7 Deadly Mistakes Choosing The Best Lens

[@Jonathantuba]

Another interesting video. The smooth bokeh is certainly a big reason to get a prime lens - I use my F2.8 400 wide open most of the time, only stopping down if trying to capture multiple subjects in the frame

[@tomdearie5165]

Nice video. Thanks. 👍 I’d love to see a video on which of the newer telephotos - especially the new Nikon lenses - are usable for handheld video (if any). Cheers Tom

[@brucegraner5901]

Tin Man, you made your arguments for prime lenses quite clear and convincing but I was kind of expecting a recommendation or two that you might make for a zoom lens IF someone absolutely felt like they needed the versatility of a zoom or for reasons of budget. You mentioned your 70-200mm f2.8, but it really didn't seem like you were recommending the 200-400mm lens. Did I miss something or do you plan a part three to this series? As always, I enjoyed seeing your work.

[@christophermucha2855]

@brucegraner5901 I have the 180-400mm f/4 with built in TC. It’s very sharp at 180-400 but never as sharp as a 400 prime. I could great photos with it but need to work much harder to find a distant background and more light at f/4 compared to f/2.8. It’s great to have the versatility but it comes at a cost. Less light and less sharpness. If you shoot during the day you won’t really see a big difference but at dawn and dusk is where the f/2.8 outperforms.

[@isar-wildlife]

You are so right, Tin Man! I own older 500 f4 and 300 f2.8 lenses and love the creamy bokeh. Thankfully, they work with modern camera bodies.

[@neilcole3406]

Love your photos very inspiring!

[@darcypeel8144]

Thank you Tin Man, Every video you post is packed with good info and not the usual commercial "propaganda". Love your photos as well

[@christophermucha2855]

Great information Tin Man. Going to Katmai next month and got Nikon to lend me the Z400mm f/2.8, which I have on order but might be a while before I get it. You are becoming a master like Da Vinci. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us mortals.

[@TinManLee]

Awesome to hear. Huge congrats for Nikon to lend you the 400 2.8!!! Wow that’s amazing. Perfect for katmai I’m sure. Keep me posted on your trip. Thanks for your kind words. Da Vinci definitely is my “mentor”. I learned so much from the book.

[@christophermucha2855]

@@TinManLee I’m going to France in Oct. and hope to get a chance to see the Mona Lisa. I will try to look for the details you described. I read it was his favorite painting and he added to it through out his life perfecting it. Your recent pictures from Africa are amazing! I think some of the best pictures I have seen of animals are with a great landscapes in the background. I fell in love with photography through landscapes and over the last few years started to photograph wildlife with a passion. It’s hard to combine them both. Last year I was at Lake Clark with the most beautiful sunrise on our last day and not one bear showed up. So frustrating! It would have been the perfect picture. That’s why we keep on trying.

[@sunildutt2607]

Simply magical for me your videos

[@TinManLee]

That means a lot

[@marciagnagey]

Tin Man, You are an amazing photographer and teacher. When you mention the 400 2.8 do you mean the Nikon 400 2.8 with built in 1.4 teleconverter?

[@neilcole3406]

Love the philosophy of this vlog, so more interesting than camera gear stuff!

[@CaribbeanBacchanal]

Your experience is very exciting. I live in trinidad and Tobago. A lot of birds here in tropical rainforest. Which lens would you recommend, 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4？ Thank you.

[@TinManLee]

Wow what an exotic place to live in. That’s amazing. For tropic rainforest I expect the birds are in a lot of shades so low light is important so I would say 400 2.8. Cuz the birds are mostly in the “2.8 zone” ;) but it also depends on how big the birds are.

[@CaribbeanBacchanal]

@@TinManLee thank you. I am planning to purchase a Nikon 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 Tc. Too much violent crime in trinidad and Tobago. Don't come here.

[@richardmondor1360]

Another very informative video and i think it gives people an understanding of the differences that a pro grade lens provides but lets face it, most people cannot afford to put that kind of money into a hobby. When i was a kid just getting into this hobby i asked, "how do photographers afford those huge lenses and very expensive cameras?"..a very wise man told me "simple, its their job, just like a mechanic or cabinet maker will have good tools". Please keep the videos coming Tin Man, everyone needs to learn, be informed and strive to find their own vision in this amazing pass time called photography.

