Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Telephoto lens opinions

Wildlife Zoom

Here is a glowing review;
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

I freaked out when I saw the $3000 price there, but curent street price is $900, e.g., at a reputable dealer like B&H.... Only thing lacking is 2.8 speed, and image stabilization, but those push prices towards $3000 and beyond, and image stabilization is not particularly helpful with moving subjects... Monopod would help for like $100. For better and for worse, this will be 150-450 equivalent on a D80... Might be too long in some situations...
 
Guys, who here actually shot birds? The talk seems a lot theorical with few experience...

I have a 70-200F2.8 and a 400 F5.6 (all canon L serie) and I shot mostly birds. My first purchase was the 70-200. I was thinking along the same line as people here: get a TC on top of it and I would be fine... WRONG!

The 400 5.6 prime is FAR supperior to anything else. It is (relatively) light and because it is a prime, it focus super fast. Which is a must when shooting birds. An aperture of 5.6 isnt as bad as people here seem to think, I would love to be at f4 but a 400mm f4 is just too heavy! And dont forget, if you shoot RAW, you can always get up to 1.5 stop of additional light from the software.

So my advice is:
- get a 400 5.6 (and monopod)
- get a Bigma (and monopod!)
- get a 300 F4 with some image stabilisation but be warned that 300mm isnt long enough for most birds and roddents.

Since you are on a budget, the Bigma might be the best solution. You will then be able to resale it once you can afford a 400mm lens.

Wildlife photography is very expensive but so fun and challenging! Try to stay away from zooms, you need top image quality and focusing speed. Dont be affraid to buy used gear, these are pro gear and are built to last. If the glass are fine, the lens will perform as good as new.
 
edge540 said:
Thats exactly what I am doing. I will be going on a 4 day safari in the Masai Mara.
Click to expand...

Without hijacking this thread too much, I see that I haven't yet done a good "lessons learned" on my Africa trip.

Here's a start. The weight limit I mentioned (15kg/person) was due to Cessna flights around to a couple of different parks over 2 weeks. We eventually sorted itself out to 10kg/me + 10kg/wife + 10kg/cameras, which was a big part of why I didn't pack a tripod (I took a strobe head with a Better Beamer instead).

So will be taking pictures of anything and everything that I see. Probably less birds and more land animals, and I will have a tripod with me for when the time comes to use one. I dont know what kind of transportation we will have but I probably will only be able to use a tripod when we stop for lunch or breaks
Click to expand...

I was (pleasantly) surprised at the bird opportunities. I still wish for better images of the "violet breasted roller" as well as the "spectacular starling". Both are small and quite colorful in flight.

I was (not pleasantly) surprised at how few breaks we took from our jeep. Typically, it would be one "leg stretch" break during a half day drive. Fortunately, our company was quite good at not overcrowding the vehicles: 2 per row is ideal; we saw some jeeps that were "sardined" with 3, sometimes 4 per row, which IMO was simply too crowded for practical photography. I'd say to watch out for outfits that encourage you to pay the extra fee for a "guarenteed window seat" because they're probably over-stuffing. From the back seat, most of your photography is handheld; keep an eye out if the vehicle has a tie-up type canvas roof, as you'll want to tuck in the loose ends as you go, to keep them from dangling down into your images.

For stabilized shots, I'd recommend the Kenesis "u-fill-it" sandbag. They're nearly weightless to pack. I never had to fill mine, since each camp had a sandbag or two in their jeeps that I simply borrowed whenever I needed one. It helped that most of the time, I was one of the few with an actual SLR body (which I found surprising).

-hh
 
Mantat said:
Guys, who here actually shot birds? The talk seems a lot theorical with few experience...
Click to expand...

I think you're right: we're mostly "dabblers" who have found that whatever equipment we currently have still isn't necessarily the best for the application of birding: Hawk, Bee Eater, Paradise Wydra, etc.

