Maximising reach

Hi all. Having just spent a week hovering around Hayden Valley in Yellowstone trying to take shots of wolves half a mile away, I discovered that a D810, a TC-14e and a 200-500 is "not enough lens" - especially shooting around f/11 for quality. I'm considering another trip next year; I'll likely have traded my D810 for a D850 by then (for a little more reach, since the pixel density is up to D500 rather than D7000 levels, and a lot more autofocus), but I'm thinking ahead for lens hire (definitely not purchase!)

 

There was someone there with a D5 and a 600mm f/4 with a TC-20 attached. I'd have said the 800mm f/5.6 and its TC800-1.25E would be a better idea, but it struck me that might actually not be true - and even a TC-14 wouldn't quite have the same reach.

 

So, I believe the 600mm + TC-20 combination is the longest Nikon option that'll autofocus (ignoring something like a Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 with its 2x teleconverter with another 1.4x teleconverter stacked on the back). What I'm less sure of is how the quality holds up against a smaller teleconverter on the 800mm. I'm hoping either would avoid too much need to stop down to f/11 for quality, where I'm adding diffraction and ISO, especially at dawn and dusk when the carnivores are about.

 

Any thoughts from people who've tried the big guns? If I didn't need autofocus I could actually buy a 10" Dobsonian (I have one at home, but it doesn't exactly fit in a suitcase) and cart it around for less money than a week's hire of an 800mm, but I suspect that's too insane even for me. :-)

 

And yes, I realise it may be less hassle to get closer to a wolf in Alaska...

You might consider the 600 5.6 AI with a variety of nikon converters - no autofocus, but affordable as are the converters. I have found it very useful (if large and heavy) when the light is good. Was at Yellowstone yesterday, and the light was magnificent.

Personally, I wouldn't use anything beyond maybe a 600mm + 1.4x TC, on a DX body. Beyond that, you are shooting through way too much air where pollution and heat simmer, not to mention vibration.

too much air where pollution

Except for Wildfire smoke in season, pretty pristine. There is always Schlieren Effect in the heat.

My brother used a 500 mm mirror lens, which was plagued by heat shimmer, in Iceland no less. For wildlife, there is no substitute for stalking and concealment.

I entirely agree with Ed and Shun.

Those occasions when the air is cool enough not to give turbulence, free of condensation and pollution, are few and far between.

 

Warning for those with a short attention span - There now follows a slightly long anecdote.

 

As I found out a few months ago, an air temperature gradient can cause a severe degradation of quality too. I was checking out an old 400mm Novoflex lens (not too bad incidentally) and it was cold enough to have a few flakes of snow in the air. "Great" I thought, "no heat turbulence." However, just for the sake of comfort, I decided to set up the tripod inside my conservatory and shoot through the open door. What a mistake! The image quality was appallingly soft.

 

Anyhow, to cut this story tolerably short: When I took the setup outside the IQ became crystal clear. Dragged all the gear back inside again, and was presented with a horribly soft image. I repeated that sequence a few times just to reassure myself that I wasn't going mad, all with the same result.

 

I can only conclude that the warm air flowing out and the cold air flowing in must have created a curtain of turbulence sufficiently severe to make the IQ totally unusable.

 

So maybe even shooting from the shelter of a warm hide might be enough to take the edge off the quality of that expensive long lens you took out a 2nd mortgage on?

Half a mile is way too far to get a photo. Even a quarter mile is too far. A tenth mile is really pushing it.

 

 

Kent in SD

A tenth mile is really pushing it.

I probably give up already if the subject is more than 1/20 mile distant (about 80m or 260 ft); much closer when it's a bird. The image below was made with the D500 and 200-500 at 500mm, f/8, 1/1000s, ISO 1100. So the FX-equivalent focal length was 750mm, just a tad more than what Andrew had with the 200-500/TC-14E combo. The image is cropped from 3:2 to 5:4 and with a slight crop from the bottom. Distance according to EXIF about 40m/130ft.

About 60m distant, D500 with 200-500 at 500mm, f/8, 1/400, ISO 2800; cropped similar to the one above.

A bear eating a dandelion. Now there's something you don't see every day!

Nikon p900 ==> 2000mm comparative .. ;)

Thanks, all. I had two problems, there: that the wolves are very wary of people, and that Yellowstone has a 100 yard policy for maintaining distance from carnivores. I don't think I'd have got attacked by wolves if I'd wandered into Hayden Valley to where the pack was, but I do think they'd have hidden, and I'd have been attacked by twenty people with spotting scopes when I got back to the road. I think I actually ended up closer than the limit to a couple of black bears (mostly because I couldn't see them when I parked - I was probably around 60-70m, which I feel guilty about - I'll check EXIF, though there were much closer people getting shouted at). I appreciate I'm not going to get tack sharp without getting a lot closer, but dawn in a national park is probably about the best bet for atmospherics without using a laser with adaptive optics. If I get the chance next year, I'll try to do Glacier as well as Yellowstone, which might improve my odds of nearby bears, at least.

