Shoestring budget wildlife gear

[Joe B]

The struggles of wildlife photography when you just don't have much spare cash...

That being said, I'm squirreling money away for some upgrades, and thought I'd put my thoughts here to see what folks think.

Current Gear
Body: Nikon d3200 (the weakest link)
Lenses: AF-S 300mm f/4 (non-PF),
AF-D 105mm f/2.8 Micro
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8

I figure the first thing I'll upgrade is the body, and I'm looking at either the d7500 or the d750. I know there's lots of other improvements, but probably the biggest things I'm looking forward to is just having the bigger viewfinder and front command dial. Whichever way I go with that changes my lens upgrade path, though, so I'm trying to look here first and pick the body based on lenses.

FX Path
d750
1.4 TC to get the "extra reach" back on the 300
A new walk around/landscape lens since the 17-50 becomes obsolete. Can keep using the d3200 for a while for that, though.

DX Path
d7500
AF-D 180 2.8
Maybe something wider at some point for landscapes, but my lens lineup could be complete for a while with this.

Now I'm not trying to start any fights over equivalencies and I think I understand the physics pretty well. But, for functional equivalency at the long end, that would give me either

300mm f/4 and 420mm f/5.6 (300 + 1.4TC)
or
270mm f/4 (180 + crop) and 450mm f/5.6 (300 + crop)

So, in some ways, they're not that different. If I look at used prices on eBay and I'm patient about finding a deal, the d750 + TC combo and the d7500 + 180mm combo both come out around $1000, so the cost isn't all that different either (ignoring the wide end for the moment).

Now I've been banging this around in my head for a while, so I could ramble on about pros and cons, but this post is already too long. I'll kick it to y'all. If you had $1000 to spend and you were in my shoes, what would you do?

 

[DRwyoming]

Joe,
I'd say for most folks just starting down a wildlife photography path there's a lot of sense in DX systems. At the beginning it can seem impossible to get close enough to your subjects to fill an FX sensor and really big glass can break the budget. As you gain field skills and learn more about wildlife behaviors including where to be and when to be there and filling the frame is no longer as big a challenge (though it's always a challenge for some subjects) and especially if wider view scenics are also interesting to you then FX format may start making more sense.

All that aside, my advice would be to keep your current camera which really is pretty decent and invest in the best lens and possibly lens support you can get for your budget. That might be a used Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or maybe one of the Tamron or Sigma alternatives like the 150mm - 600mm f/5.6 - f/6.3. One of those lenses coupled with your existing camera will almost certainly do more for your wildlife photography than a new camera with your existing lens. Don't get me wrong, the 300mm f/4, even the pre-PF version is a great lens (I had several versions over the years and they were all fantastic lenses) but you're always going to want more focal length and one of the telephoto zooms mentioned above can help a lot.

IMHO, equipment priorities for wildlife photography should start with lenses and then perhaps lens support systems and then camera capabilities regardless of what the marketing might imply.

FWIW, when I transitioned from shooting film cameras to digital my first DSLR was a 2.6 Mpixel Nikon D1H. I captured and published many photos with a camera that folks would laugh at today. I added a Nikon D70 with a whopping 6.2 Mpixels and captured thousands of marketable images on that as well. I kept moving up and camera's got better but realistically your D3200 is light years ahead of even the D2X and D200 pro cameras that I used to capture thousands of images, many of which I marketed and am still proud of today. Sure it's super tempting to chase frames per second or the latest AF modules, higher pixel densities or many other camera features but the camera you currently have can capture stunning nature and wildlife photos. From where you are today I'd spend most of my budget on longer focal length glass and start putting pennies away for a camera upgrade down the road.

And of course the absolutely most important thing is to get out and shoot with what you have today even if that means backyard birds, waterfowl down at your local pond or any wildlife you can find to fill your viewfinder. Field skills and learning about wildlife behavior trumps any modern camera system by a mile. Besides, the more you get out and shoot with what you have the more you'll know what it will take to fill the gaps and get better shots and where to spend your budget.

