Zoom vs Prime for First Lens for Beginner

[TexAg]

Regarding aperture and low light, zoom with an aperture of 5.6/6.3 and a prime with aperture 4.5, does that mean that the zoom is limited in use only when there is plenty of light available and cannot produce acceptable images during or after dusk? I am assuming that is where a lens of aperture 4.5 excels.

 

[TurtleCat]

Regarding aperture and low light, zoom with an aperture of 5.6/6.3 and a prime with aperture 4.5, does that mean that the zoom is limited in use only when there is plenty of light available and cannot produce acceptable images during or after dusk? I am assuming that is where a lens of aperture 4.5 excels.

Generally, yes. You’ll either need a higher ISO or a longer shutter length or more available light. Today’s cameras have more latitude in ISO than in days past with better noise reduction. But it’s always a compromise one way or another with weight, cost, and shot type available.

 

[ssheipel]

As Mazda would say, zoom, zoom, zoom

 

[AlanB313]

Welcome to the forum!

I consider myself a beginner even though I have been shooting for a while. I started my more serious photo journey with a d500 and a tamron 150-600 g2. I loved it, but the weight quickly became an issue. I found that I was shooting at primarily the longer focal lengths, and really wanted something I can hike with. I hike between two and 12 miles, oftentimes out all day.

I now have a 300mm f4 pf and 1.4tc combo, and a 500mm f5.6 pf. You can pick these up inexpensively if you don't mind shooting with f-glass.

I almost never carry my big tamron on a hike. I'll take it on car based trips or short flat walks.
I really like having primes. I use a wonderful 16-80 dx zoom that is quite light, but otherwise shoot with primes for everything.

I have a friend that loves his 400mm 4.5, and has a Z 1.4tc to extend reach.
You've made a great start with the z8!
Good luck.

 

[TexAg]

Welcome to the forum!

I consider myself a beginner even though I have been shooting for a while. I started my more serious photo journey with a d500 and a tamron 150-600 g2. I loved it, but the weight quickly became an issue. I found that I was shooting at primarily the longer focal lengths, and really wanted something I can hike with. I hike between two and 12 miles, oftentimes out all day.

I now have a 300mm f4 pf and 1.4tc combo, and a 500mm f5.6 pf. You can pick these up inexpensively if you don't mind shooting with f-glass.

I almost never carry my big tamron on a hike. I'll take it on car based trips or short flat walks.
I really like having primes. I use a wonderful 16-80 dx zoom that is quite light, but otherwise shoot with primes for everything.

I have a friend that loves his 400mm 4.5, and has a Z 1.4tc to extend reach.
You've made a great start with the z8!
Good luck.

Thanks, similiar to you, I do allot of hiking and usually hike for miles, so the thought of packing a heavy lens like a ultra zoom (Nikon 180-600 or the Tamaron 150-500) has me hesistant about a ultra zoom. I understand the great advice from memebers who are very knowledgable and some being experts in the field of wildlife photography regarding why a zoom would be thier recommendation for someone just starting out like myself.

 

[wotan1]

I think it helps to have a long range plan in mind for where you may eventually end up.

If you go with the 400mm f4.5 prime this will get you something you can hike with. You may be able to get by with a monopod and Wimberley 100 gimbal head for hikes.

I predict that if you go that direction and in particular pursue birds you are eventually going to want something with greater reach. An excellent choice for longer reach would be the 800mm pf. The 400 and 800 would be a potent combination.

When you go that far you are going to want a tripod and gimbal head. That means more weight and maybe you don't go on long hikes with the full rig.

You can also go with the 180-600mm zoom. If you go that direction you should read up on the reviews and be aware of the lens' limitations.

Many people suggest a combination of a zoom and a prime works for wildlife photography. If you have only one long prime lens the 600mm focal length is recommended. Unless you are prepared to spend $16 grand on the 600mm f4 tc vr s your best choice is probably the 600mm pf.

Having a plan does not mean you have to follow it, it does however help avoid mistakes.