[@danacampbell8571]

Tin Man your photographs are truly awesome! You capture the essence and beauty of wildlife like no other. Thank you so much for sharing your learning experiences, and the secrets you have learned in your quest to make outstanding images. I have rented a 400 2.8 twice. Once to photograph a special night football game which resulted in getting great shots of my son in the air making a reception touchdown. That image is a favorite memory. Most recently this past spring I decided to rent again as I had an opportunity to photograph a fox family that moved in under our garden shed. I loved that I could shoot in early morning and late evening low light and it helped with distracting backgrounds. I did not want to return the lens and have been longing to purchase it. After seeing your images and hearing your advice I am convinced that I should have the same lens that my "idol" uses. wink wink. Thanks Tin Man, these two series have been quite informative and probably quite costly. :)

[@_systemd]

very nice explanation of the artistic elements making it into photography and conveying the message. Haven't seen anyone speak so nicely about it. on the other hand I could as well summarize the conclusions here as: 1) buy a lens worth a car 2) move to africa or travel the whole world 3) develop your artistic vision once the gear and subjects are on point. otherwise it's a waste of opportunities, time and self-realization in photography. if you use a .. f5.6 zoom or some other crap like that.

[@thomastuorto9929]

While a great vid, you should change the title to telephoto lens. Zoom lens have a variable mm length like eg. 200-600, 24-70, etc. Your friend probably purchased the 500-5.6 because that is what he could afford & probably already knows the 500 or 600 f4 would yield a much nicer photo. As for adding a tele converter & blurry photos, well,,,,?

[@RobFreeborough]

Excellent video Tin Man. What is your opinion of the Canon Rf 100-300mm f2.8? If you were using the R5, would you recommend this lens over the RF70-200 f2.8? Is it worth the extra $7,000?

[@JoelRiveraMD]

I guess he is not responding since you asked Two days ago but I have the same question

[@RobFreeborough]

@@JoelRiveraMD Yes, I really wish Tin Man would weigh in since I highly respect his opinion, and have made buying choices based partially on his previous videos. Would be glad to discuss with you though. I photograph owls primarily and as I review my best photos, 90% are in the 150-400 range. I have a 400 2.8 and the 100-500. Many times the 100-500 has been the right focal length, but the wrong lens due to having to use high ISO/slow shutter. I also use the RF 70-200 but it won't take a teleconverter and 200mm is sometimes not enough reach. The new 100-300 seems like an ideal focal length especially if coupled with the 1.4TC. I was just hoping Tin Man might talk me out of it with a disadvantage I have not considered. Otherwise, I am leaning towards making it my second lens. What about you?

[@JoelRiveraMD]

I responded before but for some reason the message didn’t go through. Have you watched Duade Paton review on the RF 100-300? It’s a really comprehensive review . My concern with the 100-300 is the reach . I’m currently using Nikon Z 100-400 and I’m always putting the 1.4 Tc on because I need more reach . So I’m concerned about that for wildlife and birds. I’m considering the 400mm or 600mm but that price for a hobbyist is tough . Watch that video if you haven’t watched it yet

[@RobFreeborough]

@@JoelRiveraMD yes I watched it earlier today. The 400 2.8 is the best lens ever. But I often need less reach and the ability to move quickly so the 100-300 is a good length for many shots I want. Getting closer to wildlife is always preferable but not always possible so that is my slight hesitation.

[@JoelRiveraMD]

@@RobFreeborough yeah is a difficult choice. If we had the money ideally you would get the 100-300mm , F400 and 600mm. That would be the ideal scenario. I gotta play the lottery though

[@oldguy1030]

There may be a fundamental disconnect with some of us who watch your videos. Great information but it may not be right for everyone. I don't do much wildlife photography, but when I do it's usually birding and is more about being able to later on identify the bird rather than to sell the photo or enter it into a contest of some sort. I don't think I've posted a photo I've taken onto any internet site in, well, I can't remember ever doing that. I've had family post a few that I sent to them, but I haven't. I'd be concerned about sfumato or other technical details more in other areas of photography. So for me the reason to get a fast lens is more about using the light-gathering power of the objective lens so that I can get a decent image with a fast shutter speed. And even then one has to realize that the size of the objective lens is actually crucial for that purpose as a small objective lens gathers little light no matter how far down you can stop the lens. The other thing? The potential resolution of optics increases with the diameter of the objective. That means that even with a superb design of a lens system with a small objective it will not be able to compete with a similarly well designed and built lens system with a larger objective. Look at the size of the objective lens (the front element) if you want to get an idea as to whether you will be able to get more resolution/detail, or less (assuming quality of design and build are the same). This is simply optics.

[@Kellysher]

Why is this titled, how to choose the best zoom? This is about using a prime. Very disappointing. Not everyone can afford the monster prime.