Good luck, hope to see some images here,
-Dave

 

[Rassie]

In terms of body upgrade, are you giving any consideration to the Z series of FX cameras? Like Z6 instead of D750?

 

[Joe B]

All that aside, my advice would be to keep your current camera which really is pretty decent and invest in the best lens and possibly lens support you can get for your budget. That might be a used Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or maybe one of the Tamron or Sigma alternatives like the 150mm - 600mm f/5.6 - f/6.3. One of those lenses coupled with your existing camera will almost certainly do more for your wildlife photography than a new camera with your existing lens.

Thanks for the thoughts, Dave. I have thought about one of those instead of the scenarios I listed, and it's still on the table. Would you have any particular leanings between the lenses you mentioned? The VR on either would make a nice addition that putting a TC on the 300 wouldn't have. I have no problem with the d3200 sensor, and it's great with my 300mm. It's mostly ergonomics/control layout and the small viewfinder (I made the mistake of looking through some others at a store! They seem so huge!) that keep making me think about upgrading it.

And of course the absolutely most important thing is to get out and shoot with what you have today even if that means backyard birds, waterfowl down at your local pond or any wildlife you can find to fill your viewfinder. Field skills and learning about wildlife behavior trumps any modern camera system by a mile. Besides, the more you get out and shoot with what you have the more you'll know what it will take to fill the gaps and get better shots and where to spend your budget.

Good luck, hope to see some images here,
-Dave

Working on it! I'll try to put a pic or two up over in the presentation section.

 

[Joe B]

In terms of body upgrade, are you giving any consideration to the Z series of FX cameras? Like Z6 instead of D750?

I'm not opposed to it per se, but my bank account is. I have a feeling it will be a bit before the used prices come in range. I'm guestimating that I could snag a d750 for about $800 off of eBay, and even that is a bit of a reach for me.

 

[Geekomak]

I noticed a big difference when using better glass. I have the same lenses you mention above. I only buy older second hand glass, for budget reasons as well.
That said, over the years I've owned many Nikon Bodies (DX and FX), and have also noticed a difference when I changed (upgraded) bodies (higher ISO, more focus points, better sensor, faster fps). These new factors, along with your existing glass, will produce some great shots. I would try the D750 and the D7500 with your AFS 300 f/4, then compare to the D3200. The D750 is a great camera. What you loose in reach, you gain in image quality. The D7500 is a good camera too, but I found it too small for my hands.

 

[DRwyoming]

Would you have any particular leanings between the lenses you mentioned?

I've owned the 200-500mm Nikon for several years and I really like that lens for its versatility. I've only shot with the Sigma Sport version a couple of times and really liked that as well but haven't logged enough images and mileage with it to give an honest appraisal though I do have a friend who shoots with it daily and captures some fantastic images with it.

My gut feel and feedback from friends is that you really can't go wrong with any of the three.

 

[Pistnbroke]

You need to think about pixel density . for me any FX 24 MP does not have it so I would go for a D7100 or D7200. There is not much if any difference. As for a lens I use the Tamron 100-400 which is cheap grey. I found the 200-500 too heavy and the T 150-600 just not sharp. Look at e-infinity for a price. You will need a tap in console or just do the fine focus adjust at 400mm and don't forget if you shoot JPEG to up the sharpness to 9 or you will be disappointed.
$1000 + credit card ...sorted.

PS. always listen to old people or when they die you will live on in ignorance

 

[Joe B]

Thanks everyone. You know, a d7100 could be a decent compromise. I'd lose out on some upgrades in the d7500, but I could probably get 80-90% of the more important stuff for a little over half the price, leaving more money for optics. Worth thinking about...