I have a 70-200F2.8 and a 400 F5.6 (all canon L series) and I shot mostly birds. My first purchase was the 70-200. I was thinking along the same line as people here: get a TC on top of it and I would be fine... WRONG!
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating the case. What has been said has been along the lines of: "I tried xyz, and I didn't like how it performed for birds", with the follow-up to ask the OP just what kind of "wildlife" they think that they'll be photographing...ie if its birds or something else (ie, hopefully something less demanding!).


The 400 5.6 prime is FAR supperior to anything else.
Click to expand...

For one specific application, probably. But the dilemma is a potentially broad range of generally unknown subjects and thus, parameters, which means that it is quite difficult in this context to recommend any prime over a zoom, particularly a specific focal length, because the degree of need for flexibility hasn't been defined / articulated. This is effectively why more insight from the OP is needed in terms of what they think their intended subject(s) are to be.

Wildlife photography is very expensive but so fun and challenging!
Click to expand...

Each specialization of photography is rewarding in its own way. Some forms are more expensive than others, as well as resulting in heavier gear that's a bigger hassle to transport. Consider yourself lucky when that which you want to do coincides with what one has the resources (not just financial) to do.


-hh
 
Yes HH, I agree with you. My point with the 400 5.6 has more to do with my frustration about people saying that an aperture of 5.6 isnt enough...

But I still think that the Bigma is the best choice for that situation. In that situation, I would only bring a Bigma, my 50mm 1.8 and my 17-40F4 and everything would be covered. Oh.. add 1-2 extension tube for converting the 50mm into a macro.
 
Mantat said:
Guys, who here actually shot birds?
Click to expand...

I have been doing a fair amount recently..... One of my latest shots: Juvenile Bald Eagle wanting to snatch the prize from a Mature Bald Eagle....

114898848-L.jpg


Shot on December 3rd at Conowingo Dam (MD), with a Nikon D200 at f/8, 250 ISO, 1/500 sec, with the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR lens (which I have affectionately named "Bertha"). This was cropped considerably, but just with this shot alone Bertha has earned herself a Christmas present of a 2x TC..... :)

Point being here that I was using a fast lens and was able to capture action very quickly, which may or may not have been possible with a different, slower lens.... As it happened my friend and I were at the car just getting ready to pack it in for the day when someone shouted from the waterfront that there was action going on, so I rushed back there, Bertha still hanging from my neck, and started shooting with her, hand-held..... I don't know if I would have had the same success with my slower lenses, even if they were longer.

Thanks here go to Chip, who in a conversation a couple of days ago had gently reminded me that Bertha might be really excellent in this sort of situation, with or without a TC.....I didn't put a TC on her this time but you can bet that next time I will!

Shooting birds IMHO requires both a fast lens and a long lens....and you're talking big money there. I haven't yet reviewed all of the images I shot that same day with my Tamron 200-500 or my Nikon 300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC, but I'm sure that I got some nice images, especially when the subject wasn't moving. However, in addition to Bertha's speed, she also has a wonderful way of resolving detail and she sure puts out gorgeous bokeh....and that can be important, too, in nature/wildlife shots.

That said, though, Bertha isn't a lighweight, nor is she inexpensive.....I'm not sure she'd be the first choice for taking on a safari!

To the original poster: tomorrow I will have more time to review the images I shot with the Tamron 200-500mm and I'll share my images and thoughts about that lens as a possibility for taking along on safari, as it would give a good range for you....
 
Clix Pix said:
Shot on December 3rd at Conowingo Dam (MD), with a Nikon D200 at f/8, 250 ISO, 1/500 sec, with the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR lens (which I have affectionately named "Bertha"). This was cropped considerably, but just with this shot alone Bertha has earned herself a Christmas present of a 2x TC..... :)

Point being here that I was using a fast lens and was able to capture action very quickly, which may or may not have been possible with a different, slower lens....
Click to expand...

I dont want to sound rude but...

- you said that you used an aperture of f8, it is above 5.6 so a 5.6 would have gotten the same exposition time.
- you cropped the picture, it shows that you werent filling the frame enought, which shows missing reach
- the picture isnt sharp at all, which could have been solved with a faster focusing lens (or using a different focusing patern?) or a prime

All the above clearly shows that a 400mm 5.6 would have done a better job. Wider aperture lens are only better than a slower one when you are actually using them at a wider aperture!

