Bird Photography

I will be going to Honduras in June to primarily photograph birds and

am in the process of exploring my options for lens choices. My

longest lens is a 100 2.8 APO which will most likely be inadequate

for most situations. I have had no experience using the 280 or 400 or

any of the other long lenses. Any suggestions regarding these

lenses.....also, I am not opposed to investing the lense money to buy

another system all together. The photos will be used mostly for

print purposes. Thanks.

<a href=http://www.wildlightphoto.com/>Douglas Herr</a> is the expert on this

forum...jf

<a href="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/400R68.HTM">Douglas Herr review on telyt 400 /6.8 </a>

I typically used a 300mm or a 500mm. The 300mm always seemed to come up a bit too short. Great for bigger birds, or when you could get fairly close.<div></div>

<<also, I am not opposed to investing the lense money to buy another system all together.>>

 

In that case instead of throwing good money after bad, read what all the top-paid published wildlife pros and the majority of experienced serious amateurs use. www.birdsasart.com, www.nanpa.org, www.leppphoto.com, www.naturephotographers.net for starters. Do google searches on Frans Lanting, Art Wolfe, Tim Fitzharris, Fritz Poelking, Carl Sams, Heather Angel. The Leica Forum is a lousy place to get a normal perspective of wildlife photography. You'll hear about Norbert Rosing who is about as unbiased as Erwin and for much the same reason, and one unknown guy who insists on sticking with a ragtag heap of ancient Leicaflex equipment and between talent and perserverence manages to make a few really nice images with it. I don't have that much talent or time, so as much as I love the Leica M for travel photography, for wildlife I use Canon EOS with Image Stabilizers, which is the choice of probably 85-90% of pro wildlife shooters, with Nikon AF being chosen by the remainder. Among amateurs it's probably 75% EOS, 20% Nikon and the last 5% divided among the other brands with Leica most likely under 1%.

500mm Lens, used with a Monopod<div></div>

PS: Now that I've gone digital with the EOS system I will be posting wildlife images with it. But not on this forum.

Meade 1000mm F11, Tripod, Nikon FE2 using Self-timer on short delay to flip mirror-up.<div></div>

The 560 f/6,8 Telyt, if you can find one, is a perfect choice. See Doug Herr's site.

www.joelsartore.com

 

Joel uses Nikons and the Nikon 600mm. A fast autofocus lens is one feature you should

be looking for too. D100 digital SLR with the Nikon 70-200 VR lens is not a bad choice

either. Canon also has some excellent image stabilization lenses.

I gotta say, this looks like a job for an SLR, not a Leica, although from your question, I suspect that you have Leica R-series SLRs

 

I'd personally recommend either Nikon or Canon manual focus gear, although if you already have an investment in Leica R-series gear, you could do fine with a Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 lens which can fit your Leica R SLR with an Adaptall-2 mount, and a Tamron SP flat field 1.4X and 2X converters, which will give you a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6 lens.

 

The Tamron 300mm lens tends to sell on ebay for $800-$1000 or so, plus $50 or so for the R-series Adaptall-2 mount, and the converters are under $50 items 2nd hand.

 

Here are a couple of them currently selling on ebay, although with Nikon and/or Canon interchangeable mounts, so you'll still need to get an R-series mount:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2985606290&category=4687

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2985855834&category=48556

The Leica Telyt's smoke those lenses, Greg.

 

Here is one for sale, right now.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2986315131&category=12872

>Jay . Photo.net Hero, feb 12, 2004; 11:40 a.m.

PS: Now that I've gone digital with the EOS system I will be posting wildlife images with it. But not on this forum.

 

Enough with the threats, tough guy.

Jay...thanks for the info. I will check it out. I would like to see your EOS photos?

 

Brian..very nice photos

 

What about the Marty Stouffer 400mm on Ebay? (one bid already)

Jay wrote: <I>one unknown guy who insists on sticking with a

ragtag heap of ancient Leicaflex equipment</I>

<P>

LOL! Jay's about as unbiased as they come ... NOT! Let's see,

what does 'ragtag' mean? Does that mean it's been more than 6

months since DAG has serviced the cameras? If so Jay's off

base. If that means I haven't validated his choice of equipment

by buying into the same corporate marketing hoopla that hooked

him, then yes my Leicaflexes are ragtag.

