TexAg
New member
Comments from people about the wait time for the Nikon 180-600 is a consideration as well.
Zoom vs Prime for First Lens for Beginner
- Thread starter TexAg
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I come down on the side of preferring prime lenses even for beginners. I learned on primes and I think it gave me a better understanding of the difference in perspective and the things that can be accomplished with those differences in perspective. To this day I absolutely love ultrawide lenses and the arresting images that can be created with them. I also love the way a 135mm focal length changes normal perspective and makes primary subjects stand out in a certain way that is photographically interesting.
A zoom is helpful to save you from having to carry multiple lenses into the field. If you can only carry two lenses with you it pays to have one super prime and a zoom to handle the shorter stuff. It also has the flexibility where if you find yourself in an unexpected situation you can quickly adjust the focal length to get the image. If someone has to change prime lenses to get there the shot might be missed.
But the real quality comes with primes, and especially primes with wider apertures and greater ability to separate out and create pleasing backgrounds that don't distract from the primary subject. Those special primes can also photograph better in lower light situations which means they can work in conditions with the most photographically interesting lighting.
I am old to photography but new to photography using quality prime long telephoto lenses. Until recently I never had a telephoto lens longer than 135mm that was not a zoom, and a zoom with a small and variable maximum aperture. I had no real understanding of how long telephoto lenses with wide apertures can be manipulated to control and create pleasing backgrounds.
I would have been better off as a photographer if someone made me get one good long telephoto prime and I learned how to use it. Maybe it would not be the ultimate prime I would want but it would be a good instrument for learning. the craft.
The other thing from the perspective of a new photographer to nature photography is the value of knowing I am working with a top quality lens. It is kind of like having a control in an experiment. I know what the lens is capable of doing, if I don't get the expected quality result it tells me to look deeper into what I did and find out why.
More importantly now and then I will get it right and all of a sudden a gorgeous Image I created is in front of me. I realize what my camera and I are capable of doing and it excites me. and encourages me to go for more.
I say don't sell us newbies short. Encourage us to try the best and see what we can do with it.
Watch, I bet you will find we are better and more creative than you might expect.
A zoom is helpful to save you from having to carry multiple lenses into the field. If you can only carry two lenses with you it pays to have one super prime and a zoom to handle the shorter stuff. It also has the flexibility where if you find yourself in an unexpected situation you can quickly adjust the focal length to get the image. If someone has to change prime lenses to get there the shot might be missed.
But the real quality comes with primes, and especially primes with wider apertures and greater ability to separate out and create pleasing backgrounds that don't distract from the primary subject. Those special primes can also photograph better in lower light situations which means they can work in conditions with the most photographically interesting lighting.
I am old to photography but new to photography using quality prime long telephoto lenses. Until recently I never had a telephoto lens longer than 135mm that was not a zoom, and a zoom with a small and variable maximum aperture. I had no real understanding of how long telephoto lenses with wide apertures can be manipulated to control and create pleasing backgrounds.
I would have been better off as a photographer if someone made me get one good long telephoto prime and I learned how to use it. Maybe it would not be the ultimate prime I would want but it would be a good instrument for learning. the craft.
The other thing from the perspective of a new photographer to nature photography is the value of knowing I am working with a top quality lens. It is kind of like having a control in an experiment. I know what the lens is capable of doing, if I don't get the expected quality result it tells me to look deeper into what I did and find out why.
More importantly now and then I will get it right and all of a sudden a gorgeous Image I created is in front of me. I realize what my camera and I are capable of doing and it excites me. and encourages me to go for more.
I say don't sell us newbies short. Encourage us to try the best and see what we can do with it.
Watch, I bet you will find we are better and more creative than you might expect.
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.
This is basically my experience as well. I almost never take my 150-600 g2 anymore because of the weight. I also realized that I was using the lens at 600mm most of the time. Indeed, I take it out when I want more reach than my 500mm pf. I still like it, but I agree that the 500mm pf f5.6 is sharper and faster in AF. And much lighter.
O
Well-known member
From the OP
"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"
Lenses are just tools all transport the subject to the sensor, how and what is achieved is all up to YOU.
PRIMES Just Go and buy a 400 F2.8 or 600 F4 TC Nikon, its simply a done deal, if you want to go fair weather and lighter and stick to a little better affordability then get the fair weather primes 400 PF 600PF 800PF.
You know what Zooms do and what there used for, they are just a different tool.