A 400mm is handholdable, but you have to keep the shutter above 1/500

Sorry but you just proved my point.
 
You can get an "excellent" 300/F4 AF Nikkor from keh for less than $500.
 
-hh said:
For one specific application, probably. But the dilemma is a potentially broad range of generally unknown subjects and thus, parameters, which means that it is quite difficult in this context to recommend any prime over a zoom, particularly a specific focal length, because the degree of need for flexibility hasn't been defined / articulated. This is effectively why more insight from the OP is needed in terms of what they think their intended subject(s) are to be.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but I also think the OP has given enough details.

The guy said he has a limited budget, and that he's going on a Safari, and like you said, there's a very tight weight restriction. You're right when you say that flexibility from his lenses is probably a necessity because of the restrictions and shooting situations, but I think we can just this and some other issues without asking the OP for more info. And besides, who wants to change a lens in harsh conditions?

How's the sealing on the Sigma 80-400, or even a Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 with 2x teleconverter? Good? I hope so.

If the sweet photos are going to come and play in the mornings and evenings, getting the 80-400 mm is going to be good because of the OS, which is a necessity if he's going to handhold the lens. As -hh said, it's probably impossible to shoot on a bus with a tripod, so OS is going to be fantastic and help during the mornings and evenings where the light levels may be a bit lower.

He has a budget and weight restriction, so bringing a camera body, the 80-400 mm, a monopod, a normal use lens of some sort, spare batteries and memory cards are probably all he's going to be able to bring if he's going to bring things like clothes, water, sunscreen, etc.
 
Mantat said:
I dont want to sound rude but...

- you said that you used an aperture of f8, it is above 5.6 so a 5.6 would have gotten the same exposition time.
- you cropped the picture, it shows that you werent filling the frame enought, which shows missing reach
- the picture isnt sharp at all, which could have been solved with a faster focusing lens (or using a different focusing patern?) or a prime

All the above clearly shows that a 400mm 5.6 would have done a better job.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was rude. I think people who read her post were wondering about the f/8 and cropping as well. However, if she puts a 2x teleconverter on her 200 mm f/2 Nikon, she's going to have a 400 mm lens that's faster than f/5.6. Maybe that's what she meant (?).

I just wonder whether she finds that she needs a 2x teleconverter when she already owns a 200-500 mm Tamron that's already quite capable.

PS: My Nikon 200 mm f2 would be covered in drool if I could actually afford one (at any point in my life). :eek:
 
I spent hours last night researching, reading reviews, and going to photo shops around town. I have come to the decision that I'm getting the Sigma 100-300 f/4 lens. Why? For many reasons, I find that since it internally zooms, its a plus, internal focusing too for that matter, and I find that thats all I will need for the time being. Maybe 10 years down the line when im living up in the mountains in a cabin or something (hypothetically speaking) ill look into getting a 500 or 600 range lens. It was also hard for me to find one bad thing said about it, every review I read raved about them.
I found that the BIGMA was just too big when it extended, and I feel thats one of its weak points. It may throw off my balance, make me regrip or something that I dont want to be doing when im taking pictures. It also makes me think that dust or dirt may be able to get into the lens that way far easier than a lens that internally zooms. It also seemed to be quite heavier, by almost a pound. And since ill be carying this on my back for 5 days, I want to shave as much weight as I can.
When I get this lens, I'll take a bunch of photos and ill judge for myself the quality of this lens. Too bad its not going to be here for the shuttle launch on thursday, not that any lens i could afford would help me take pictures of it. Guess ill have to stick with my 50mm f/1.8 lens for this launch, and get as close as I can to the action.
 