 

[StefanSC]

I am looking to purchase my first lens primarily for wildlife and was seeking advice from members, from a learning perspective and understanding of photography is there an advantage of learning with a zoom vs a prime?

No real advantage with either.

As a beginner in wildlife photo the biggest challenge you'll have is finding and getting close to your subjects.

As such, I'd say go for the longest lens you can afford and can carry, while keeping quality in mind (so, a Nikon 180-600mm yes, a Tokina 900mm SZ mirror lens, no).

As you'll learn fieldcraft, you'll know better what lens you'll need and make a second purchase that fits your style and needs (that you'll develop ).

 

[rloeb]

I am new member just beginning my journey into wildlife photography. Just recently purchased a Z8 and beginning to learn the basics of the camera. Have purchased Steve guides, The Ultimate Nikon Z8 Setup Guide and the Secrets to the Nikon Autofocus System. I am looking to purchase my first lens primarily for wildlife and was seeking advice from members, from a learning perspective and understanding of photography is there an advantage of learning with a zoom vs a prime? Thanks and look forward to learning from everyone.

My two-bits: The Z8 is a very complex camera with incredible features. If you're just starting out, it's important to become really familiar with what it can and cannot do. For my students, I recommend a zoom, such as the 24-120mm, and suggest not pursuing an important subject until you've shot at least 2,000 frames in an area no larger than the block you live on! (You can do this in a couple of weeks, if you're serious.) Don't just shoot frames. Carefully review them. What do you like about each one? What do you dislike? What would you do differently? There are two objectives in this exercise: 1) learn how to use the camera; there are a lot of choices. 2) learn what style of photography you prefer. This will change over time, but it's important to appreciate your own preferences. That's the difference between taking pictures and being a photographer! While you're doing this, look at lots of pictures by other photographers and go through the same exercise: what do you like and what do you dislike? I absolutely promise you that if you take this exercise seriously, and really take 2,000 frames, you'll build a solid foundation for some fantastic photos. However, by about the 600th frame, you'll be wondering why you ever followed advise from some idiot on the BCG forums... -- Rog (only been doing this since 1962 and have a lot to learn)

 

[wotan1]

I am also relatively new to this forum. I bot my Z9 almost two years ago. The Z 9 and Z8 are very complex and nuanced and it can at times seem overwhelming in the beginning. The Steve Perry guides are really helpful and they emphasize setup for wildlife photography. Stick with it, it gets easier once you figure out what you want and get it set up.

You will be starting to work with long focal length lenses and attempting to shoot subjects that can be elusive and erratic.

Long focal length lenses are more difficult to work with. There is a whole separate topic elsewhere in this forum on this subject and it is well worth studying.

In the beginning working with these long lenses I suggest the following:

1. Try to go for subjects that are close by.
2. Use higher shutter speeds. A bird may seem like it is still but they are twitchy. Small movements by the subject can make the image soft. The VR may help with camera shake but it does not protect against subject motion.
3. Get in the habit of shooting short bursts at 20 FPS when shooting wildlife. This technique increases the odds that some of the shots will be keepers.
4. Get and use a tripod and gimbal head.
5. While low ISO is always desirable for image sharpness, don't be afraid of going higher if you need in order to get a high enough shutter speed. These cameras, along with a denoise program, can do wonders with high ISO images.
6. Shoot RAW. Gives you maximum flexibility in post processing.

The Z8 and Z9 are remarkably capable cameras. You will be amazed at what they can do.

 

[Marsha Jane]

Thank you everyone for their input and sharing your expertise, regarding the 180-600 would that be a great zoom option for someone that hikes several miles or plans to photograph from a kayak. Is there a considerable performance and build quality in regards to 3rd party lenses( Tamaron/Sigma) vs Nikon lenses.

You might consider a lighter weight, more portable option of the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC.

 

[TexAg]

You might consider a lighter weight, more portable option of the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC.

I considered that option, but for $500 difference, I would consider the 400/f4.5.

