I'm getting more into wildlife and would like to know what glass you are all using to get the job done.
Myself I'm testing with my 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x-2x converters for now. Just learning how to get the best out of this set-up. But recently I've been looking at the new Sigma 150-500mm. Would be nice but don't know yet if I'll make the jump or not.
I use a Tamron 28 - 300MM with IS. I find it a very versatile lens and has a fast focus resulting in few really soft images.
I also have a Canon 100 - 400 MM which I am trying to learn how to use!! When it is on it is tack sharp otherwise there are a lot of soft images which I am not use to after using the Tamron lens.
Using any converter has its trade offs so be prepared.
.
While I have the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, it isn't the best lens to use with anything longer tnan a 1.4X TC. Better choices would be the 300 f/4 or 500 f/4 lenses. If you shoot Nikon, look into a second hand P Nikkor 500 f/4 EDIF lens. They can be had for about $2000 in good condition, and have excellent image quality. I use mine mostly with the Nikkor TC14B or TC14E 1.4X converter to bring in subjects not accessible any other way. It's manual focus, but that isn't too much of a liability as I often have to touch up focussing even with my AF lenses. Besides the focus confirmation arrows make it almost as fast as AF.
I think it depends a lot on the type of wildlife shots you want. Nostril and fang shots of bears or frame filling with small birds is going to require the long stuff, but the world (and the market) is pretty much clear sailing for wider views showing the animal as a part of a great setting. Maybe we should coin a term like "kritterscapes" or some such. But in my experience the market is pretty well saturated with portraits of big game of most species, while it's begging for great landscapes showing the animal at home.
While I have a 500 f/4 Nikkor with an assortment of extenders along with a couple of 300's (f/2.8 and f/4) I always have at least my 80-200 and/or my 24-120 close at hand on a second body. I strive to get shots with both the long lens and the wider lens, but always find that the ones with the wider lens are more appealing to audiences in general, and to me, as a matter of fact.
I'm not saying don't buy the longer lens, by any means. But don't let its lack keep you from shooting with something shorter. Great kritterscapes will pay for that big lens faster than it will pay for itself, if you're thinking of the pro side of life.
BTW- For anyone else interested in testing my points, here's a practical tip. Use rubber cement to add a pad of pipe insulation or indoor/outdoor carpeting to the top surface of the pivot on your Wimberly head. It makes a great rest for steadying your shorter outfit without going to the trouble of dismounting the long lens from the Wimberly's platform.
I have the Canon 400 f5.6L on one body for the tight stuff and a 70-200 f2.8L on another body when I want the environmental portraits.
And I echo Hank's thoughts on markets and tight vs environmental shots. My images that include some or a lot of the subject's environment outsell tight portraits 5-1. It's why I don't spend much time on 'bird-on-a-stick' photography. Well, the other reason I don't spend much time on it is it isn't very interesting to me.
Unless tight portraiture of birds and animals is what you want, you don't need more than 300mm except in a few cases. It's a rare "kritterscape" that can't be adequately captured with 300 to 400mm, and usually less.
And the Canon 70-200 series, coupled with a 1.4 TC, yields excellent image quality. The 2X degrades IQ on the zoom too far, IMO.
My idea of wildlife pretty much consists of insect, spiders and creepy crawlies. I'm not sure what I would do with a 500mm if someone handed one to me, although I probably could come up with something (mostly likely involving extension tubes and dragonflies)
I shoot a wide genre of subject matter. This in turn determines the type of lens I use and how I wish to communicate to the viewer!
I have had a great many lenses over the years but mainly stick with three in my main bag for 90% of my shoots;
12-24mm f/4
70-200mm f/2.8 sometime I replace it with the 300mm f/4
600mm f/4 (My most used lens!!!)
and I always carry a 1.7x TC & a 20mm Extension tube with me!
The above three lenses can enable me to travel light and photograph anything I come across from sweeping landscapes to a small bird or an insect! It suits my style of shooting!
I also own a 28-70mm f/2.8 (landscape), 300mm f/4 (macro, birds in-flight), 200-400mm f/4 (mammals, big birds and in-flight) which all comes in handy for variety of subject matters, but none get aired anywhere near as often as the first three lenses mentioned!
For macro work I have a 105mm f/2.8 and a 200mm f/4 (great for long working distances).
However, the 70-200mm (& the 300mm f/4) with an extension tube doubles very nicely as a macro lens. So my macro lenses don’t get aired much either.