Mantat said:
- the picture isnt sharp at all, which could have been solved with a faster focusing lens (or using a different focusing patern?) or a prime.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've never seen or handled the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR lens, which is indeed a prime lens and which is extremely fast-focusing, far quicker than my 300mm f/4. "Bertha" happened to be the lens that I had around my neck when this action started happening; unfortunately, I had already put the tripod and the other camera body and lenses away. Obviously if I'd still had the tripod set up Bertha would have been on the Wimberley gimbal head. The 1.4x TC was still attached to the 300mm f/4 lens, already tucked into the camera bag and although I had the 1.7x TC with me I had not put it on the 200mm f/2 lens. Ideally, yes, I would have been able to have captured this action with a Nikon D2Xs and a longer, different lens or with this lens plus 2x TC, but that's not the way things happened.... I am definitely going to buy Bertha a 2x TC now, though, as I think it would work well for future visits to the dam.

I have not yet processed my other images that I shot at the dam, but some were done with the Tamron 200-500 and some with the 300mm f/4 and1.4x TC. There are other shots in this sequence of action, as well -- we were all shooting like mad, shutters click-click-clicking in unison in Continuous High..... Although this shot isn't perfect technically, I am still happy with it because it does show action and a fish clutched in the eagle's talons, far more interesting than my other shots of an eagle perched on a tree branch!
 
The 200mm f/2 is one of the best pieces of glass that Nikon makes. I would love to have it!

However - I think the point of this lens is that it is sharp at f2. Not only is your shot not sharp at f8 (probably partly due to motion, partly due to cropping), the photo would have looked much better taken by a longer zoom, because there would have been less cropping. Heck, I think a basic 70-300 would have looked as good if you are going to stop down to f8 anyway.

Adding a 2x to this glass most likely turns it into a soft $4000 400mm f4 lead weight. Crazy! From everything I've read, you'd be far better with a dedicated 400 f4. Or perhaps restricting yourself to getting the 1.4x converter.

It seems to me the 200mm f2 was made for a specific job - to be ULTRA sharp at max aperture for relatively close subjects, thus achieving maximum subject isolation and shutter speed. I really don't think it is meant for birding.

Just my opinion of course!
Clix Pix said:
Clearly you've never seen or handled the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR lens....I am definitely going to buy Bertha a 2x TC now, though, as I think it would work well for future visits to the dam.

Although this shot isn't perfect technically, I am still happy with it because it does show action and a fish clutched in the eagle's talons, far more interesting than my other shots of an eagle perched on a tree branch!
Click to expand...

If you really want to stop that sort of action you could have shot at f2 at 1/8000th second. That would show what this lens is capable of!
 
Spectrum said:
If you really want to stop that sort of action you could have shot at f2 at 1/8000th second. That would show what this lens is capable of!
Click to expand...

F2 might be too wide depending of the distance between you, a bird and the other. I would rather shoot at about 1/2000 and decrease the ISO by 2 stop.

Anyways, I agree that (Canon or Nikon) 200mm primes are awesome piece of class and if I sell my 70-200L2.8, I might get a 200 or 135 (1.8) prime. Nothing beat a prime for IQ and focusing speed.
 
Clix Pix said:
...
Shot on December 3rd at Conowingo Dam (MD), with a Nikon D200 at f/8, 250 ISO, 1/500 sec, with the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR lens (which I have affectionately named "Bertha"). This was cropped considerably, but just with this shot alone Bertha has earned herself a Christmas present of a 2x TC..... :)
...
Click to expand...

There is a place to park there. I've been there several times on my way to D.C. from Philly but never have been able to stop.

I thought I'd add a few of my photos, though most of these have been closer than I'd like for the sake of practice.
 

Attachments

  • P3120119.jpg
    P3120119.jpg
    150.8 KB · Views: 98
  • P3120067.jpg
    P3120067.jpg
    219 KB · Views: 88
  • P3060026.jpg
    P3060026.jpg
    168.1 KB · Views: 97
Mantat said:
F2 might be too wide depending of the distance between you, a bird and the other. I would rather shoot at about 1/2000 and decrease the ISO by 2 stop.
Click to expand...

Very true. 2.8 at 1/4000th then. However, judging by the heavy crop - It suggests the birds were quite some ways off, and the subject would have been captured better with a different lens.
 
Abstract said:
I think you're right, but I also think the OP has given enough details.
Click to expand...