 

[ricardo00]

I considered that option, but for $500 difference, I would consider the 400/f4.5.

Love my 400mm f/4.5. If enough light, I put a TC on. When light gets low (and even really low), I can shoot without the TC. So can't zoom in or out, but love its light weight, how well it takes a TC (even the 2.0), and its better aperture than most zooms. For sure it isn't an f/2.8, but just shot this burrowing owl handheld when it was too dark to see:

https://flic.kr/p/2ptoPqM

 

[Fishboy1952]

I think when first starting down the wildlife photography road, is I would get a zoom. The 180-600, while a trifle heavy is going to give you max flexibility. It will also aid in your fieldcraft…on how to approach your subjects. After a period of time, you can go back and assess what focal length the majority of your shots are taken at. At that point, you might consider going to a prime. I did this when I got my first DSLR in 2017. I purchased the Nikon 200-500, and found the vast majority of my shots were at or near 500mm. I then graduated to the 500PF which I love and still have. I now shoot almost exclusively with a Z9 with the Z600 PF for raptors and BIF. Enjoy!!!

 

[aringer]

I started out with a Tamron 150-600, then got my 500 f4 and love that lens. But at times, I miss the versatility of the zoom, and I'm looking at buying one again. As others have stated, since you're new at this, you'll figure things out as you go. I have had no issues with the Tamron lenses, and they allowed me to buy more lenses becuse of price point. I tend to be pragmatical, they are great lenses. Getting lost in the minutia of optical quality for the way we use the images, when they are small differences, can be maddening (I still deal with that, trying to make the perfect decision). My best advice: Once you narrow it down, rent the lens for a week and see how you like it. Or rent two to compare them before you decide. They are very affordable and a small price to pay before plopping your 3K and hoping it was the right call. I did that when I bought the 500 FL ED, and ended up buying the rented one at a substantial discount. That was 8 years ago and still love it. Good luck and welcome to the addiction!

 

[James C.]

My experience: When I decided to get back into photography back in mid-2019, I bought a Nikon D5600 and a 18-300mm DX lens. Since I didn't know what genre of photography I wanted to get into at this point in life, I thought the 18-300mm would offer me the most versatility. When I tried photographing great egrets at a lake, I was very disappointed when I got home and saw the photos on my computer. Even at 300mm, the birds looked too small in the frame, and I had no latitude to crop. That's when I knew I NEEDED more than 300mm if I was going to photograph birds, which is what I've been doing ever since.

By the fall of 2019, I bought a 200-500mm lens. At 5 lbs, it was a VERY heavy lens compared to the DX lens, but NOW, I was better able to get birds to fill the frame, at least so that I had more options to crop in post-processing.

But within a year, I started getting tendinitis in my right elbow, and I was pretty sure it was from hefting that lens. I also noticed that most of my shots were taken with the lens out to 500mm. At that point I realized, I would be wiser to save my pennies and get a 500mm PRIME lens. (The Nikkor 500mm PF lens is only 3 lbs.)

By mid-2021, I bought the Nikkor 500mm PF lens. A relief to my elbow, better IQ, and I was amazed at how much faster the AF was!

So, based on my experience, I'd suggest, a beginner starts with a zoom, but if you're serious with your photo hobby, in a year or so, you may soon find good reasons to upgrade to a prime.

p.s. Before I got the 500mm PF lens, I upgraded to a D500 camera body, but that's another story.

 

[Anjin San]

I am new member just beginning my journey into wildlife photography. Just recently purchased a Z8 and beginning to learn the basics of the camera. Have purchased Steve guides, The Ultimate Nikon Z8 Setup Guide and the Secrets to the Nikon Autofocus System. I am looking to purchase my first lens primarily for wildlife and was seeking advice from members, from a learning perspective and understanding of photography is there an advantage of learning with a zoom vs a prime? Thanks and look forward to learning from everyone.

