Best lens for wildlife photography?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, May 9, 2013.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    wildlife and also the scenery.

    Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?

    As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.
     
    Guest, May 9, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 09/05/2013 04:47, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >> news:2013050819012829267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>> On 2013-05-08 18:22:30 -0700, <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    >>>> wildlife and also the scenery.
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
    >>>>
    >>>> As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.
    >>>
    >>> If you can afford the D600 fine. However you will get more reach with
    >>> an APS-C DSLR.
    >>> The Nikkor 70-200mm AFII is a great lens with a great $$$$ price,
    >>> again if you can afford it, fine. However the 70-200mm is not a do it
    >>> all lens.
    >>>
    >>> Consider that you will probably need a walk-around lens with a wider
    >>> range for those scenic shots, for FF consider the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm
    >>> f/4G VR, or the new 24-120mm f/4G VR. There is also the surprisingly
    >>> good value and performer, the Nikkor AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.
    >>>
    >>> Just remember with the D600 + 70-200mm you are looking at around
    >>> $4500. For that you can get a D7100 + an 18-105mm kit lens + Nikkor
    >>> AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED + an AF-S DX 10-24mm all for around $3100
    >>> and an extra $1400 to spend on the trip, perhaps a spare battery and
    >>> extra SDHC cards and a decent bag.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

    >
    > Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.
    >
    >> if you want seriously good product, 400mm will be the minimum for
    >> real wild wild-life. If you have time before your safari, think about
    >> renting the body and lenses you'll consider. It'll be better to look
    >> at some trial images and be disappointed or elated than to have a
    >> pocketful of best-I-could-do to lament over.

    >
    > I agree a 400mm or 500mm would be great, and I would only rent those
    > lenses, I would also consider renting an extra FF body for some events.
    > However, we don't know of the OP's travel arrangements to The Falklands,
    > whether it will be via plane or a cruise of some type. We don't know if
    > this is going to be a trip specifically for a photo shoot or a vacation
    > with photography as incidental to the trip. So consider the extra weight
    > and bulk of a 400mm or 500mm lens to add to general and landscape
    > shooting requirements.


    At the risk of being contentious and accepting here that you will have
    to live with softer focus and donut shaped out of focus highlights a
    mirror lens is not a bad compromise for wild life photography where size
    and weight are important factors. I do have traditional long lenses too
    but sometimes their large physical size gets in the way.
    >
    > From the point of view of a vacationer who has not done this type of
    > photography before and from what he has said, has not even bought the
    > DSRR yet (I assume he has yet to buy the D600 + 70-200mm and he is
    > asking advice), I would thing he might be better off buying less
    > expensive kit at this point on his DSLR wildlife photography learning
    > curve. Then he could consider the transition to FF from APS-C.


    Possibly the most important advice is take a camera and lenses with you
    that you already know inside out and a spare body. Reading the manual in
    driving rain whilst some rare bird makes its getaway is not good. Same
    with weddings...

    >> At the end, if you think your efforts will result in saleable stuff,
    >> spare no expense; if it's for your own enjoyment, relax and enjoy the
    >> experience, and take a little extra time and equipment to memorialize
    >> your enjoyment.

    >
    > I believe he could do quite well with a lesser DSLR Say a D300S or a
    > D7100 on his trip rather than the D600.
    > Here is a D300S shot using an 80-400mm VR @ 200mm.
    > <
    > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared Images/USENET SHARE/DNC1000_HDR-Ac2w.jpg


    The kit used is generally secondary to knowing where to go and framing
    the scene - assuming a certain minimum standard of gear. A really good
    tripod is essential when using long lenses and a means to fire the
    shutter without physically touching the camera (something I think modern
    cameras lacking traditional cable releases are not so good at).

    My old Pentax istD would sometimes forget to autofocus when triggered by
    its remote control - a rather irritating fault.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 9, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 09/05/2013 03:22, a écrit :
    > DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    > wildlife and also the scenery.
    >
    > Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
    >
    > As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.
    >


    Hello, I'm new here.
    If weight, bulk and the bore and risks of having to change lens is
    important, you might consider an APSC with a super-zoom.
    I used to do everything with a D90 with the 18-200. I have shifted to
    the D7000 with the 18-300 and it is perfect for travelling, scenery or
    wild life, including close-ups with one or two MCON35 Olympus close-ups
    lenses screwed on it.
    The quality is there and allows reframing, I never change lens, have no
    problem with dust, I always have the right lens on the body and a
    limited weight hanging on my shoulder.
    Examples available if you like.
     
