Equipment for Mammal and Bird Photography for a 14 Year Old (What equipment to buy?)

Im only 14 and kind of on a tight budget. I own a Canon EOS Elan 7e

and the only lens I have is the one that came with it. My primary

interest is mammal and bird photography. What lenses, tripod, tripod

heads, accesories, and other things will i need? Any suggestions on

equipment will do.

No matter what type of lens came with the camera it will be usable for nature photography. I think that your priorities would be:

 

-Film and lots of it. You will have to learn how to compose the pictures, expose correctly and more basic technique. There is only one way to do this: Shoot lots of pictures and study your results (and other photographers pictures) carefully.

- A Tripod (not necessarily very expensive). This will help get sharper pictures.

-Eventually (is not christmas coming soon?) A lens like a 70-200 mm or so. This could make it easier to get closer to the birds w/o scaring them off. Or closer to the elephant seals w/o them scaring you off.

Go with 400/5.6L, for small birds you might need extension tubes, you can shoot handheld, unless you can afford decent tripod and ballhead. More expensive and lower quality solution will be 300/4L IS + TC's.

I think on a budget you should look at getting the cheapest equipment that will do the job and then upgrade it later when you can afford to:

 

My suggestions for mammal and bird photography on a tight budget would be to start out with a Canon 75-300 or 100-300 zoom lens to get going with, along with a Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 (190 outside the US) and a Bogen/Manfrotto ball head with quick release. The lens can be had for around $150 and the tripod and head for about the same. Once you have these items I would save up for a second hand/third party 300F4 or 400F5.6 prime and some teleconverters.

 

At 14 years old you have plenty of time to acquire better equipement later on, and this starter kit will definitely enable you to get some good pictures.

Petr..Just curious as to why you think the 300 f4 IS is a lower quality solution?

Several times 300 L IS was reported to have subpar performance compared wide open to other "L" telephotos, but still on par or better than "L" zooms wide open. Understand, it's not bad, not at all, but there are better lenses (not mentioning TC added).<br>

If JS is into birds, they still look small despite 400mm focal length (take it as an reaction for 70-200 advice (<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=155737">I use 70-200/2.8 with TC's</a>, but's it's pain in the ass)), and I'm against cheapo lenses - I started with such and I almost lost all love for photography because of fact, I simply was not able to get I was hoping for.

Um, if you're broke then "L" lenses are probably out of the question. You might want to learn about blinds and stalking technique, remembering the two golden rules of wildlife photography:

 

1) Don't get a longer lens, get closer.

 

2) The longer a lens is, the more it costs, other things equal, the harder it is to use, and the less useful it is in general.

If you really are on a VERY tight budget and want a fairly sharp lens in the 300 f5.6 range you might look at some old "T" mount lenses. I've actually been quite impressed with the quality of these lenses that nobody wants anymore, they rarely cost over $50. I've only used them on Pentax cameras myself, but I'm sure you can find an EOS T mount adaptor. There are many different makers; I used to own a Spirltone (sorry, I'm not sure of the spelling) myself, but there are many other makers of these (I think mine was actually listed as 300mm f5.5). These are actually long lenses (not telephoto) so a 300mm lens is actually 300mm long; you probably want to work off a tripod.

 

Where to find them? Old camera stores, camera shows and I suppose online at places like keh (www.keh.com). They are fun lenses to use but a lot more difficult than the new lenses the other posters listed. Good luck!

 

Doug

I would try for a 300mm and a good tripod. Then a 1.4x converter when you have more money. Do not get a mirror lens no matter how good a deal it seems. I spent a lot of time taking bad photos when I was 14 with a 500mm mirror lens. After the lens I would get a pocket blind and lots and lots of film. Good luck.

 

Harry.

Like the above poster said, old T-mount lenses are a bargain way into long focal lengths. 400 and 500 mm lenses are around for low prices but they're slow - this is not too serious if you use them on a tripod, autofocus is not an issue because they're not. Mirror lenses are not good - the best are quite expensive and even they are not the equal of a refractive lens. They also are slow and need a solid tripod. However, if you can find one real cheap, it's a way in. You can practice positioning and composition, and hone your skills for when you can afford a good lens!

I can appreciate being on a tight budget - kind of where I'm at. Basically, you're going to have to save for quite a few years. I bought a second hand SLR when I was about 15. It broke irreperably about 2 weeks later, and that was that until I had saved enough money. That took me from then to 2 years ago before I could afford to buy myself another one (I'm 24 now). Make sure you don't make yourself so broke you can't afford film and development costs.

 

As for what lenses you'd find useful for bird and mammal photography, the cheapest new long lens you will find will be the 170-500mm from Sigma; I use this with my EOS 50e and it's not a bad lens if you accept its limitations (i.e. it's quite slow). Easy to get round if you are prepared to use a faster film. Michael Spinak uses one amongst several other lenses and he gets nice results with it (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=67986).