Think long and hard about what you shoot, before buying a lens as their expensive to just sit there!
I have also used the 70-200 vr 2.8 lens. Sometimes with a 1.4X attached. I also use an 80-400 vr but that one is slower so it depends on conditions and what you are shooting.
By the way, I would also suggest renting a lens first before you buy. More and more places are popping up to rent lenses at resonable prices.
Don
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 9, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I have the Nikon 70-200mm VR and the 80-400mm VR. The 70-200mm will give OK images with a 1.4x. I haven't tried the Nikon 1.7x, and I'm not going to bother with the 2x. For wildlife I mostly use my 80-400mm VR. It's usually long enough on my D80 and is sharp. It is slow with autofocus but all in all a good lens for the money. Sigma has a new 120-400mm OS which could be a great alternative.
Kent in SD
Posted by Nathan Lovas on June 13, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I use a nikon 600 AFS as well as a 200-400 VR. If I could only afford one I would pick the 200-400 as it is versatile and you can hand hold it. I use both with a 1.4 and 1.7 TC. I love them both.
Discussion
12 repliesMyself I'm testing with my 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x-2x converters for now. Just learning how to get the best out of this set-up. But recently I've been looking at the new Sigma 150-500mm. Would be nice but don't know yet if I'll make the jump or not.
I use a Tamron 28 - 300MM with IS. I find it a very versatile lens and has a fast focus resulting in few really soft images.
I also have a Canon 100 - 400 MM which I am trying to learn how to use!! When it is on it is tack sharp otherwise there are a lot of soft images which I am not use to after using the Tamron lens.
Using any converter has its trade offs so be prepared.
.
While I have a 500 f/4 Nikkor with an assortment of extenders along with a couple of 300's (f/2.8 and f/4) I always have at least my 80-200 and/or my 24-120 close at hand on a second body. I strive to get shots with both the long lens and the wider lens, but always find that the ones with the wider lens are more appealing to audiences in general, and to me, as a matter of fact.
I'm not saying don't buy the longer lens, by any means. But don't let its lack keep you from shooting with something shorter. Great kritterscapes will pay for that big lens faster than it will pay for itself, if you're thinking of the pro side of life.
BTW- For anyone else interested in testing my points, here's a practical tip. Use rubber cement to add a pad of pipe insulation or indoor/outdoor carpeting to the top surface of the pivot on your Wimberly head. It makes a great rest for steadying your shorter outfit without going to the trouble of dismounting the long lens from the Wimberly's platform.
And I echo Hank's thoughts on markets and tight vs environmental shots. My images that include some or a lot of the subject's environment outsell tight portraits 5-1. It's why I don't spend much time on 'bird-on-a-stick' photography. Well, the other reason I don't spend much time on it is it isn't very interesting to me.
Unless tight portraiture of birds and animals is what you want, you don't need more than 300mm except in a few cases. It's a rare "kritterscape" that can't be adequately captured with 300 to 400mm, and usually less.
And the Canon 70-200 series, coupled with a 1.4 TC, yields excellent image quality. The 2X degrades IQ on the zoom too far, IMO.
My idea of wildlife pretty much consists of insect, spiders and creepy crawlies. I'm not sure what I would do with a 500mm if someone handed one to me, although I probably could come up with something (mostly likely involving extension tubes and dragonflies)
I should have mentioned none small critters at a good distance.
I shoot a wide genre of subject matter. This in turn determines the type of lens I use and how I wish to communicate to the viewer!
I have had a great many lenses over the years but mainly stick with three in my main bag for 90% of my shoots;
12-24mm f/4
70-200mm f/2.8 sometime I replace it with the 300mm f/4
600mm f/4 (My most used lens!!!)
and I always carry a 1.7x TC & a 20mm Extension tube with me!
The above three lenses can enable me to travel light and photograph anything I come across from sweeping landscapes to a small bird or an insect! It suits my style of shooting!
I also own a 28-70mm f/2.8 (landscape), 300mm f/4 (macro, birds in-flight), 200-400mm f/4 (mammals, big birds and in-flight) which all comes in handy for variety of subject matters, but none get aired anywhere near as often as the first three lenses mentioned!
For macro work I have a 105mm f/2.8 and a 200mm f/4 (great for long working distances).
However, the 70-200mm (& the 300mm f/4) with an extension tube doubles very nicely as a macro lens. So my macro lenses don’t get aired much either.
Think long and hard about what you shoot, before buying a lens as their expensive to just sit there!
Happy shooting!
Don
Kent in SD