which lense for equine photography?

P

PlodAlong

Member
Joined
16 December 2013
Messages
11
Visit site
Hi guys :D
I currently have the NIkon D3100 and the Nikkor 18-55mm.

I would like to progress further in photography(equine in particular) as I hope to take it up as a sideline job.

Im looking for a telephoto lens but not sure which one, I have a budget of max £250 for a new or used lens.

What lense would you recommend? Could you post some examples of your pics with it?

Thank you in advance :)
 
I have a Nikon D90, and while I do sometimes use the lens you've got, I have a 70-300 zoom lens that is my mainstay.... You should be able to get one fairly easily within your budget. I started out buying secondhand from the London Camera Exchange (they have branches all over the place), and have always had good advice from them. There are of course other second hand places...

As for examples... If you look up Bitsnpix Photos on Facebook there's a wide variety there...

Have fun!!!
 
Either this one: http://store.nikon.co.uk/nikkor-len...or-55-300mm-f/4.5-5.6g-ed-vr/JAA814DA/details or http://store.nikon.co.uk/nikkor-len...zoom-nikkor-55-200mm-f/4-5.6/JAA798DA/details

As those are the two DX format ones suitable for the D3100. I've got the 200mm one and it's decent lens. Got it via Amazon for a fraction of the price.

Whilst it does come to down the quality of the lens, if you're serious about looking into being a photographer as a side line business/selling photos, you should consider upgrading the body too. The D3100 is the most basic of bodies in the consumer range. That's not a dig at you, as I have one too and love it for what I use it for. Just the quality is clearly noticeably different when you look at photos taken by the upper level range bodies, away from photographer's skill obviously and if you're serious about being successful you must invest in good quality kit.
 
Last edited:
Teapots (like the username, btw), which ones are regarded as 'not basic', please?Or are you talking the difference between serious amateur and professional level, costing £thousands?
We've been given a D5100 to play with for a bit. I have never touched a DSLR before: fascinating and a lot to learn.
 
I've got a Nikon D90. Initially I bought a Sigma DC 18-250mm f3.5 - 6.3 lens, and whilst the purists may look down on such a jack of all trades lens, it is pretty decent! I had my first photo published in the local rag using this lens, it was an action shot of a cricket batsman, I'll see if I can dig it out later.

I now also have the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G, which is a lovely lens.

I agree with going second hand. I have used Mifsuds successfully.

I believe that you have to be careful with the full autofocus capabilities of the cheaper Nikon bodies, so you would need to check up on that as to which lenses are most suitable for yours.
 
If you're serious about equine photography the only lens that will suit is a 70-200mm f2.8. The mother of all lenses, Sigma do a good version for roughly £650 new and the Canon/Nikon equivalent is about £1100. It will allow enough light in and keep a high shutter speed which is what you want. Any lens that is f4.5-4.6 will struggle with horses, especially in low light.

As Teapot says you need to invest in good kit and have a good eye- the lens is just as important if not more important than the body. SLRs have become very cheap these days but the quality of the entry level models is not good. Also don't use auto settings- learn how to use the camera properly.

I run a small event photography business and won't take anyone on unless a. they have a good eye for equestrian photography and b. their kit is up to it. Have had to turn many people away due to them thinkinig they have great kit but actually it's nowhere near up to the job. Also look into equine photography as a job seriously- it is not easy and very hard to get a foot in the door, physically and mentally demanding and at times a very miserable job (when you're stood at a hunter trial in the pouring rain for 10 hours, you still have to get the shots!).
 
Last edited:
I am trying to decide on a good next step up nikon camera body, the ones I'd really like even secondhand are way too expensive :(
Wondering if anyone can recommend a step up from the D80 (although I really like mine) but figured would be handy to have one set up for landscape and one for wildlife/animals etc save changing lenses so much :)
 
Twizzeltoe-and-wine said:
If you're serious about equine photography the only lens that will suit is a 70-200mm f2.8. The mother of all lenses, Sigma do a good version for roughly £650 new and the Canon/Nikon equivalent is about £1100. It will allow enough light in and keep a high shutter speed which is what you want. Any lens that is f4.5-4.6 will struggle with horses, especially in low light.
Click to expand...
Agree with this wholeheartedly. Probably all the horse photos that I was really pleased about were taken with a 70-200mm zoom. You don't really want to go "shorter" than 70mm for equine photography unless you're looking for a special/comical effect because of the way even a 50mm standard lens will distort horse subjects when they are face on towards camera (making the head look huge), while 200mm is a useful medium distance setting. Yes, you can go for longer lenses (such as 70-300mm) which are useful if you're e.g. taking pictures at shows and can't get close to the subject - but for the same price you are liable to lose quality and aperture.

I also agree that the lens is at least as important as the body and you should spend at least as much on it. Good lenses keep their value much better than bodies.
 
fburton said:
Agree with this wholeheartedly. Probably all the horse photos that I was really pleased about were taken with a 70-200mm zoom. You don't really want to go "shorter" than 70mm for equine photography unless you're looking for a special/comical effect because of the way even a 50mm standard lens will distort horse subjects when they are face on towards camera (making the head look huge), while 200mm is a useful medium distance setting. Yes, you can go for longer lenses (such as 70-300mm) which are useful if you're e.g. taking pictures at shows and can't get close to the subject - but for the same price you are liable to lose quality and aperture.