Oh, I did put a shot of some monkeys I got with the 300 and d3200 combo over in the other section of the forum

 

[Hunting_with_a_lens]

Thanks everyone. You know, a d7100 could be a decent compromise. I'd lose out on some upgrades in the d7500, but I could probably get 80-90% of the more important stuff for a little over half the price, leaving more money for optics. Worth thinking about...

Oh, I did put a shot of some monkeys I got with the 300 and d3200 combo over in the other section of the forum

One thing worth noting - since I shot with a 7100 for years - it struggles in low light and the buffer is awful. If you're not one to rattle off shots in CH that may not be a major issue, but you are guaranteed to miss some action at some point with it. That said, great camera otherwise. I took some really good shots over the years with that + my 200-500.

 

[Joe B]

One thing worth noting - since I shot with a 7100 for years - it struggles in low light and the buffer is awful. If you're not one to rattle off shots in CH that may not be a major issue, but you are guaranteed to miss some action at some point with it. That said, great camera otherwise. I took some really good shots over the years with that + my 200-500.

I think the buffer is why I had not considered it as much. The d7500 gets such a boost there. I'm guessing the low light capabilities are still better or at least not worse than what I have now, though. Decisions...

 

[Rassie]

I would not go for the D7100 or D7200 for wildlife. In terms of frame rate and buffer the D7500 is far superior to the other two cameras. It's clearly the better wildlife action camera. If you're only going to be shooting slow-moving or stationary animals the D7200 will be fine. I had the D7100 and I now have the D7500. Unlike the D7500, the D7100 does not have Group AF and I don't think the D7200 has either. That is another focus mode that's great for tracking moving animals or birds.

 

[Steve]

I tend to agree w with Dave - I think the biggest issue I see with your setup is focal length and I think it should be your first priority. The best camera in the world won't make a bit of difference if you don't have the glass. I'd think about a 200-500 first, then upgrade the camera as soon as possible. I think your ideal combo would be a D7500 and a 200-500. I'd even consider selling the 300mm if needed to help finance the other components. Again though, I think a 200-500 would make the most difference right now.

 

[Joe B]

Thanks again everyone for helping me think through this. A used 200-500 at a decent price is going to be near impossible to find where I live in southeast Asia, so that would have to wait until I'm back in the states, probably next year sometime. Gives me a bit of time to keep squirreling money if I go that route, though.

 

[Woodyg3]

I 'll just throw out the idea of getting a 1.4X teleconverter for your 300 f/4. That makes a 420mm f/5.6, and the extra reach is pretty noticeable. The sharpness is still there with a TC in my experience, and it makes for a nice, light set up. I'd bet you can find a used Nikon TC that is comparable with your lens (and not all of them are, so check carefully) for $150 or less. You don't get VR, and you'll have a little shorter reach than the 200-500, but you'll save some serious cash. I have a fair number of framed prints around my house that were made with the 300 and TC combination.

I understand budget constraints, but there are work arounds. A used or refurbished D7500 would be a great choice, IMO. Of course, if you can save a little longer, a used D500 would be the best DX for wildlife, and I actually think it's better than any Nikon in many wildlife situations.

Whatever you have, and whatever you wind up with, have fun and don't worry about your gear. Just get out there and shoot!

 

[Ralph]

I agree with Dave and Steve. Get the best long lens you can afford. You won’t regret it.. Also consider that down the road whatever body you decide on will probably come down dramatically in price as new upgrade come out.

 

[Letolen]

Joe B I have the 200-500 I really like it & versatile. Not a bad price new. They do come up 2nd hand.
For landscape Nikon 16-35 f4 is a good price.
I have the D750 it has not been the best love affair.

 

[Yezdi]

Thanks again everyone for helping me think through this. A used 200-500 at a decent price is going to be near impossible to find where I live in southeast Asia, so that would have to wait until I'm back in the states, probably next year sometime. Gives me a bit of time to keep squirreling money if I go that route, though.

