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. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Martin Brown Guest

    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.
    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...
    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.
    Martin Brown, May 9, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 09/05/2013 03:22, a écrit :
    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
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:47:22 -0700 Savageduck wrote:-
    Very nice!
    Guest, May 9, 2013
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:50:29 -0700 Savageduck wrote:-

    Still nice but I liked the first one better!
    Guest, May 9, 2013
  6. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    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.

    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.
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
  7. Guest

    me Guest

    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
    me, May 9, 2013
  8. Guest

    Wally Guest

    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, May 9, 2013
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:12 -0400 PeterN wrote:-
    LOL! Some real wildlife!
    Guest, May 9, 2013
  10. Guest

    PeterN Guest

    Actual she and her boyfriend were very nice people. We quite a nice
    PeterN, May 11, 2013
  11. Guest

    gordo Guest

    "PeterN" wrote in message

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


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

    gordo, May 11, 2013
  12. 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 Weisselberg, May 15, 2013
  13. Guest

    Wally Guest

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

    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?

    Wally, May 16, 2013
  14. Guest

    me Guest

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

    M-M Guest

    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, May 16, 2013
  16. Guest

    me Guest

    Only if you choose to do so. There are center-wieghted and spot
    exposure modes for these situations.
    me, May 17, 2013
  17. [/QUOTE]
    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.
    See for example
    (German, but the images speak for themselves)

    Different ~1.4x converters and lines resolution (Center):
    Now, if you enlarge the "no extender" images by ~1.4, what
    happens to the line count?

    And another one:

    And another one, using Canon's Mark III TCs:

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 19, 2013
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 19, 2013
  19. Guest

    M-M Guest

    You're not talking sense in either sentence.[/QUOTE]

    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, May 20, 2013
  20. Guest

    nospam Guest

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

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.