pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Nikon 200-500 lens for stock photos?  (Read 1057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 21, 2018, 05:03 »
0
Ive so far been shooting landscapes and nature details with my Nikon D500 and always at ISO 100. Now Im planning to by a Nikon 200-500 lens for some flying birds shooting. I have read that this lens should be a good choice and perfect suitable to a Nikon D500. But my concerns is if the ISO would be a problem because shooting flying birds needs ISO 1000 - 2000 with f 5,6 and handhold camera. Ok, can do some noice reduction in Lightroom but is there a risk that the images still will be too noicy for acceptance at i.e Shutterstock or Fotolia? Anyone with experiance from this combo?


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2018, 05:15 »
0
I haven't used that exact combo, but in general, a 5.6 lens would only produce clean images of birds in flight in full daylight.

Normally, in the "art" world, noise isn't such a big issue, but the stock agencies seem to be unnecessarily picky.

Furthermore, for maximum sharpness, you would usually stop down a stop if you want all the details in the feathers. It seems, however, like the 200-500 is very sharp wide open, so might not be necessary.

Of course, 2.8 and 4.0 lenses will be bigger and much more expensive... There will always be a trade-off.

I've heard that the 200-500 is a very good lens, and since there aren't many options in the price range, go for it. You can always do some minor testing and return it if you don't like it (if you buy it new).
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 05:28 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2018, 05:57 »
0
Thank you for your opinion. Yes, there is always better (and more expensive) lenses but in this price range this is probably one of the best. I can only hope that the stock agencies not only looks at the ISO numbers but instead looks at the whole picture quality.
And if I understand you right this combo in good light, in general, could produce images that would be suitable as stock photos.
Thanks again.

« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2018, 09:07 »
0
I have this lens and I also have the 300 2.8 prime.  No comparison when it comes to image quality.  But the 200-500 isn't bad for an inexpensive tele. lens.  You will get some noise but the trick is to make sure your exposure is accurate, maybe even slightly over. As you adjust the image in post, the noise is kept at a minimum and when you drag your sliders to a darker exposure some of your noise gets "hidden" while keeping the details.  I shot a bunch of images at 3200 to 6400 ISO and while I had to downsize a bit they were keepers and passed micro inspection.

I would not get rid of my 200-500 because, like Increasingly says, it's a tradeoff between cost and quality.  My 300 2.8 images are so sharp it amazes me, but I would not consider a 400 or 600 prime due to cost and weight.  So the 200-500 is my middle ground go-to. I will say that bumping up your aperture significantly improves sharpness, so shooting at ISO 1000 is not uncommon when hand holding.  Still, it's a heavy enough lens that I shoot it mostly on a tripod, but not always. 

« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2018, 09:41 »
+1
Are you sure that you want to go with Nikon?
Today you have very valid alternative for less price.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c

« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2018, 10:44 »
+1
Are you sure that you want to go with Nikon?
Today you have very valid alternative for less price.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c

I have the Sigma 150-600, but the more expensive Sports (S) version, which should also be a better comparison to the Nikkor than the C in the article. It is not much more expensive than the Nikon where I live.

I had the Tamron for a week, and it was a fun lens, but felt like a toy. Very plasticky. I wasn't impressed enough to keep it, so I bought the Sigma 150-600 S instead. It feels like a professional lens. I see now, however, that there is a new version of the Tamron, that looks a bit better than the first Tamron.

The Sigma is a tank. Very heavy, very robust. It is not perfect, but I've had a lot of good times with it. I've mostly used it for filming, and it can produce incredible 4k results if stopped down a stop or so. Every little detail in the feathers of a small bird, along with lice and ticks.

Of course, it's not a fast lens, and I don't like it as much for photography. When filming, I use a shutter speed of 1/50" most of the time, meaning that I don't have to boost the ISO too much.

It produces significantly better (I feel) results on close subjects. Of course, on a GH4, 600 mm means 1380 mm magnification, and you can see that the air quality really can affect sharpness, meaning animals far away on a hot day can never really be supersharp.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 11:30 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2018, 12:36 »
0
Thanks a lot for all information.

Mantis, thanks for the exposure info and wow stock photos with that high ISO! Probably its all about to take good pictures and try to hide the noice.

Chichikov, thanks for the very informative article. Im going to read it again and again and......... One of my reasons for looking for the Nikon lens is the fact that I use a Nikon camera.

Increasingdifficulty, thanks again for all interesting input.


Im talking about handhold shooting because you never knows where or when a flying bird shows up, but Im sure sometimes I will also use a tripod.


« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2018, 12:41 »
0
Thanks a lot for all information.

Mantis, thanks for the exposure info and wow stock photos with that high ISO! Probably its all about to take good pictures and try to hide the noice.

Chichikov, thanks for the very informative article. Im going to read it again and again and......... One of my reasons for looking for the Nikon lens is the fact that I use a Nikon camera.

Increasingdifficulty, thanks again for all interesting input.


Im talking about handhold shooting because you never knows where or when a flying bird shows up, but Im sure sometimes I will also use a tripod.

Yes, exposing to the right (ETTR) is usually preferred. It's usually (much) better to use a higher ISO and bring the exposure down, than a lower ISO and bring it up.

Just wanted to say that the Sigma is quite heavy (3 kg), so you will get a nice workout for one of your arms if you use it handheld. One has to make sure to hit the gym to balance it out.  ;D

« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2018, 14:59 »
0
Thanks a lot for all information.

Mantis, thanks for the exposure info and wow stock photos with that high ISO! Probably its all about to take good pictures and try to hide the noice.

Chichikov, thanks for the very informative article. Im going to read it again and again and......... One of my reasons for looking for the Nikon lens is the fact that I use a Nikon camera.

Increasingdifficulty, thanks again for all interesting input.


Im talking about handhold shooting because you never knows where or when a flying bird shows up, but Im sure sometimes I will also use a tripod.

You could also consider the use of a monopod


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3622 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 12:50
by Fred
4 Replies
2345 Views
Last post May 18, 2011, 22:47
by echbart
8 Replies
2669 Views
Last post March 15, 2012, 08:45
by jcpjr
2 Replies
2126 Views
Last post April 05, 2013, 17:28
by Mantis
0 Replies
1196 Views
Last post July 02, 2015, 08:24
by etienjones

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors