I'm trying wildlife photography. Suggest a Lens for me...

[compuwar]

If I need to be those things just to post an opinion on these forums, then I'll just piss off and leave you to it.

I'm simply asking you to substantiate *why* your opinion differs from mine. I've given my background so that anyone reading the thread (but especially the OP) can see what I've used to come to the conclusions I have.

Because my conclusions differ from yours, I'm asking for you to explain what makes you reach your conclusions. Granted you don't have to say why- but I've found many, many people passing off opinions with no actual experience as the fruits of knowledge rather than guesses- if you can't substantiate your opinion, or prefer not to, then that's fine, but it doesn't help the OP to spend $1000 (~$1720 NZ dollars) on a lens that doesn't make sense for what they want to shoot, or isn't as good as another choice.

I can make a recommendation on these forums when and how I like.

So can I, yet you seem to think I'm not to be awarded the same right.

I don't need to qualify it to you nor anyone else.

It seems rather fruitless to offer advice to someone without being able to substantiate that advice, but that's obviously your right.

It is there, and the OP can take it or leave it. If you have something better to say, say it.

I have said it- then because there's conflicting advice, I substantiated why I think my advice is pertinent. The OP can't weigh if it's better or not if they can't evaluate the information's validity for their intended usage- so your lack of substantiation does them a disservice in my opinion. You obviously have a different opinion, which you are of course welcome to.

Please, for the sake of everyone here, stop being a bully. You just come across as someone who desperately wants to be recognised and respected for his achievements.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're not good at reading me. I'm already quite recognized and respected for my achievements in multiple fields[1]. My customers are the only recognition I need for my photography.

You ARE respected here, so stop trying to impress everyone.

I'm not trying to impress anyone, I'm trying to ascertain if your advice to the OP that's contrary to mine is due to actual experience or simply posing. I apologize for hurting your feelings by asking direct questions, but I am still most interested in any answers you'd be willing to provide.

I looked through some of my archives from when I shot with zooms, and after I started shooting with the beast. I came up with more TC usage than zooming out. I went back to what I knew of the last person to whom I personally recommended the 100-400 and their experiences, and again found all the wildlife usage at full extension. In other words, I put actual effort into answering the OP's question and it happens to be in a field I practice a *lot* in. I'm asking for substantiation to resolve the differences between our advice.

You proclaimed the flexibility to zoom out[2] was more important than IQ- I'd like to know under which circumstances you found this to be true. Why you'd not share this information puzzles me, but it's your right not to

Seriously, because if you *do* have that experience then the OP (and anyone else reading the thread with the same question) is well-served by comparing their intended usage to yours and mine to decide which lens is the better choice for them to likely spend more than 3x the money they've ever spent on a lens before.

For what it's worth, the 450D doesn't have weather sealing, so the OP wouldn't be all that well-served if the lens were.

Wishing you all the best for the New Year.

All the best to you as well.

[1] Including actually helping to win the Cold War, which while not as impressive as winning both world wars is good enough for me
[2] I'm not being facetious with the "out" comment, focus should always be done at maximum zoom first.

PS: I've never been to NZ, I don't know what wildlife shooting conditions are like there but I'd like to know so that if I do travel there I'll have the right lenses. It'd suck to haul a 400/2.8 all that way if I should have rented a 200-400.

 

[iBookG4user]

I would suggest renting either a 300mm ƒ/4L IS and 1.4x TC or a 400mm ƒ/5.6L and see if either fit the bill for you. The 400mm will be sharper although it does not have IS, so consider that. Also, as has beens stated before in this thread a good tripod is very important, don't be afraid to spend a bit of money here.

I mainly do my wildlife shooting with a 500mm ƒ/4 (And at times with a 1.4x TC attached) so if you want to spend a good amount of money and don't want the weight of either the 400mm ƒ/2.8 and 600mm ƒ/4, then that would be my suggestion. If you must have a zoom, then the 100-400mm is decent, but it won't match the primes in sharpness. Compuwar is giving sound advice as well.

 

[FX120]

The main reason it would be nice if the 100-400 had weather sealing isn't for weather, but for dust.

It is known as the "dust pump" by many people because it's push-pull action tends to suck in oodles of dust into the optics.