 

You absolutely positively need a tripod. Buy the best one you can afford; the head you use is a matter of personal preference and budget. Whilst an Arca Swiss ballhead or Wimberley head might be the ideal thing, you're probably only going to be able to afford a 3 way head. I have a Manfrotto 055 NAT2 and 141RC head - it's a great tripod. Exactly what you get doesn't matter as long as it is steady enough for you. A quick test it to mount the camera and the longest lens you will use onto the tripod and flick the end of the lens/lens hood. There should be virtually no movement, and if there is, it should stop really fast. Cheap tripods will wobble a lot with long lenses, and that's really annoying if you're using slow film and long lenses - you will get a lot of blurry shots. Of course, the "solution" is to use faster film until you can afford a better tripod. Read the tripod guide on photo.net as well.

 

It's handy to have a nice backpack style camera bag to tramp through the woods etc. looking for subjects, especially if your parents aren't willing to drive you around the place, or sit for hours waiting around for the right pose and light - you can go off under your own steam (as long as it's in a safe area, of course!). You can also have a lot of fun in your backyard, and it's a good place to practice. You can use a regular backpack if you have to, but make sure the camera and lenses are padded a bit.

 

A cable release can come in handy.

 

Film, film, film! The more film you can run through your camera, the better. Take time out to look at your photos and decide what is and is not a good photo - and look at the work of others too. Then go out and get better photos next time. After a while you will see things that win major competitions and wonder what the Judge was thinking. Eventually, you might go "hey, I have photos better than that" and enter yourself. In this case, you should also think about using slide rather than print film. Slide film also lets you know better how good your exposure is - which is important.

 

Good luck!

 

J.

Come on folks, he's 14...14 do you remember that? Recs for a 300f/4 + TC and stuff are fine and dandy, but completely impractical unless this kid is self-made or has rich doting parents. Geez, I didn't own anything better than a cheezy Sigma 70-210 f5.6 + a $25 2xTC for years while I learned. Took some decent (and some really crappy) pictures too.

 

J.S.--

Listen to the "just shoot pictures" advice....shoot LOTS of pictures. Show them to people besides your friends and parents that have lots of experience with photos and let them pick you to pieces. Buy a good book or two (John Shaw has some very good nature photography books to get you started on the essentials) and study his techniques and pictures. Then take more pictures and figure out what you did wrong, fix it. When you are taking perfect pictures except that the image quality is not great because of your inferior lens/camera/tripod, whatever, then you're ready to worry about the best lens/tripod/camera to buy. I would suggest a zoom in the 70-200 range in addition to the one that came with your camera (probably a 28-70 or so?). It can be had for a couple hundred dollars third party (i.e. Sigma, Tamron, etc.) and will give you a little more "reach". I think you'll be frustrated trying to adapt older "T"-mount lenses to your camera--just one more headache while you try to just take pictures.

 

I also agree that you need a tripod. But don't get some big heavy fancy think that you won't take with you. There are some good compomises out there between the cheezy plastic ones and the $800 carbon fibers. I'd say you could find an OK aluminum one with a pan-tilt head that will suffice to start with for about $50-75. Make your X-mas list short and sweet....1-tripod, 1-70-200 zoom lens, 3 bricks of film (slide film will make you work hard for proper exposure, print film will be much more satisfying and forgiving, you decide but stick to one film to start so you can predict what it will do and make consistant assessments of your skill), and 1-John Shaw Nature photography book.

 

As you can tell from all the posts above that there are a million opinions out there. But some of the advice is just ridiculously impractical for any 14y/o unless you're some kind of prodigy and have been doing pro-level work for years. Equipment is important, but you'll never know the difference if you don't get the basics down first. I shot for a LOT of years with very cheap gear, learned a lot, so I knew when I was ready for good gear, knew what it would do for my photography, knew what gear I needed, and knew that my images would be better with it do to all those factors. You'll know when you're ready too. The EOS 7e is a very fine camera and there is no reason you should/will outgrow it any time soon.

 

Good luck.

--evan

When I was 14 I used an EOS 1000FN with 35-80 USM (kit lens eurghhhhh) and 80-200 USM (actually a surprisingly good little lens), and used it for this kind of work.

 

Longer is always good. I'd look at getting a canon 75-300 or 100-300 (USM or F5.6L) second hand. If you still want longer, find yourself a third-party 400 F5.6 used (ebay they go under $200), although you have to be aware that there may be compatibility issues with these lenses and your Elan7e. Check carefully before you buy.

 

Tripods are easy to spend a lot of money on. Question is what you need. A cheapo tripod may not be any better than none at all, if it shakes all over the place. Look at the Manfrotto 190 and head kits as a reasonable start in that.