Because i have such a broad but infrequent diverse need its not justifying owning expensive exotics, renting the right tool for the right application makes more sense for me.
That said i own a 300 2.8 VR II and the TC 1.4 III which works exceptionally well on the Z9 D850 and more so on the D6. It even works well with the 2 X TC III, I rent a 600 F4 exotic if and when needed.
Now, I own a 200-500 modified to be a push pull lens, i cant push pull the 180-600 Z, i can hold the hammer down on the camera when on my 200-500 and keep the subject super tightly framed as desired, even when it moves erratically, ie wild life, sports action like soccer, motocross, surfing, athletics, rodeo etc etc, bees, insects.
So is my 200-500 exotic, no, but is it the right tool for what i need or am doing, absolutely YES subject to light limitations, its so super handy, i don't have to crop, the focus is tight and nailed and the exposure adjusts on the key subject not the overall matrix environment. Image files are excellent for what i need, the Z9 D850works super well on the lens.
If your shooting in challenging light say in Coast Rica or in the Colombian or PNG Jungle for small birds in the rain forest versus BIF in an open lake in the Australian outback with plenty of light........the decisions and choices are always simple.
Based on your phonographic experience you should be aware of light being your best friend.
I find Rent before you buy is a good policy.
Sony has made the 300 2.8 small super light, its good a start with more to come, Nikon will need to follow.
The industry will also introduce F2.8 F4 exotic zooms going forward that will be super light along the lines of the Sony 300 F2.8, just zooms hopefully.
Only an opinion
Happy Days
"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"
Lenses are just tools all transport the subject to the sensor, how and what is achieved is all up to YOU.
PRIMES Just Go and buy a 400 F2.8 or 600 F4 TC Nikon, its simply a done deal, if you want to go fair weather and lighter and stick to a little better affordability then get the fair weather primes 400 PF 600PF 800PF.
You know what Zooms do and what there used for, they are just a different tool.
Because i have such a broad but infrequent diverse need its not justifying owning expensive exotics, renting the right tool for the right application makes more sense for me.
That said i own a 300 2.8 VR II and the TC 1.4 III which works exceptionally well on the Z9 D850 and more so on the D6. It even works well with the 2 X TC III, I rent a 600 F4 exotic if and when needed.
Now, I own a 200-500 modified to be a push pull lens, i cant push pull the 180-600 Z, i can hold the hammer down on the camera when on my 200-500 and keep the subject super tightly framed as desired, even when it moves erratically, ie wild life, sports action like soccer, motocross, surfing, athletics, rodeo etc etc, bees, insects.
So is my 200-500 exotic, no, but is it the right tool for what i need or am doing, absolutely YES subject to light limitations, its so super handy, i don't have to crop, the focus is tight and nailed and the exposure adjusts on the key subject not the overall matrix environment. Image files are excellent for what i need, the Z9 D850works super well on the lens.
If your shooting in challenging light say in Coast Rica or in the Colombian or PNG Jungle for small birds in the rain forest versus BIF in an open lake in the Australian outback with plenty of light........the decisions and choices are always simple.
Based on your phonographic experience you should be aware of light being your best friend.
I find Rent before you buy is a good policy.
Sony has made the 300 2.8 small super light, its good a start with more to come, Nikon will need to follow.
The industry will also introduce F2.8 F4 exotic zooms going forward that will be super light along the lines of the Sony 300 F2.8, just zooms hopefully.
Only an opinion
Happy Days
Last edited:
Ever
Member
Lots of good info in this thread from the experienced folk. I might be able to shed some light from another beginner's perspective. The TLDR is that I started on a zoom and already upgraded to a prime. Here's my story in case anything resonates with you.
I started a few months ago and am using a D500 + 200-500 for wildlife / birds. Typically during hikes (+/- 10 miles), or nearby whatever cabin we've rented for the weekend.
I was reluctant with this setup since it's heavy/large. I'm 40 and decently fit, but I like to travel light and prefer agility over being bogged down by stuff. However it's relatively cheap, and something about it felt like a way to earn my stripes before diving into all the newest tech. But that's a different story.
Like others have said, the most important thing is to get out there and start shooting. Only then can we start to learn what's truly important to us. For example, what was important to me a few months ago has already started to change. So much that I already purchased a 500pf. It's currently in the box at my neighbor's house! It arrived while we were out of town. Whether or not I'll like it more than the 200-500 is TBD, but I have a hunch I will. Steve does a great job reviewing both lenses.