 

I suspect the guy using the 600mm + TC20 was benefitting from the low pixel density of the D5 - I'd get as much reach from a TC14 on a D850 (or D500). I'm vaguely leaning towards assuming I'd do better with the 800mm, in that case (on the principle that any lens without a teleconverter is usually better than one with one), and just using the TC12 if needed, without trying to hit 1200mm?

 

Or I could just try digiscoping. Some people seemed to be getting a better view through a spotting scope than I was managing at 700mm and viewing at 1:1.

If the Wombles at Nikon hadn't disabled the use of the 200-500mm on the J5, it'd be an easy way to try long reach.

 

It can be made to work on the J1 (with latest firmware and the FT-1) with centre point AF and VR. It's hefty to be sure, but it works.

 

Infact, it can be made to work handheld in good light. AF with the TC 1.4 III added is spotty.

 

...and just to keep Nikon happy, please us the tripod foot on the 200-500mm and NOT the tripod socket on the J1........Ha Ha Ha!

My strategy has been to see where the animals hang out. Find a place that seems to concentrate them such as water, food, or a choke point on a trail. Come back dressed in camo, set up a small blind down wind, and wait. Animal photography is all about waiting. It's like duck hunting. Just going to a spot and hanging out with ta crowd of city people will get you nothing.

 

 

Kent in SD

100 yards is much less than half a mile. I think good image quality happens at a distance of 20m or less, but with the subject that you have it is not possible.

 

I would rent the longest prime lens you can afford and use that without TC. I think at 100 yards you should be able to get some good results with a 500mm, 600mm or 800mm. When photographing from a crowd probably it is difficult to get especially good results. If there is a crowd shooting something I would typically look the other way and find something else to photograph.

Eating the dandelion? I thought the bear was bringing it to Dieter to pay for a print to hang in his den. Great shot Dieter. Love the contradiction, huge bear carrying a fragile flower. Avedon would love it.

Kent, you are spot on. In CA crowds gather at a couple of spots for sandhill cranes and scare they to long distances. I watched the flight pattern, drove to get by it and fully camoed waited. Unfortunately, they moved the pattern quite a bit. Away from my red jeep near me. I moved it and they returned coming over head less than 40 feet up. Could have phototed with a wide angle. With the size of them, I was grateful, none need to drop anything as they went over.

I never shoot from a crowd but always pick my own spot. Unfortunately, there are those with cameras or phones who will follow like iron filings to a magnet. One of the very few reasons I can think of for wearing cammies. :D

> It can be made to work on the J1 (with latest firmware and the FT-1) with centre point AF and VR. It's hefty to be sure, but it works.

 

Hmm. I'd vaguely wondered about wheeling out my V1, but I never got around to getting an FT-1. One would be cheaper than hiring an 800mm for a week, but I'm not sure it optically solves the problem.

 

I do like Dieter's bear - I had grass in the way for my shots of bears munching. On my next trip I may be more willing to hike (fitness permitting); I was mostly on or near the roads, partly because I was on my own and didn't want to have to use bear spray to fend anything off. That may well get me closer to things (other than the black bear walking between cars) - or it may just leave me knackered.

 

The end of September, and being out early and late, does mean the "crowds" were relatively small (and helpfully had spotting scopes, because the only thing I spotted without first seeing the crowd was a juvenile golden eagle). My next chance to visit may be at the end of April, which will hopefully also avoid the worst of the tourists. I may just have needed more luck with distance - I only (just) saw wolves on three occasions, and I'm not sure that trying to wander up to them would have made them any more visible than they were from the Hayden overlook. I'll do some more research, though.

 

One advantage of distance is that the crowd size was limited to those with big telephotos or scopes (people with phones and small cameras, at the risk of being elitist, really didn't see anything), although some people with big teles were a bit louder than I'd have expected. I mostly tried whispering at people (and carefully hired a Prius to drive in EV mode near wildlife) except for the one time people were viewing a nearby fox and I loudly said "so, nothing nearby?" - because every other time I'd said anything that week the response had been "pardon?"

 

Anyway, I think it's sounding like 800mm rather than trying to mess with the 600 + teleconverters, hike somewhere quiet if I can do it without getting eaten by a bear, and don't expect too much (which I don't - although I maintain some people had pretty good views through spotting scopes and atmosphere be damned). Two stops of lens (800mm wide open vs 200-500 + TC14 + down a stop), a stop of camera (D850 at higher ISO vs D810) and three stops of autofocus (f/5.6 vs f/8, Multi-CAM 20K vs 3500) all feel like they'll help. I'll save up.