 

Other useful things will be a remote release for working on tripod, spare batteries (mail order your batteries, they're much cheaper that way. Parent with credit card may be useful), lots of film and lots of patience.

 

Now I'm 20, and have an EOS 3, with several good lenses. I know where you're at because it wasn't so long ago that I was there. It IS possible to get perfectly good pics without L series lenses. Look in my America 2000 folder for a selection taken with my 24-85 and a cheap sigma 70-300 APO.

Another idea is to get an 85 f1.8 or 100 f/2. These are sharp and fast portrait

lenses, which is really what you're talking about�taking portraits of mammals

and birds. They'll have to be fairly tame and large mammals and birds in order

for you to fill the frame, but you aren't going to bag many shots of elusive

creatures with a 300mm either.

JS, you have gotten many pieces of advice. I will add my 2 cents worth. When on a tight budget spend your money wisely. It might be worth your while to find a camera club and attend regularly. You can meet other photographers and maybe see some of the equipment they use and how they use it. After seeing a wide variety of equipment and the results then decide what to spend your money on. Maybe you can go on club outings and learn first hand how other photographers operate.

 

Don't be in a hurry to spend limited amounts of money. Most of all have fun. Good luck!

<center> <img border=2 src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1072847&size=lg"> </center>

 

<center> <img border=2 src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1072843&size=lg"> </center>

 

Nikon F2 with 300/4.5 Nikkor AI($200), probably a 300mm Canon lens would do. The main thing is to get some film trough your camera and learn to come close to birds. I started with wildlife photography recently, i do travel/street work mainly.

 

The problem with TC's is the chromatic abberation(color shifting) heres a bad example.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1072844&size=lg

 

Greetings,

He/She is 14 and you guys are suggesting Canons L lenses? LOL

Those who recommend Canon L lenses (or Leica for that matter) to a 14 year old should pay for the equipment. :-) When I was 15 I used a Minolta SRT-101 with 135mm and 28mm manual focus lenses. Actually that was quite good for an early teen.

JS

For any sort of bird/animal photography, what I suggest is get the longest lens you can find. It won't be long enough,no matter the length, but you'll need it

Now, with that out of the way, my experience is that you will need minimum 300mm. Search the net, etc., and try to find the best Canon or third party you can for what you can afford.

While the lenses that provide the largest max apertures are probably the best made (and most expensive in geometric progression), I don't look for that aspect, as your depth of field is going to be pretty small, and you'll need smaller apertures, not larger ones

My current tripods are the Bogen 3001, light and good flexibility, and the (I think) 3021N Pro, with the horizontally adjustable centerpost.

I use a little magnesium Bogen 3-way head, 3047 I think it is, not that big a fan of ball heads

Another way to photograph animals on a budget is to set up your camera in

a fixed position and use a remote. There are obviously limitations to this

approach, but it can be done without expensive lenses and tripods.

 

It requires subjects that frequent the same location so you can compose

your picture and set up the camera in advance. It also requires the

photographer to be patient enough to wait for the subject to come to the

camera.

 

You can learn with back yard "wildlife". Around here that would include

birds, squirels, chipmunks, groundhogs, rabbits, racoons, deer, etc. If

your remote has enough range, you can sit in the house while waiting for

your subject. Once you've perfected your technique you can try your luck

in more natural settings.

 

A wireless remote is easier to set up, but a cable release will also

work. A miniature tripod such as the ultrapod http://www.pedcopods.com/

is a useful camera support. It can be used as a tripod, or it can be

strapped to a tree branch or fence.

 

You can use just about any kind of lens for this type of photography, but

I used to use either a 35mm or 55mm. Since I used a manual focus camera

the focus had to be preset. I genereally stopped the lens down which

would give me a better chance catch my subject in focus.

 

My favorite shot I took with a remote had the camera strapped to a large

oak tree pointing straight up. I caught a squirrel coming down the trunk

with the canopy of the huge oak tree in the background.

Hi JS

 

Since exposing a lot of film is very expensive and considering the price of long focal lenses, I would suggest you to buy a numeric camera. You can get a good numeric camera with a 10X (500mm)lens zoom for a reasonnable price. Then, you can shoot as much as you want and learn all what you need to learn without spending money for film and development. Great solution for little budget! I wish I had this possibility when I started !

 

Alain Hogue

I disagree with the advice on a digital camera because:

 

All digital cameras where you have manual controls are really expensive much more so than a SLR camera with a set of lenses.

 

And without manual control you will not learn a lot about photography. You will have to focus manually at times, set a certain aperture to get the image with a big I.

 

Agreed you will save on film. On the other hand you will have to spend $1000 or more for the camera, beef up your computer, get a highresolution printer, a CD-writer....

 

Shoot slide film (transpaerncies) and get a good used projector. This will teach you tons about exposure. (Projectors can be had for $40 or so).

He already has the film camera.....

Listen to Evan.

I also believe Evan is right.