Wildlife photography without having to rob a bank :)

<p>I have a couple of Nikon DSLRs as well as a 200mm VR zoom lens, which I find rather limiting when shooting tigers and lions, let alone birds perched high on tree tops. I also have a non-VR 70-300 zoom, which I have not even attempted to use for wildlife photography, simply because it is impossible to use a tripod in locations that i find myself most often.<br>

So I was looking to gift myself a respectable lens when I got the shock of my life, seeing prices ranging anywhere from $6,000 all the way to almost $11,000.<br>

Needless to say, that is waaay beyond my means. So do any of the bright souls here have any ideas on what I could do, besides being doomed to blurry shots from my handheld 70-300 without VR?</p>

<p>I also have faced the impossible location for a tripod, so I compromised with a lightweight monopod. Try it. When hiking, strap the camera around your neck and use the monopod as a hiking stick. You will see a world of difference, for not too much money or awkwardness. By the way, experts say turn off the VR when the camera is mounted on tripod/monopod.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as well as a 200mm VR zoom lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the actual lens you have? 200mm indicates a prime but then you state zoom. The 200 f2 VR does quite well with the TC14. For about the same price as the TC14 you could get the 70-300VR or for around $1400 the 80-400 VR. There are also 3rd party options.<br>

Why can't you use a tripod? Can you use a monopod? Are your shots blurry from low light causing a low shutter speed, AF missing, or camera shake?</p>

<p>On quite well option is the 300/4 AF-S with an 1.4 or even 1.7 extender. Used on a crop-DSLR this gives you quite some reach to beginn with.<br>

There is a Sigma 500/4.5 that seems to be quite good (i have no personal experience with it). It should be quite less expensive than the Nikon options.</p>

 

<p>I don't have 200mm or 70-300mm but shoot some wildlife. But before anything, where are you planning on shooting? Africa in the wild, zoo or sanctuary, similar to that in Montana (or is it MN)? Tigers in India?</p>

<p>I think if you are thinking of Africa or tigers in India, there's no way u can use tripod. More on this after more info.<br>

<br /> Cheers</p>

<p>Without the highest quality, faster, and longer reaching optics that do cost thousands, you will not be able to work among the best wildlife photographers. It is an elite group who can afford the travel and the equipment to photograph in the wild and to bring back the stunning images to which we've become accustomed. I'm made aware of this, whenever watching a nature documentary and the camera pans to the working photographer and his or her equipment.</p>

<p>I am a bit confused. If you were looking at lenses costing $6000 to $11000 then they must have been f2.8 and f4 supertelephotos, do correct me if I am wrong. They likely had VR but they are certainly not meant to be handheld for very long and they certainly can't be hiked with very far. I assume you must be hiking somewhere strange since you can't use a tripod, I have never found that to be the case for myself. Quite honestly I have no idea how VR and IS got into supertelephotos because just how often is one going to handhold a 10 LB lens. IS and VR were really added for pros to get that extra 1% of keepers and for bragging rights. Of course if you are shooting from a vehicle on safari that would explain the tripod thing. In this case you would need some sort of support device that the "wildlifers" can tell you about and VR won't do a heck of a lot of good since you need shutter speed to really beat the movement of the vehicle and any movement of the wildlife.</p>

<p>What I am trying to get at is that if you can live with a manual focus telephoto lens that you really can't handhold then you can choose between the Nikon 300mm f2.8 AIS, Nikon 400mm f2.8 AIS, Nikon 500mm f4 P AIS, or Nikon 600mm f4 AIS, each for under $2000. You may be able to add the Nikon TC-16A, with or without modification, to your DSLR to provide at least some autofocus capability to these supertelephotos, not to mention the extra length. </p>

<p>If you want to handhold something that is light enough to backpack with and you want autofocus and you think you need VR then your only option is the Nikon 80-400mm VR. My autofocus preference would be the Nikon 300mm AF-S with TC-14E.</p>

<p>It has just occurred to me to ask which 200mm VR lens you have. Is it the 18-200 VR or the 70-200mm f2.8 VR zoom. The f2.8 would work well with a TC-20E until you decide which long term option would be best.</p>