 

For what it's worth, for scenery I absolutely try to find my own place (or at least, if I'm standing somewhere it's not because someone else was there first - a unique perspective at Yellowstone is pretty unlikely). For wildlife, I was constrained by the road network, but I'll do my best not to be next time. All part of learning - it's taken me three visits to Yellowstone to see any wolves or bears at all...

 

Thanks all! I'll try to share some minimal snaps in some impending Nikon Wednesdays, if only for sympathy.

Here's one I took last summer, in Olympic NP. I noticed a black tailed deer grazing along a ridge line, and I wanted to get a shot. The ridge top was pretty narrow and even though these are park deer and accustomed to people, I knew if I approached it the deer would avoid me. So, I picked a spot well ahead of it and sat downwind in front of a small pine tree. I waited. Soon the deer appeared and was heading along the path in front of me. I sat motionless with my camera ready. When the deer ambled by I took a few shots. The doe knew I was there, but since I was sitting down and not making any sudden movements, it pretty much ignored me. I was using a Nikon D800E with my new preferred wildlife lens--the Nikon 24mm PC-E.:) Don't need no 800mm concrete block to take wildlife photos.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

Ke

these are park deer and accustomed to people,

Had a dozen of these 15 meters North of the house this evening -- full wild in the country where I live, but in no way shy. I've almost stopped taking photos of "Muleies" a.k.a Blacktail Deer.

Ke

 

Had a dozen of these 15 meters North of the house this evening -- full wild in the country where I live, but in no way shy. I've almost stopped taking photos of "Muleies" a.k.a Blacktail Deer.

 

 

Black tails are a different sub species from mulies. We have mostly white tail on the east side of the state and a lot of mule deer on the west side. Black tails are unique to the Pacific Northwest and I don't get to see many. The ears on mule deer are much larger than either black tail or white tail deer--it's their defining charecteristic.

 

 

Kent in SD

Edited October 4, 2017 by Two23

I don't have anything useful to add here--over the years I have discovered that wildlife photography is simply not my forte...

 

My practice rather is limited to the antics of 5 cats out in the yard--and the occasional 'stupid dog trick.' I do admire those of you who do this sort of thing--and I am especially taken with Dieter's bear picture. That is a tremendous image--and one not soon to be seen again! :)

 

What I can say working telephoto for event, architectural, and historic preservation 'viewshed' imagery is that I have never really been satisfied with anything that was drawn in outside of the half-mile range--regardless of the lens. To me there is far too much flattening, contrast loss, and 'soft siding' that happens at greater distances. The only exception to this has been when I had the Celestron 8" C-S telescope. Distances approaching a mile (we used this a lot during the early Shuttle launches from the Merritt causeway viewing area) were good with this--again most telephotos delivered lackluster results.

PapaTango: maybe I should take my 10" Dobsonian... :-)

 

Btw, I checked my images. EXIF says 56m (or thereabouts) - about 60 yards - for the bear, which was indeed quite a bit closer than I was supposed to be. Oops. The wolves just show as infinity in the EXIF.

 

I had a laser focus on carnivores this trip, having failed so miserably last time. There were a load of deer at the north entrance to Yellowstone and several Elk jams; I've not seen a moose, though. Grizzlies are my remaining big target (and I guess a wild cat, if I'm spectacularly lucky). I'll practise on my cat at home.

PapaTango: maybe I should take my 10" Dobsonian... :)

 

my remaining big target (and I guess a wild cat, if I'm spectacularly lucky). I'll practise on my cat at home.

 

 

I've been an avid outdoorsman/hunter all my life and for a 12 year stretch practically lived in the woods of Missouri. Have also spent over half a century living where wildlife is easy to access. In all that time I've only seen three bobcats and one mountain lion. I've seen tracks, but the critters themselves are very elusive. While a decent lens will help, it really comes down to knowing where the animals will be in specific weather at specific times of day, and putting your time in. That was the one thing I didn't like about wildlife photography--spending days and days just to get one shot (because that's what it takes.) Instead of a strategy of spending a few days in a place far from home, I think your odds are much better spending the time in a place close to home where you can pattern the animals.

 

 

Kent in SD

Have also spent over half a century living where wildlife is easy to access.

There, my friend, is the key. You do, I do, and some others, but most do not. I see wildlife every day, two kinds of deer, Elk in season, have seen a bobcat, coyote, fox, etc. etc. No mountain lions or wolves as yet, though, as in your case, tracks and scat. The parks are wonderful, but the animal behavior is altered, in my opinion, and way too many people for me. If you haven't got other access, it is as good as you will get. Hiking into the more remote areas of Yellowstone can get you nearly the real thing.

PapaTango: maybe I should take my 10" Dobsonian... :)

 

 

Nope. The two helpers you have with you will scare animals away toting that monster about... :p