My real concern is on his expectations for birds. One of the things that pleasantly surprised me were the birds, and while there's a goodly number of large raptors, the small birds were quite colorful and interesting. I'd probably say that one of my best days of "photo-birding" happened back at our banda, where I was stalking some songbirds at distances of 8-20ft. Since they were flitting around in some bushes (shade), a tripod wasn't practical, so I was quite grateful for Image Stabilization. Conducting birding from the jeep was a matter of days and days of patience, waiting for something in the tree literally right next to the path, etc.

And besides, who wants to change a lens in harsh conditions?
Click to expand...

Good point; for the most part, I simply didn't: I took a 35mm body as my backup and put the only other lens I took on the trip (a Wide Angle) on that. In hindsight, that probably saved me a ton of cleaning.

How's the sealing on the Sigma 80-400, or even a Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 with 2x teleconverter? Good? I hope so.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Nikon gear, but I did find a "400 vs 400" review that compared the Canon EF 100-400L IS to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS with a 2x teleconverter. The basic conclusion was that the 100-400 had a slight edge.

Despite that, I chose the 70-200L f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter as my trade-off because I wanted the flexibility of lower light capability, plus I was concerned about the 100-400 also being an "air pumper" zoom (theoretical dust problem - seems to have been overstated?).

If the sweet photos are going to come and play in the mornings and evenings, getting the 80-400 mm is going to be good because of the OS, which is a necessity if he's going to handhold the lens. As -hh said, it's probably impossible to shoot on a bus with a tripod, so OS is going to be fantastic and help during the mornings and evenings where the light levels may be a bit lower.
Click to expand...

In hindsight, I've run the numbers on how low some of the light levels were. For example, this photo was taken at EV 5 (1/30sec at f/4 and ISO 1600; focal length was 98mm (155mm effective)). Here, I really would have liked to have pulled the TC off to gain another stop (f/2.8 vs f/4), but particularly since this was after sunset and we were losing light virtually "by the second", there wasn't really the time to do so, particularly in a fully safe context - - he was between us and our cabin!

He has a budget and weight restriction, so bringing a camera body, the Bigma, a monopod, a normal use lens of some sort, spare batteries and memory cards are probably all he's going to be able to bring if he's going to bring things like clothes, water, sunscreen, etc.
Click to expand...

The "to consider packing" list gets rediculously long all too fast. If I really expected to do much walking (walking safari), I'd take the pole, but otherwise, I'd leave it behind: I find that most of the time when I'm on foot, I'm generally fairly likely to go down to a kneeling position (to self-brace and) to get a different perspective. Do need to think about how to carry everything, and how you're going to deploy it in the jeep so that you can easily get to stuff ... a big camera bag way down on the floor doesn't necessarily work out all that well.


-hh
 
Spectrum said:
Very true. 2.8 at 1/4000th then. However, judging by the heavy crop - It suggests the birds were quite some ways off, and the subject would have been captured better with a different lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, the eagles were some way off, out over the water, and yes, I quite agree that a longer lens would have captured the scene better. The 200mm f/2 is not really a birding lens! It happened to be the lens i had out at the time the eagles started fighting over the fish.
 
Clix Pix said:
Yes, the eagles were some way off, out over the water, and yes, I quite agree that a longer lens would have captured the scene better. The 200mm f/2 is not really a birding lens! It happened to be the lens i had out at the time the eagles started fighting over the fish.
Click to expand...
Hi Clix. I hope I wasn't too aggressive. I guess if I ever had the money to get the 200mm f/2, the last thing in the world I'd be doing would be using it at f/8.
Also, my suspicion is that the Nikon 2x will kill this lens's beauty. Maybe if they made a $1000 2x with nano coat etc...
 
Abstract said:
...
Me too. :)

I don't think I ever see Bousozoku post his photos (or I can't recall), so this is a surprise.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't expect a lot of my photos to be posted. I posted some around August in a thread concerning someone's cross-country trip plans but generally, there is no need or desire for anyone here to see my photos, good or bad.

I felt these might fit the situation, that's all. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back