<P>

What Jay fails to realize (or acknowledge) is that there are as

many approaches to bird photography as there are to people

photography. Equipment choices depend a lot on what kind of

images you want. If you want sequences of action, something

with a high frame rate is a good choice and my Leicaflexes are

not. If your vision or eye-hand coordination are so poor that you

cannot focus a long lens, a recent AF SLR is a good choice and

my Leicaflexes are not. If you're a caffeine addict who can't keep

a camera steady, Canon's IS or Nikon's VR technology can be

very handy. None of the Leica cameras have that.

<P>

I'm not interested in the action sequences that many other

people want to capture, so a high frame rate isn't important to

me. I don't often photograph in dense rain forests so TTL flash

and 400mm f/2.8 lenses aren't important to me. BTW the old

pre-modular Leica 400mm f/2.8 APO is significantly sharper than

the current Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS at f/2.8 - and if f/2.8 isn't

important, buy a slower lens.

<P>

What I'm interested in is well-composed photographs that

include wildlife. I like being able to clearly see the image in the

viewfinder, I like being able to see if everything I want to be in

focus is sharp even if it's not on an AF sensor, I want to be able

to focus accurately on anything within the picure area even if it's

not where AF sensors are typically placed. The SL's viewfinder

lets me do all this. I also want a very short shutter lag so that

when I see the right posture or expression on the bird's face I

can tell the camera NOW. The SL lets me do that. The SL also

lets me use shutter speeds anywhere between marked settings

without resorting to an AE lock (which really should be called an

AE 'hold'). Until a new camera is made that combines a

viewfinder and shutter and responsiveness like the SL has, I'll

continue to use them and keep them in top working condition

with the help of Don Goldberg and Sherry Krauter.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/haha00.jpg">

<BR>

<B>Harris' Hawk</B>, captive - Sacramento, California<BR>

<I>Leicaflex SL, 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, Kodachrome 25</I>

<P>

</CENTER>

Before deciding on the equipment you want to buy, get a better

idea of the kind of photographs you want, the kind of field

conditions you're likely to encounter, and your personal habits

and needs. Things to consider include lighting, types of

vegetation and habitats (i.e., plains, forests, understory, water

holes), how far you'll be carrying the stuff from mechanized

transport or pack animals, how much weight you're willing to

carry, whether you're willing to be tied to a tripod, how

weather-proof you expect the camera to be, whether you'll have

backup equipment and supplies available (a spare body, film,

batteries, memory cards, cables, CD burner if you use digital

capture). Once you define/refine your working conditions the

equipment choice will be easier.

Whatever you decide, practice with it quite a bit before you go. You will need at least 400mm and the 6.8 Telyt will give great images under the conditions Doug Herr has mentioned. I also have the 500mm mirror lens, but have some trouble focussing accurately unless the bird is very still and the lens is supported (it is light enough to hand hold, but too light for me to hold it steady).

 

I also have a Canon EOS 1v with a 100-400 IS zoom. Works well with birds in flight if you can keep them in the focus area, but Doug gets better pictures with his 400mm Telyt and the Leicaflex SL than I have managed with the Canon.

I agree mostly with what Doug says. I have never used either the 400/2.8 Leica or Canon lenses (and I doubt whether Doug has either but that's neither here or there)so I can't say which is the sharper lens. I do know that Erwin, the most biased pro-Leica guy I can think of, says in his Lens Compendium that the pre-modular 280/2.8 is softer in the corners the Canon 300/2.8L-IS and the 400/2.8 pre-modular is softer than the 280/2.8, and most Canon shooters agree the 300/2.8IS and 400/2.8IS are quite equal in performance, then the overwhelming conclusion is that Doug is talking out his a** but again I can't say so for certain because I've never personally used either of those 400's.

 

I agree with Doug 100% that if you have a limited choice of subject that happens to fall within the limitations of the Leica reflexes you might consider that system on equal ground or perhaps even higher ground than a system such as Nikon or Canon which would be suitable for a universal host of wildlife subjects. Certainly everyone must realize that features such as the fast motor-drive, AF and Image Stabilization all have "off" switches. The Nikon F5 even lets you rewind the film by hand if you desire, although you still must suffer with the instant motorized loading. Then again not all of us have had the opportunity that Doug has to have served an apprecticeship with Dr. Doolittle and can instruct any animal to kindly hold their pose until he rewinds and reloads his Leicaflex.

 

But in the end I still advise Greg not to take my word, because I am not a published author, lecturer and authority on wildlife photography with an internaional reputation. The names I listed above as authorities on wildlife photography are. And they all embrace the modern technology including AF (when it suits them) and Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction. But maybe they're all just palsied, caffiene-addicted charlatans as Doug implies.