    Ghost-Rider, May 9, 2013
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Guest, May 9, 2013
    #4
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Guest, May 9, 2013
    #5
  6. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 9:22 PM, wrote:
    > DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    > wildlife and also the scenery.
    >
    > Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
    >
    > As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.
    >


    If your budget permits, I would consider a D800, which, will give you a
    much better cropped image, than any smaller sensor camera, plus you will
    have the advantage of being able to use a wide angle lens.
    The test shot below was shot with my D800, using the 70-200 lens with a
    1.7 extender. I was about 150 yards away. The image on the left is full
    frame, the one of the right is a crop of that FF image.
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC6570.jpg>

    If you want on all purpose lens, then think about the 28-300. While it
    is not as sharp as the 70-200, it weighs a lot less and gives a wider
    angle of view.
    Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also cropped.
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #6
  7. Guest

    me Guest

    On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:22:30 +1000, <>
    wrote:

    >DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    >wildlife and also the scenery.
    >
    >Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
    >
    >As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.



    It would help to have the problem bounded a bit more. Size?, weight?
    $$? Other lenses you intend to have as well. How do you intend to
    handle the wide end, or you don't care below 70mm?
    I have the 18-200mm VRII, 1st gen 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (with 1.x and 2x)
    and 1st gen 200-400mm f/4 VR (with 1.4x and 2x).
    on a D70, D200 and D300 all handheld and I carry all around quite a
    bit.
     
    me, May 9, 2013
    #7
  8. Guest

    Wally Guest

    On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:22:30 +1000, <>
    wrote:

    >DSLR - possibly Nikon D600 - planning a trip to Falkland Island to see
    >wildlife and also the scenery.
    >
    >Maybe 70-200 with a magnifying ring on hand as well, or something else?
    >
    >As usual, polite thanks in advance for the replies.


    Serious wildlife photography is a demanding art. If high quality
    nature photography is your goal, the most important thing is to get
    some solid experience first before setting out on this trip.

    I use a Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens. The lens is very compact and
    easily goes into a briefcase together with the camera body, laptop,
    extra couple of lenses and backup body. This is a big advantage for
    travel. The 400mm gives the equivalent of a 600mm lens on a full frame
    35mm camera. The lens is versatile and very sharp at the long end (but
    samples vary, so test it if you buy it).

    In the Nikon line, use a DX body and the 200-400mm lens. The 200-400mm
    is much bigger (and much more expensive) than the Canon 100-400, and
    with its bulk and weight you will need to consider how to safely get
    the lens to its destination. I would NOT put it into checked luggage.

    You won't need a tripod for either of these rigs, and I would avoid a
    tripod anyway so you have mobility (unless you are shooting static
    subjects like a bird on a nest).

    For top results, you will need a full frame camera, but then you will
    also need a proportionally longer lens -- and a tripod, because you
    won't be able to hand-hold this. Getting such fancy gear to the
    Falkands and back will be a challenge.

    Most likely you were not thinking of such pro gear, and might be well
    satisfied with something simpler, such as a 70-200mm lens optionally
    with an extender, or maybe the new Canon 70-300mm (the one with the
    white body), or the old version Canon 70-300mm, which is cheap and
    pretty sharp, and even better when stopped down.

    Or you could go down another level and use a point-and-shoot with a
    20x zoom lens.

    Wally
     
    Wally, May 9, 2013
    #8
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:12 -0400 PeterN wrote:-

    >Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also
    >cropped.
    ><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>


    LOL! Some real wildlife!
     
    Guest, May 9, 2013
    #9
  10. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/9/2013 4:36 PM, wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:12 -0400 PeterN wrote:-
    >
    >> Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also
    >> cropped.
    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>

    >
    > LOL! Some real wildlife!
    >


    Actual she and her boyfriend were very nice people. We quite a nice
    conversation.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 11, 2013
    #10
  11. Guest

    gordo Guest

    "PeterN" wrote in message
    news:518d9eb6$0$10817$-secrets.com...

    On 5/9/2013 4:36 PM, wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:12 -0400 PeterN wrote:-
    >
    >> Here is an image I shot from about 50 yds with the 28-300mm, also
    >> cropped.
    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/shtopem%20from%20floppin.jpg>

    >
    > LOL! Some real wildlife!
    >


    Actual she and her boyfriend were very nice people. We quite a nice
    conversation.

    --
    PeterN

    See the latest copy of Outdoor Photographer for advice on lenses for
    shooting wildlife.

    Gordo
     
    gordo, May 11, 2013
    #11
  12. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <> said:


    >> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;


    > Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.


    Actually no extender will give you even better results. :)

    140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
    wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
    important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.

    A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
    pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 15, 2013
    #12
  13. Guest

    Wally Guest

    On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:25:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <> said:

    >
    >>> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

    >
    >> Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.

    >
    >Actually no extender will give you even better results. :)
    >
    >140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
    >wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
    >important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.
    >
    >A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
    >pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.


    Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    extenders?

    One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    just cropping the image.

    Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

    W
     
    Wally, May 16, 2013
    #13
  14. Guest

    me Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:02:40 -0600, Wally <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:25:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <> said:

    >>
    >>>> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;

    >>
    >>> Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.

    >>
    >>Actually no extender will give you even better results. :)
    >>
    >>140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
    >>wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
    >>important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.
    >>
    >>A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
    >>pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.

    >
    >Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    >extenders?
    >
    >One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    >1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    >just cropping the image.
    >
    >Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?


    It is highly dependent on the quality of the lens and the TC.
     
    me, May 16, 2013
    #14
  15. Guest

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Wally <> wrote:

    > Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    > extenders?
    >
    > One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    > 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    > just cropping the image.
    >
    > Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?



    Extenders will cause a decrease in aperture.
    An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
     
    M-M, May 16, 2013
    #15
  16. Guest

    me Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:25:46 -0400, M-M <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Wally <> wrote:
    >
    >> Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    >> extenders?
    >>
    >> One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    >> 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    >> just cropping the image.
    >>
    >> Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?

    >
    >
    >Extenders will cause a decrease in aperture.
    >An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    >portion, the exposure is likely to be off.


    Only if you choose to do so. There are center-wieghted and spot
    exposure modes for these situations.
     
    me, May 17, 2013
    #16
  17. Wally <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:25:14 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-05-08 19:48:28 -0700, "Frank S" <> said:


    >>>> A 70-200 with a 2x extender will be nice for snapshots;


    >>> Actually the 1.7X will give you better results.


    >>Actually no extender will give you even better results. :)


    >>140-400 is probably already on the rather short side for
    >>wildlife, so the slight decrease in image quality will be less
    >>important than getting more pixels actually showing the subject.


    >>A high-pixelcount crop camera will complement it well: more
    >>pixels in a smaller view angle, so you get more reach.


    > Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    > extenders?


    Completely different topic.

    A weaker extender does degrade the image less, hence no
    extender == best image. But also (obviously) less pixels of
    subject and more pixels of 'air' round the subject.

    If you want the same framing and you cannot choose "use
    a longer lens", then --- as far as I can tell --- on high
    quality lenses and high quality extenders the extender does
    win against cropping.

    > One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    > 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    > just cropping the image.


    > Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?


    See for example
    http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php
    (German, but the images speak for themselves)

    Different ~1.4x converters and lines resolution (Center):
    http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/aufloesung1.jpg
    Now, if you enlarge the "no extender" images by ~1.4, what
    happens to the line count?

    And another one:
    http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/interpol1.jpg

    And another one, using Canon's Mark III TCs:
    http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/tk_canon3_tableau_interpolation.jpg

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 19, 2013
    #17
  18. M-M <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Wally <> wrote:


    >> Well, is this true? Will you get better IQ by cropping than by use of
    >> extenders?


    >> One can obtain the same field of view by applying a 2x (or 1.7 or
    >> 1.4x) extender to your favorite tele, or by omitting the extender and
    >> just cropping the image.


    >> Which image will look the best? Have credible tests been done?


    > Extenders will cause a decrease in aperture.


    The ones for DSLRs, which come between lens and sensor, do,
    but there are some that don't --- they're added to the front of
    the lens and often found for consumer video and point'n'shoot
    cameras.

    > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.


    You're not talking sense in either sentence.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 19, 2013
    #18
  19. Guest

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    > > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

    >
    > You're not talking sense in either sentence.



    I'll try to rephrase it.

    When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    account. If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.

    At least _I_ understand what I'm saying. :)

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
     
    M-M, May 20, 2013
    #19
  20. Guest

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    M-M <> wrote:

    > > > An uncropped photo is exposed for the frame. When you crop out a
    > > > portion, the exposure is likely to be off.

    > >
    > > You're not talking sense in either sentence.

    >
    > I'll try to rephrase it.
    >
    > When a camera auto-exposes a photo, it takes the entire frame into
    > account.


    not necessarily, depending on metering mode, and it may not matter at
    all, depending on the scene.

    > If you crop out a portion, it would not be the same exposure as
    > if you zoomed in on that portion and exposed for it.


    it *might* not be the same, and if it is different it probably won't be
    different enough to matter. it depends on a lot of things.

    what matters is if the subject is exposed properly.
     
    nospam, May 20, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ray Muensch

    Best digital for wildlife shots?

    Ray Muensch, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    473
    Bill Tuthill
    Dec 27, 2004
  2. Canon lens for wildlife

    , Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    545
    Bill Hilton
    Nov 29, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,153
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    280
    Attila Jozsef
    Aug 28, 2010
  5. HocusPocus
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    295
    Peter
    Aug 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page