer and use my 28-270mm and/or my 18-55mm lenses. I take a few shots with the 70-300 then work on getting closer to the lizard. This sometimes takes hours and a ton of patience only to have the lizard bolt when you are about to click the pic. Other times I'm rewarded with some very close up shots with lots of habitat in the background.

[chrish]

imho,

The best solution for you, since you have a crop-camera, would be a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro together with a teleconverter 1.4 - this will give you a 210 f/4, a bit shorter than the 300 f/4 that some recommends. BUT - the sharpness is way better

That is a good suggestion, but I'm a little perplexed by the assertion that the Sigma with a TC is way sharper than a 300 f/4 pro level prime.
I would expect a good long macro with a good 1.4x TC might be comparable, but I doubt it could be better and certainly not way better than a good 300 f/4. The 300 f/4 primes I have seen (and used) are pro-quality lenses and are very sharp. I have a 90mm macro and a good 1.4 TC and I can assure you that while it will produce good results, they are not superior to my 300 f/4.

My problem with the TC options, while they do provide more flexibility, is that they involve removing the lens in the field (dust issues) and they slow focus speed and accuracy which can be critical. They are just another thing you have to deal with while trying to photograph an uncooperative lizard.

Actually the biggest issue with photographig basking lizards and turtles it the high contrast of the situations created by the bright overhead sunlight. I much prefer to photograph a lizard in the shade or when a cloud passes over.

Chris

[Erik Williams]

I wouldn't worry about minimum focus distance; extension tubes are cheap and don't significantly effect the way a lens performs. Just get the lens that's sharp, light, and long. If you buy a soft lens now, you'll just be replacing it in a few years anyway.

[Jackson Shedd]

Thanks for the added input all. Still kickin' around which one to settle on....