Here's what was important to me while doing initial research followed by my updated priorities a few months in:
Starting out:
Here's a link to some other posts in this thread that relate to the 200-500/500pf:
I started a few months ago and am using a D500 + 200-500 for wildlife / birds. Typically during hikes (+/- 10 miles), or nearby whatever cabin we've rented for the weekend.
I was reluctant with this setup since it's heavy/large. I'm 40 and decently fit, but I like to travel light and prefer agility over being bogged down by stuff. However it's relatively cheap, and something about it felt like a way to earn my stripes before diving into all the newest tech. But that's a different story.
Like others have said, the most important thing is to get out there and start shooting. Only then can we start to learn what's truly important to us. For example, what was important to me a few months ago has already started to change. So much that I already purchased a 500pf. It's currently in the box at my neighbor's house! It arrived while we were out of town. Whether or not I'll like it more than the 200-500 is TBD, but I have a hunch I will. Steve does a great job reviewing both lenses.
Here's what was important to me while doing initial research followed by my updated priorities a few months in:
Starting out:
- lightweight: for hiking
- physical size: for travel
- zoom: since I had no idea what it was like to shoo with lenses like this
- lightweight: I learned this isn't just for carrying over the shoulder. But it's also for holding while waiting for a subject to move (at least when handheld like me). I almost lost the feeling in my fingers while waiting for a stubborn Kingfisher to dive.
- extremely good IQ: now that I've taken photos, I'm itching to squeak out even better IQ
- very good low-light performance: I'm just a casual photographer, so I need to make the best of it if I happen to find a Bald Eagle eating an opossum in the shady part of a tree (this just happened). Both the 200-500 and 500pf are f5.6, but it's something I'll keep in mind if/when I upgrade in the future.
- fast auto-focus: this didn't register when I was starting out, but now I get it. While I have lots to learn when it comes to technique, I definitely missed some shots due to how sluggish the 200-500 is. Again, Steve looks into this in his reviews. I might have glossed over them while new, but they make sense to me now and hold weight in tradeoff discussions.
- not-zoom: I've come to learn why those reviews on YouTube discuss how much of a twist it takes to zoom a lens from min to max focal length. I missed quite a few shots while grabbing the camera from my hip, switching off the lens lock, and zooming all the way out 500. And only then starting to acquire focus (see the previous bullet point). IIRC the 180-600 is easier in this regard, but something to consider. As a side note, I'm surprised that I didn't see anything in reviews of the 200-500 that the lens lock is easily bumped by your hip while hiking. It constantly unlocked and extended itself. It was annoying to carry and detracted from the joy of the hike. Again, something we can only learn once we're out in the field.
Here's a link to some other posts in this thread that relate to the 200-500/500pf:
Last edited:
You will love your 500mm pf f5.6! This is basically what I did with my 150-600mm tamron. I have no problem hiking with my 500mm prime, but think twice about taking the heavier tamron.
You might also consider a now inexpensive 300mm f4 pf with a 1.4 tc. Now that is really light! I use either the 500mm prime or the 300mm with a tc14III when I am hiking any distance.
Another advantage of the 300mm f4 is that it can be used for close up BIF like swallows overhead or it is a pretty good macro since it is so close focusing.
I expect to upgrade to a z8 or z9 at some point, and plan on using these with the ftz. After purchasing a new camera I won't be able to add a native z lens for a while.
Have fun...
Alan
O
Well-known member
Your on a great journey, you will find what your looking for as many of us who have traveled this road before you have.
Your summary is well written, your process will serve you well.
On one of your points, many people have commented the trow on the 200-500 is long and slow, yes it is, however its not an issue for myself, as while i don't recommend anyone doing this but i have modified my 200-500 to a full push pull lens, this makes it very unique, extremely effective in many many ways and faster than anything else i could use, it has positives in so many other ways. I cant do this on the 180-600.
For myself cameras and lenses are just tools that use a combination of time light and speed for optimum outcomes, using the right tools in the right way for the right application is the key.
Enjoying yourself is the most important thing, just take GAS antibiotics, you make the photo not the gear.
In fair weather i use the 200-500, challenging conditions its F2.8 F4 exotics.
Only an opinion
O
Well-known member
A simple example of a tools used in a hurry, Prime with 2x TCIII.............