I don't own the lens, and have only ever held one, so I can't speak to the extent that this occurs in real-world use or if it has any negative effects on IQ.

As for zoom vs. prime, it depends on if you'll be using the lens for more than just nature photography. If you're going to be using the $1000 purchase just for snapping pictures of birds from long distances, go for the prime.

But if you also want to use it for other things, obviously a 400mm prime won't be as usefull when trying to catch shots of the kids playing on the swings at the park.

 

[wheelhot]

Whoa whoa, cool down compuwar and pcmacuser. In my book, I respect you both in your own fields and your great photographs, dont make me cross out ur names

 

[PCMacUser]

Whoa whoa, cool down compuwar and pcmacuser. In my book, I respect you both in your own fields and your great photographs, dont make me cross out ur names

Don't worry - we're just having fun - I'm sure compuwar laughed just as much as I did writing those posts. Who knows, maybe we'll both get Nobel Peace Prize nominations this year.

To be honest, I don't shoot with lenses over 200mm. In fact, most of the time I just stick with my 24-70mm F2.8L. Some people ask me why I don't use longer lenses - I just get closer. But sometimes I do wish for extra length, whilst retaining the ability to have at least some wide angle without the need to physically change lenses (I suppose having two bodies would be good in that respect, and could be an option for the OP).

Some examples of birds @70mm on my crop body... the first one of the two gannets 'getting it on' would've been great with a longer lens, although then it wouldn't have captured the humour of the other birds watching. The other two were cropped to about three quarters of their original frame size. At this particular location, a 100-400mm would cover all of the required focal lengths, although it could be argued that 100 isn't wide enough.

I've also put in a crappy photo (I was trying to figure out what was wrong with my focus at the time - turns out my UV filter was messing it up), that was taken at 200mm on my 70-200mm F4L, which is an example of when the F5.6L 400mm prime would be perfect. It's an albatross colony, and people are not allowed to go even remotely close to their nests.

 

[wheelhot]

I've also put in a crappy photo (I was trying to figure out what was wrong with my focus at the time - turns out my UV filter was messing it up),...

Haha, guess what, this happened to me yesterday!!! I was wondering why my kit lens is getting such a bad images while it never happen before, i knew that the kit lens is not that good at low light but I never knew it was that bad, then I knocked myself on the head and realized that its cause the UV filter is like foggy.

 

[PCMacUser]

Haha, guess what, this happened to me yesterday!!! I was wondering why my kit lens is getting such a bad images while it never happen before, i knew that the kit lens is not that good at low light but I never knew it was that bad, then I knocked myself on the head and realized that its cause the UV filter is like foggy.

Yep, I tried going cheap with the UV filter when I bought my 70-200mm lens. I didn't make the same mistake when I bought the 24-70mm though, I only have B&W and Heliopan filters for that.

 

[Zieg3rman]

I'm a well known international wildlife photographer with more than 30 years professional experience. My photos have appeared in National Geographic, Time Magazine, and various international newspapers. I've won too many awards to count and been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize three times. I was also one of Barack Obama's advisers during the presidential campaign and am credited with single handedly winning both world wars.

If I need to be those things just to post an opinion on these forums, then I'll just piss off and leave you to it.

I can make a recommendation on these forums when and how I like. I don't need to qualify it to you nor anyone else. It is there, and the OP can take it or leave it. If you have something better to say, say it. Please, for the sake of everyone here, stop being a bully. You just come across as someone who desperately wants to be recognised and respected for his achievements. You ARE respected here, so stop trying to impress everyone.

Wishing you all the best for the New Year.

I laughed!

 

[compuwar]

Don't worry - we're just having fun - I'm sure compuwar laughed just as much as I did writing those posts. Who knows, maybe we'll both get Nobel Peace Prize nominations this year.

Noooo, we're photographers- maybe we'll get to photograph the Nobel Peace Prize winners this year! Of course, that'll be while simultaneously accepting the newly created Nobel Prize for Photography, Rock Climbing, Snow Boarding, Go and Tapioca Pudding!

Dammit, now you made me lose my train of thought on the whole sheep aren't wildlife and how can Doylem possibly be the best sheep photographer on the site thing you were probably expecting... You'll just have to imagine something witty and creative but totally expected along those lines.