I have to agree with Jay that the Canon EOS telephotos are the state of the art for bird photography. It's mostly about heavy lenses and equipment, big tripods and ballheads etc. so the biggest I have is an eos 300 4.0 that I can barely carry for very long. I'm a big fan of Doug Herr. Bird and wildlife photography like most any other type of photography can be done, in a pinch, with whatever equipment you have at hand. You go there and you take the picture with whatever you have. Good luck.<div></div>

Seems to me the poof is in the pontification, whereas the proof is in the posted pics.

Rhino eyes with the 560mm f/6,8 Telyt. This lens is superb, though this scan may not show it. Made on K25 in 1979.

Where, where, i can't see any birds, just a Rhinos arse...oops sorry, i mean his eyes.

In the slide you can see his eyelashes clearly.

As a believer i looked at Han's photo. If you look you will see a head of a little bloke having his brain removed. Honest, not a joke...look towards the left of the photo.

Oh, God, not that infected rhino again.

Jay wrote: <I>I have never used either the 400/2.8 Leica or

Canon lenses (and I doubt whether Doug has either but that's

neither here or there)so I can't say which is the sharper lens. I do

know that Erwin, the most biased pro-Leica guy I can think of,

says in his Lens Compendium that the pre-modular 280/2.8 is

softer in the corners the Canon 300/2.8L-IS and the 400/2.8

pre-modular is softer than the 280/2.8, and most Canon

shooters agree the 300/2.8IS and 400/2.8IS are quite equal in

performance, then the overwhelming conclusion is that Doug is

talking out his a** but again I can't say so for certain because I've

never personally used either of those 400's. </I>

<P>

Jay, I haven't used them personally but a friend whose mortgage

payment depends on his work as a sports photographer uses

both. He has used the Leica 400mm f/2.8 for several years,

initially on his R8 and now also on a Canon 1D with an adapter.

He bought the Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS for the convenience of

AF, IS and auto-diaphragm which as you know doens't work on

the Leica lens when on the Canon body. His initial plan was to

sell the Leica lens but after testing them he's keeping both. I

have seen his files produced by the 1D with no post-processing

and agree that the Leica lens is sharper at f/2.8, and that by f/4.0

the sharpness is essentially equal. The Leica lens has better

color quality. As for talking out of my a**, considering the fact that

as chordates we're all deuterostomes, that seems like the

natural thing to do [grin]. BTW I find it odd that you use Erwin as

a reference while questioning his objectivity.

<P>

Jay continues: <I>Certainly everyone must realize that features

such as the fast motor-drive, AF and Image Stabilization all have

"off" switches. The Nikon F5 even lets you rewind the film by

hand if you desire, although you still must suffer with the instant

motorized loading. Then again not all of us have had the

opportunity that Doug has to have served an apprecticeship with

Dr. Doolittle and can instruct any animal to kindly hold their pose

until he rewinds and reloads his Leicaflex. </I>

<P>

What I find quicker than motorized rewind and re-load is having a

second camera body pre-loaded with film. This also provides

the benefit of having a redundant camera in case of accident.

<P>

Jay writes more (surprise!): <I>But in the end I still advise Greg

not to take my word, because I am not a published author,

lecturer and authority on wildlife photography with an internaional

reputation. The names I listed above as authorities on wildlife

photography are. And they all embrace the modern technology

including AF (when it suits them) and Image

Stabilization/Vibration Reduction. But maybe they're all just

palsied, caffiene-addicted charlatans as Doug implies.</I>

<P>

Sorry to say but it now seems like you're parroting the Canon

corporate marketing hoopla. I'm sure your <I>objective</I>

advice is appreciated but in the end each of us decides what fits

our own preferences. If I understand you correctly, Canon's IS

technology is what influenced your choice most. A high-quality

viewfinder is one of the most important features for me.

<P>

Gil Pruitt wrote: <I> It's mostly about heavy lenses and

equipment, big tripods and ballheads etc. so the biggest I have

is an eos 300 4.0 that I can barely carry for very long.</I>

<P>

Gil, much can be done with a 300mm f/4.0. Here's a <A

HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html"

target="_blank">link</A> to several photos made with lenses

from 250mm to 300mm, none faster than f/4. There are times

when only a long fast heavy lens will do the job but in many

cases knowing your subject can substitute for a lot of mm of

focal length.