Shot as a JPEG fine
D4S
600mm (300 F2.8 VR II on a TC III x 2)
1/3200
-07EV
Matrex
25 points focus from memory.
The camera was set up on this setting all day and dealt with all the changing conditions using the floated to 12800 ISO to balance exposure, i could push to 16800 plus if really needed.
I usually set the camera up in the morning and never touch it all day.
The shot ( Victory moment) Junior Surfing titles was made and with in 15 minutes the image was in the hands of the designated media group, not the face on money shot but the message was clear.
I didn't have the 200-500 at the time so i used what i had, a prime lens with a TC.
The DF, D4, D4s, D5, D6, really handles the TC 1.4 III TC x2 III very well, compared to the D800 D810 D850.
The brief was to cover the event and feed images fast constantly, a feature that will be welcome in new cameras in the future, i assume it will add weight and demand power big time.
Shot as a JPEG fine
D4S
600mm (300 F2.8 VR II on a TC III x 2)
1/3200
-07EV
Matrex
25 points focus from memory.
The camera was set up on this setting all day and dealt with all the changing conditions using the floated to 12800 ISO to balance exposure, i could push to 16800 plus if really needed.
I usually set the camera up in the morning and never touch it all day.
The shot ( Victory moment) Junior Surfing titles was made and with in 15 minutes the image was in the hands of the designated media group, not the face on money shot but the message was clear.
I didn't have the 200-500 at the time so i used what i had, a prime lens with a TC.
The DF, D4, D4s, D5, D6, really handles the TC 1.4 III TC x2 III very well, compared to the D800 D810 D850.
The brief was to cover the event and feed images fast constantly, a feature that will be welcome in new cameras in the future, i assume it will add weight and demand power big time.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
TexAg
New member
Thank for sharing, great first hand expereince. Regardless if a prime or a zoom, lens need to be lightweight and easily packed for travel. As of know leaning toward the 400/f4.5, checks all the boxes, lightweight, compact, great AF, IQ and very good in low light., good performance with a 1.4x TC to give me 560mm if needed. Maybe be considered short for some subjects, guess will have to compensate with stealth getting closer to some wildlife.
Ever
Member
Guessing another learning will be whether or not the TC is always used, and if not, how it feels to manage it.
I personally think you will love the 400mm f4.5 with a TC. You'll have the faster f4.5 if used alone and the ability to get a longer reach. I have a friend who is using this with a z9 and likes it a lot. He's a much more accomplished and experienced photographer than I.
O
Well-known member
Above all enjoy your self, don't overthink things, just do it, break the rules, its more important to discover and develop your style, all lenses and camera basically do the same thing just go about it differently.
90% of what you achieve comes from YOU, not the gear.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Personally I would go with a zoom because cheaper in costs and it is good to have the flexibility of a zoom, especially as a beginner.
Calson
Well-known member
With a zoom lens one can after a period of shooting learn which prime lens may add value. If using a 100-400mm zoom for example and finding that most of the images were shot at 400mm, the choice of a prime is different than if most of the images were shot at focal lengths of 300mm or less. This information is not gained with a single prime lens.
With rare exceptions the cost will be far higher to get two or three prime lenses than to buy a single zoom lens. A 180-600mm sells for $1700 and the Sigma 60-600mm sells new for $2,000. Compare that to the cost of a 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 600mm prime lenses and $1000 for two teleconverters.
When I started with land photography there were only prime lenses available. It was still the case 25 years later when I started doing underwater photography. I lost a lot of images with not having the right focal length lens available. Now I use prime and zoom lenses for my kit and it is not an either or proposition.
With my move to Z cameras my first lens purchases were the 24-120mm zoom lens and the 100-400mm zoom lens followed by the 400mm f/4.5 prime and the 800mm PF prime lens.
With rare exceptions the cost will be far higher to get two or three prime lenses than to buy a single zoom lens. A 180-600mm sells for $1700 and the Sigma 60-600mm sells new for $2,000. Compare that to the cost of a 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 600mm prime lenses and $1000 for two teleconverters.
When I started with land photography there were only prime lenses available. It was still the case 25 years later when I started doing underwater photography. I lost a lot of images with not having the right focal length lens available. Now I use prime and zoom lenses for my kit and it is not an either or proposition.
With my move to Z cameras my first lens purchases were the 24-120mm zoom lens and the 100-400mm zoom lens followed by the 400mm f/4.5 prime and the 800mm PF prime lens.