I also agree that the lens is at least as important as the body and you should spend at least as much on it. Good lenses keep their value much better than bodies.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the zoom, but the aperture that these 70-200 lenses let you achieve. The 70-300 are very much a hobby lens- they normally have a aperture range of 4.5 (at the 70mm end) to 5.6 (at the 300mm end) so don't work well in poor light. The 70-200 has a fixed aperture of 2.8, meaning at whatever range between the 70mm and 200mm you will be able to open the lens right up to f2.8 and allow maximum light in. Considering on a sunny day with good light I have my camera set to f4, you can see that the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 would be relatively useless for equestrian. I had one when I first started out, I had it for 3 months before getting rid and buying a 2nd hand Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The pro range lenses are built like brick out houses and withstand a lot of use, whereas the hobby amaeture lenses have no weatherproofing, and don't take a lot of heavy use.

Next on my lens list is a 400mm f2.8 but at well over £6k it's going to take a lot of saving!
 
I use a D80 with a good Nikon lens DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm F/3.5
I knew I wanted to take pics of polo so (stupidly, it turned out) bought with it a cheaper zoom lens, a Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6

I say stupidly because my conclusion is that pictures taken with the cheaper lens of distant players do not come out as well as those taken with the expensive lens and then enlarged. Now that I know a bit more about photography I know that the kit for photographing sports events is the bulkiest and most expensive there is. I have always used sports settings for horses and horses and riders, (.i.e. you need a real fast speed) and to get that you can take repeat shots and also increase your ISO in winter.
If I were you, I would experiment a lot with what you already have, and even try and borrow other people's cameras - as photography is a very expensive hobby and I did all my pics of children riding last week using the 18-200.
 
teacups said:
Teapots (like the username, btw), which ones are regarded as 'not basic', please?Or are you talking the difference between serious amateur and professional level, costing £thousands?
We've been given a D5100 to play with for a bit. I have never touched a DSLR before: fascinating and a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

The D5100 is another consumer camera, no SLR is basic in that sense, just the difference between the 3100/5100 which are now old in Nikon terms and say the D4 or D800 for example (which are not cheap). The 5100 is a good starting point, enjoy!

Twizzeltoe-and-wine said:
If you're serious about equine photography the only lens that will suit is a 70-200mm f2.8. The mother of all lenses, Sigma do a good version for roughly £650 new and the Canon/Nikon equivalent is about £1100. It will allow enough light in and keep a high shutter speed which is what you want. Any lens that is f4.5-4.6 will struggle with horses, especially in low light.

As Teapot says you need to invest in good kit and have a good eye- the lens is just as important if not more important than the body. SLRs have become very cheap these days but the quality of the entry level models is not good. Also don't use auto settings- learn how to use the camera properly.
Click to expand...

This! I've spent months learning how to use settings and the results have been worth the wait but the camera is in no way good enough for what I'd call more professional shots hence my original post. Currently saving for one of those lens... Going to take a while.

Oh pro tip for those out in the rain - electric tape around the lens. Keeps 99% of things out of the plastic :wink3:
 
Hi folks,
firstly thank you for your advice. I think ill try find a better quality second hand lense as being 16 its going to be pretty hard to muster up another several hundred...

Ive already got a job taking photos for a local hunt that im doing pretty well at, just looking another lense progress in that and at home :)
 
If you're already earning through photography don't forget to get some insurance if you haven't got it already.

mifsuds, park cameras, london camera exchange I have bought 2nd hand kit from from all of them.

Teapot if you haven't got one already get a kata raincover, worth their weight in gold, costs about £50 but I've used mine in relentless rain and wind all day at a county show (7.30am until 5-6pm) amongst other days at work and it's saved my camera countless times.
 
PlodAlong said:
Ive already got a job taking photos for a local hunt that im doing pretty well at, just looking another lense progress in that and at home :)
Click to expand...
Well done you! The best advice is to just get out there and take photographs!

It can be easy to fall into the trap of believing that the next piece of kit will make all the difference, and to feel dissatisfied with whatever equipment you currently have. The top cameras and lenses are significantly better than the low end ones, but it's the eye behind the viewfinder that has the most effect on the photograph.

We all had to start somewhere. My first SLR was a Zenith, and that was proper basic! I'm only a hobbyist, but I still get sports photographs published in the local newspaper, despite only having low to mid range equipment.

Good luck!
 
teapot said:
The D5100 is another consumer camera, no SLR is basic in that sense, just the difference between the 3100/5100 which are now old in Nikon terms and say the D4 or D800 for example (which are not cheap). The 5100 is a good starting point, enjoy!
Click to expand...

Thanks - and also all others and to OP for posting this! A good starting point sounds fine to me. Just checked - it has the lens which came as part of the kit, and is a 18-105, f3.5-5.6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top