[@michaeljohannsen4872]

Hi, I’m new to your channel, really love your photos and can relate to many of the addresses points. But the video titles including “deadly mistakes” seems to be a little bit overly dramatic. Wouldn’t you agree? 😃

[@ianbachanek2538]

Are you a hobby photographer? Your gear is crap! Get a $8k camera + a $15K prime. Most people don't get paid to take photos. Yes pro gear is better but most of us do this as a hobby not career. Just saying....

[@nordic5490]

The title is 'How to choose the best lens', not the most affordable lens. Thus the title is accurate, not click bait. Every one makes choices. For example, I have never bought a new car. Forgoing a few years of deprectiation on an average new car, and not being bent over with high servicing costs just to keep the warranty, means I could afford any prime of my choice, with change. You make choices. Plenty of people blow huge $$unnecessarily on cars and dont even realise it. Choices.

[@ianbachanek2538]

@nordic5490 you sound pragmatic like me. I've also never owned a new car only gone with used. My point still stands, however. The title was how to pick the best zoom lens not the best lens. I like Tin Man's photography. He's amazingly talented. I was just watching Wimbledon. A photographer on the sidelines was clearly using the Canon 100-500. So someone who's paid to do this for a living could use a zoom. All I wanted was a good faith discussion. Yes the best primes work in all light conditions better. But all zooms bad? Let me give you a story of choices (a good faith discussion between us). This past winter I went to a marina location to shoot a Snowy Owl. A few others were there for the same reason. One had a great camera + a 600 mm f4 mounted on a HD tripod with a gimbal. I was hand holding. Owl didn't move much. He was set up on the boardwalk to shoot. I however scrambled down to the water to get shots level with the Owl. I then joined another guy (he was R5 + 800 mm f11) to walk around the marina when the Owl moved. Got more shots. We also got a Bald Eagle. Then a Peregrine Falcon make an aerial kill of a duck and brought it to an open area to consume. Guy with mega prime missed out altogether. So advantage zoom. Like I said just a good faith discussion.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@ianbachanek2538 What you say makes sense. However, I've gotten many shots with my 100-400 that I'd never post. I was happy to get a shot but I wasn't proud enough of it. These guys try to shoot for wall hangers everytime.

[@ianbachanek2538]

@LtDeadeye they're also acting as gatekeepers. As in stopping people from getting into the hobby. Would you be a wildlife photographer if at the start you were told only the best gear matters insteadof using that 100-400? It isn't just price (it can be) but what if there was a reason you couldn't carry such heavy gear? No reason to do two videos discouraging any system/ setup that isn't the best. In my example above about Wimbledon where that photographer needs bangers or won't get paid. He had a zoom. That's the point of my rants this should've been an encouragement to get new photographers into it. My two cents.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@ianbachanek2538 I’m new to this channel but there seems to be a ‘contest worthy’ standard they strive to achieve. Sure, one can get great shots with less expensive gear but it will cost you in other areas. Both sides have their pros and cons. Many of these guys carry both! The 5.6 or 6.7 aperture lens won’t be so great during golden hour, a time for which there seems to be a consensus among photographers that the quality of light is best. Expensive gear just makes it easier to get the shots if you’re willing to shoulder the weight. High frames per second, bird eye autofocus, weather sealing, wide aperture, etc. is conducive to less obstacles in the field.

[@josefmolina3510]

I dont like zooms for exactly the reasons you mentioned. For me, the Sony 600mm 4.0 GM (or any 600mm 4.0 lens) is the way to go. Btw, do you still own the Nikon 500mm 5.6 PF?

[@wildscapesph]

I agree with @ianbachanek2538 points. Tin Man's two part discussion is mostly about his privilege/access to top notch gear etc. I get it. If one can get the best lens that money can afford then one should get it, right? But I echo what @ianbachanek2538 said, that "most of us do this as a hobby not career". And certainly, not all of us get into photography for the awards or accolades from certain judges by some organization with certain sets of standards. There are many ways to get a good photograph. And there are many styles and tastes to a good photograph. A lens is just a tool. I respect the photographer with the simple gear but can get a striking photograph because he has a good grasp on his skillset and gears. A bad worksman blames his tool. One can talk about the story in a photograph but one should not put down a good photographer with simple gear just because his photos were not shot with a prime gear thus having grain, or ugly background. Don't laugh at a blurry bird in flight photo because you'll never know until you see them files in a desktop monitor that maybe there was one there that gave an artistic effect. Everything is relative until one imposes the rules of an elite photography circle. Now if one does impose, then all "good" photos would look the same according to ones standards. That doesn't sound great. I guess one needs to sell photography courses too. NB: I guess you also need the best paint and paint brush and canvas to achieve sfu·ma·to. ; )