<p>The answer to you problem is the Nikkor 400MM F3.5 AIS. Its a manual focus lens, but is sharp, with good reach, and can be handheld. It has some of the best manual focus feel of any Nikkor. You can find this lens on the used market for about $1,200.<br>

I will never sell mine.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

<p>Folks, thanks for the fast responses. As Sen Babu rightly pointed out, there is <strong>no way</strong> one can use a tripod. Some recent trips have been to Botswana (cruising hippo + croc infested waters in a canoe), 4WD safaris in South Africa, boat cruises in the Bangladesh Sunderbans (the throbbing diesel engine made even a bean-bag useless, let alone a tripod or a monopod) and a 'tiger safari' in Ranthambhor, India, again from a bumpy 4WD. Another trip was to the Kakadu NP in Australia, which was again from a boat, albeit much smoother than the ride in Bangladesh. The next trip is being planned for Kanha, India.<br>

Sorry, I should have been more specific about my lens inventory: A Nikon AF 70-300 /f4-5.6 (the non-VR lens which is rarely used on my trips) and a Nikon AF-S 55-200 VR zoom /f4-5.6 (which I use mainly due to its VR function).<br>

I guess my problem is that my images lack sharpness due to my own unsteady hands (primarily) as well as the somewhat difficult shooting conditions which do not allow for a whole lot of time to keep the subject in the viewfinder. Since I can't afford the megabucks, I can certainly try a manual-focus lens if a good one could be had for around $1,000-1,500.<br>

Please keep the comments coming!</p>

<p>The limitation you are having is this: distance between you and your subject. There are 2 ways you can do this:</p>

<ol>

<li>get a much longer lens, which you already said you cannot afford</li>

<li>or get closer to the subject --- much closer, or should I say much much much closer </li>

</ol>

<p>For [2], one technique which people do is to sit in a blind in the middle of your subject's habitat and wait for them to get closer for you to shoot. Some people would use food to lure the subjects. The obvious downside for [2] is that you need 10x more patience than [1] and you need to exchange the $$$ you saved from not going with [1] for the time you will have to foot out.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some recent trips have been to Botswana (cruising hippo + croc infested waters in a canoe), 4WD safaris in South Africa, boat cruises in the Bangladesh Sunderbans (the throbbing diesel engine made even a bean-bag useless, let alone a tripod or a monopod) and a 'tiger safari' in Ranthambhor, India, again from a bumpy 4WD. Another trip was to the Kakadu NP in Australia, which was again from a boat, albeit much smoother than the ride in Bangladesh. The next trip is being planned for Kanha, India.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you somehow getting free trips to all of those places? I find it hard to believe that one manages to get to all of those exotic places but cannot afford some better lenses.</p>

<p>For example, I have been to the Kakadu National Park in northern Australia. The river boats a bunch of us on were reasonably large and we all used tripods. In fact, I used my usual Gitzo 1325 to support my 500mm/f4 on the bost.</p>

<p>Ganz, it may seems strange my proposal but it could be a solution. What if you purchase a (1) Tamron 18-270 VC that's for crop camera or (2) a Tamron 28-300 VC that's for full frame?</p>

<p>The VC of these new Tamrons is better IMHO than VRII from Nikon or at least the same effective.</p>

<p>I have (1) and I am very pleased with it and a good friend of mine has (2) and I have a very good input from him.</p>

<p>The only disadvantage is that AF is not so fast like Nikon's pro zooms but for the price you pay for it is very good and anyhow is much better than a MF lens. I do not disconsider MF lenses, I have some that I like, but it seems hard to get in focus with such as lens from a 4WD in safari...</p>

<p>If you shoot in daylight and I believe that, you can add a Tamron 1.4 TC... and unbelievable even sometime is hunting you have AF... at least I have with my zoom.</p>

<p>Another advantage of this option is that these zooms are lightweight and you can manage the camera very well with no tripod or monopod.</p>

<p>You may consider to rent a Tamron for a couple of days and you can test to see how it works before to make a decision.</p>

<p>All those places have quite a bit of light...is VR really a must?<br>

I'd second the AF-S 300 f/4 and TC14E if you're serious about it. Would stretch the budget slightly, but it's a great pair.<br>