180-600…more than good enough IQ and sufficient reach to both get distant critters and be flexible. You may want primes later on…but for a person starting out for wildlife in the Nikon brand it’s hard to recommend a better choice IMO. And as other
s recommend…add the 24-120 for landscapes, waterfalls, and walking around…because you might find that you love waterfalls as I do or landscapes or whatever. With those 2 lenses…learn and then maybe…maybe…get primes when skills, interest, and personal satisfaction prompt you.

 

[O]

I am new member just beginning my journey into wildlife photography. Just recently purchased a Z8 and beginning to learn the basics of the camera. Have purchased Steve guides, The Ultimate Nikon Z8 Setup Guide and the Secrets to the Nikon Autofocus System. I am looking to purchase my first lens primarily for wildlife and was seeking advice from members, from a learning perspective and understanding of photography is there an advantage of learning with a zoom vs a prime? Thanks and look forward to learning from everyone.

Till your taste style and skill sets are where you what them to be the Zoom is the right place to start, the 180-600 is a good place to begin, it will help you crystallize you choices
versus needs going forward.

Once you have used it for a while you will soon see whats next if at all.

Weight and size is a very important consideration and makes a huge difference in outcomes.

Light is you greatest friend and savoir, its a major asset and is very expensive to buy.

Remember 90% of what you achieve comes from you not the gear.

I am a F2.8 F4 lover, despite the exotics available for rent, in good light i still use my 200-500 happily on the Z9 or D850 or any Nikon camera.

The 180-600 is a great starting pint.
The 600 PF is a winner if that fixed length fits your needs.

You next best friend is Time, as buying a lens is easy.

RENT before you buy often may also help.

Only an opinion

 

[ButlerKid]

I don't think it's a money issue - but more of a subject issue. I find I use the wide and mid-range focal lengths for architecture and landscapes (including landscapes with wildlife).

I find primes best for portraits, macro (such as the 105mm) and large wildlife at distances.... (such as the 400 f4.5).

For me, the perfect combo for Africa or other wildlife endeavors, is a prime lens of 500 or 600mm and a 100-400 or so zoom.

For architecture, I use the 15mm Sigma fish, 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. (The 70-200 f2.8 can cross over to large mammals in some cases).

 

[TexAg]

180-600…more than good enough IQ and sufficient reach to both get distant critters and be flexible. You may want primes later on…but for a person starting out for wildlife in the Nikon brand it’s hard to recommend a better choice IMO. And as other
s recommend…add the 24-120 for landscapes, waterfalls, and walking around…because you might find that you love waterfalls as I do or landscapes or whatever. With those 2 lenses…learn and then maybe…maybe…get primes when skills, interest, and personal satisfaction prompt you.

I have the 24-120, understand the 180-600 zoom would be a great choice, but I hike several miles and will primarily interested in a kit which weight of the lens is very important. I am not going to enjoy hiking several miles with a heavy lens like the 180-600.

 

[ButlerKid]

I have the 24-120, understand the 180-600 zoom would be a great choice, but I hike several miles and will primarily interested in a kit which weight of the lens is very important. I am not going to enjoy hiking several miles with a heavy lens like the 180-600.

For hiking, the 24-120 is just about perfect!

 

[TexAg]

For hiking, the 24-120 is just about perfect!

Yes, but I think it would lack reach for wildlife.

 

[O]

For hiking, the 24-120 is just about perfect!

I did a hike day before yesterday, D850 and because its light and compact the old 24-85 G VR 3.5- 4.5 (3.5-1 MR), the results were very nice, not quite as good as say the 24-70 F2.8 G (2.9-1 MR) the 24-85 had VR were my 24-70 doesn't, the VR let me use a lower shutter speed reducing the need for higher ISO, the 24-70 could make up for it with its optics gathering more light, so it essentially was weight and size that was the consideration, the walking was around 12 klm.

Its good to hear feed back on the 24-120 s, i love the quality out of my 50 mm 1.8S i believe its the standout in the line up.