A decent 200-500 secondhand would be in the range of SGD 1100 to 1300. For landscape I use the 16-35 which is a very good lens. Secondhand prices would be in the rage of SGD 750 to 900 Where in south east asia are you located?

 

[Joe B]

Looks like there's a lot of support for the 200-500 (since there's not much else in the way of "affordable" long glass). I rewatched Steve's video comparing the 200-500 with the 300 pf, and the issue of bad 200-500 copies is a bit concerning for a second hand purchase. Did anyone else have a problem with that, or has Nikon fixed their issue there? A 1.4 TC could be a nice fix while I save for something else. I could almost sell the 105 to finance the TC and use the 300+TC for up close work. I haven't gotten into doing a lot of macro yet, though there are some interesting tiny critters out there.

I live in Yangon, and I haven't seen anything except a 55-300 that reached beyond 200 in any of the shops with used gear that I've visited.

Then there's this situation I play out in my head where I save up the money for the 200-500 and later get a full frame camera, and then I'll have spent a bunch of money to arrive at something with nearly the same field of view and depth of field that I have now. Is it really worth it?

For now I'll keep saving and taking pictures. Heading to the park tomorrow.

 

[Joe B]

I just looked up the conversion from SGD. That's not as bad as I expected. I'll have to check out some stores there if they ever fly internationally again.

 

[joe43]

I agree that more focal length should be your near term priority.

When i was in your situation, I purchased a used Nikon 500mm f4 P lens, a manual focus lens with electronic pass thru capabilities if your Nikon body allows for it. (Your Nikon D 3200 might not allow for it.) I used this manual focus lens for about 10 years until I bought the AFS version. I know that manual focus is not ideal, and I do not know what this lens now costs, but it is something that might make sense if you cannot get or afford a 200-500mm. If you go this route, the compatible Nikon Teleconverters for the lens are the TC 14 B (1.4x) and TC 301 (2x).

For macro, the IRIX 150mm f2.8 manual focus lens might make sense if you can buy it new for less that what your Nikon 105 f2.8 is worth.

 

[DRwyoming]

When i was in your situation, I purchased a used Nikon 500mm f4 P lens, a manual focus lens with electronic pass thru capabilities if your Nikon body allows for it. (Your Nikon D 3200 might not allow for it.) I used this manual focus lens for about 10 years until I bought the AFS version.

I took a similar path. My first 'real' wildlife lens was the 600mm f/5.6 P lens. I learned a lot with that lens and even managed some action on the fly running manual focus. I bought it used, sold it for what I bought it for a few years later and started down the path of AF-S lenses. It's hard to sell folks on the older manual focus lenses these days but some of them are fantastic optically and can be had for a song.

But you're right, it's important to verify compatibility before buying an older lens for a modern DSLR as there can be support issues.

 

[Joe B]

I've got the 500 f/4 P on a spreadsheet somewhere as an option. It's especially tempting with the idea of upgrading to a z mount body down the line with the manual focus aids.

Also, park was a bust. Still closed for COVID.

 

[Whiskeyman]

So, will you be living in the US in a year, or just visiting? If you purchase Nikon gear outside the US, and then move to the US, you'll likely have issues getting it serviced by Nikon USA. And vice-versa, I think...

How much is your current location worth? If you need new gear to photograph events and things that you'll have to pay to travel to later, it would tip the scales toward a purchase now. If you'll never have the opportunity to again visit the location where you now live, the cost of new gear goes down even further, IMO.

One final point, is that I've met few photographers, even ones with a lot of gear, who didn't think that they needed more; myself included.

Good luck with your decision. Most of us have been in your shoes, save for the part of living in Yangon, and understand your position.

 

[Joe B]

Just a visit to the US, so I should have the opportunity to visit places again. Good thought, though.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Sounds like the general consensus is to keep investing in the glass, which pushes the purchase date back for me. A used body is a more common find here than any of the lenses I'd be considering. I may post a new thread if I get stuck deciding between lenses.