I have been watching the 24-120 (5-1MR) for a little while, i want to just see where i go mirror less wise, i am leaning towards 60mp hopefully in the Z7III, for size bulk and weight the Z9 along with less use may get moved on.

No Hurry, LOL.

 

[Anjin San]

I have the 24-120, understand the 180-600 zoom would be a great choice, but I hike several miles and will primarily interested in a kit which weight of the lens is very important. I am not going to enjoy hiking several miles with a heavy lens like the 180-600.

Of weight is important…and you only wanted to carry 2 lenses…then it’s either the 100-400 which is a fine lens although not as good at 1:1 in LR as some other options or the 400/4.5 and carry the TC as well. Either is a good solution IMO…but for somebody just starting out with wildlife I think I would still recommend the zoom over the prime because of flexibility.

 

[MLB01]

Point of Veiw of a Zoom vs Prime for learning art of wildlife photography from a National Geographic Wildlife Photographer:

While there’s no argument that an “ultra zoom” is a convenient lens to use, one big negative with any of the ultra zooms is that they are quite slow (i.e., quite small maximum aperture), especially at the longer end of their focal range. A direct consequence of this is that they are no where near as good at isolating your subject or separating it from the background. Moreover, if you compare the quality of the out-of-focus zones of a lens like the Z 400mm f4.5 against those of the Nikon 180-600, you’ll find they’re much better with the Z 400mm (even when you compare images shot at the same aperture). A direct result of this is that any keen beginner will be able to experiment MORE with the “interplay” between the sharp out-of-focus zones and the smooth out-of-focus zones (i.e., have larger differences in Depth of Field to experiment with) and see their impact on final image quality.

It’s my view that when trying to create wildlife art one of the key things is understanding how to best use a lens’s depth of field to direct the viewer’s attention to the areas you WANT them to look to first. And having a “more controllable” depth of field (and better quality out-of-focus zones) is a big part of this.

So to be clear…from a learning perspective and if you want your images to have more impact, I’d go for the prime vs. the zoom lens .

 

[Anjin San]

Point of Veiw of a Zoom vs Prime for learning art of wildlife photography from a National Geographic Wildlife Photographer:

While there’s no argument that an “ultra zoom” is a convenient lens to use, one big negative with any of the ultra zooms is that they are quite slow (i.e., quite small maximum aperture), especially at the longer end of their focal range. A direct consequence of this is that they are no where near as good at isolating your subject or separating it from the background. Moreover, if you compare the quality of the out-of-focus zones of a lens like the Z 400mm f4.5 against those of the Nikon 180-600, you’ll find they’re much better with the Z 400mm (even when you compare images shot at the same aperture). A direct result of this is that any keen beginner will be able to experiment MORE with the “interplay” between the sharp out-of-focus zones and the smooth out-of-focus zones (i.e., have larger differences in Depth of Field to experiment with) and see their impact on final image quality.

It’s my view that when trying to create wildlife art one of the key things is understanding how to best use a lens’s depth of field to direct the viewer’s attention to the areas you WANT them to look to first. And having a “more controllable” depth of field (and better quality out-of-focus zones) is a big part of this.

So to be clear…from a learning perspective and if you want your images to have more impact, I’d go for the prime vs. the zoom lens .

That’s a good point…and I actually thought about it. But for someone starting out with wildlife…I decided that flexibility would be more important IMO…but it’s certainly not an obvious conclusion. Frankly…I think I will end up with the 180-600 in addition to my 40p/4.5. 600PF and 100-400 because (a) I can easily afford one and (b) different lenses in the box let you pick what you need today and for a semi serious outing I can easily see myself taking the Z8 and that lens as all I’m taking today. The issue for a beginner is that all of the feet zooming and composition tricks might not really be second nature, nor will be the sneaking stealthily closer or farther to accommodate the lens reach…and for a beginner coming back with 10 good shots is probably more confidence boosting than 1 good one and the resr not so much. Knowing what I know today…if I was starting over I would get a Z8 and the 24-120 and 180-600…because I really would not know what I was actually most interested in yet.