Plenty of other options too, though. For a lot less, the 70-300VR is the obvious choice (it is better than the 55-200VR and the 70-300 you already own). Nikon 80-400VR would not be a bad choice either, but it's tight with your budget.<br>

The Sigma 150-500 might also be an option, or the smaller 120-400. Tokina 80-400, Tamron 200-500. No experience with them, but most of these are tested quite well. And all these should go within your budget.</p>

<p>Now that we have more info, v can dissect ur situations....</p>

<p>In Africa, 'm sure u can use beanbags from 4x4. But what I like the most is having a window pod. I use groofwin with wimberley. Have tried monfrotto gimbal (think 393) on a few trips, which wasn't bad, but wim is better. I try to use this combo as much as I can. Haven't shot from a boat. I was contemplating on Bots this Nov, where I wud've taken boat rides but ended up going back to Masai Mara. I was also wondering abt shooting from boats. I used 200-400mm on D200/300 for most of my trips but this time around I got the 600mm, and used that on D700. But, 200-400mm on a crop sensor will be perfect. BTW - VR is very useful on 200-400mm. I've sharp pics hand held on it at 1/60 sec from elephant back in India shooting tigers. On 600mm, VR is less useful as hand holding is very diff. Its useful in some select cases, such as shooting in the last available light even when bumping up ISO on D700 wasn't sufficient. But one can certainly live w/o it.</p>

<p>Shooting tigers is a totally different story. In Africa, its open plains, whereas tiger habitat is thicker forest. I have twice been to Bandhavgarh, India, which is supposed to have highest tiger density. U shoot from open 4x4's, with very low supports. So even bean bags are difficult, though I have used them. Of course, tripods are outta q. I did see someone shoot with a tripod, but it seemed impossible. In such situations, I think VR is invaluable, as u might have shoot hand held, esp that setting up supports takes time and good tiger sighting can be very brief (from photography pt of view). Again, 200-400mm is perfect. I've met a few other photographers; one used monopod, which seemed a very nice option. Another guy used clamp mounts, which also seemed very good. 'm thinking of taking both on my next trip for tigers.</p>

<p>Now coming to your specific situation. I think, if you can't afford to buy 200-400mm, renting is a nice option. But looks like u r taking quite a few trips. So renting cost will add up soon that u r better off buying one. I went thru the same dilemma, twice actually. First time, it was with 200-40mm. I thought long and hard, and in the end took a loan to buy it. Very recently, it was with 600mm. Again, the rental cost wud break even in 5 yrs or less if you rent it at least 10 days each x 3 trips. So its for u too foresee a little bit on ur future trips and decide. But whatever it is, if you taking all these trips mainly for photography, you ought to have good lenses, otherwise, you waste your trips. Now, if you taking pics casually along with just traveling, it might be a diff story. But from ur post, it looks like u r serious.</p>

<p>Going to tigers (one of my favs), heard good things abt Ranthambore from a few folks who have gone there, and 'm planning on going there during my trip back home. But Bandhavgarh is great place to see them. Reaching there is a pain, but I guess, that's probably a reason why they r preserved better. Heard abt Kanha. Apparently, its a bigger park with fewer paths to drive thru. So its more of a hit or miss. Photography wise, tigers r generally very difficult as compared to African wildlife.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Senthil</p>

<p>I am a birder or bird watcher but with lesser interest in pursuing Bird Photography since one cannot do both at the same time. From the latter perspective, the poor man's bird lens is this "Bigma" or Sigma 50-500. Otherwise, in Nikon, the choices will be 500 f4 VR for tripod shots or 300 2.8 (plus 2x) for handheld (tripod) shots. Please see below for further information:<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3307&navigator=3">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3307&navigator=3</a><br>

<a href="http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm">http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm</a><br>

<a href="../nature-photography-forum/00Likk">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00Likk</a><br>

<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00N3j8">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00N3j8</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p> I was watching one of the outdoor specials the other day and they profilled William Finley who was a Bird Photographer in the early 1800's. He managed to get great shots of Condors and other birds using glass plates. He packed the camera's on his back and hiked and climbed and made his shots. So I am figuring a guy with a DSLR (crop sensor) and say the Nikon 70-300VR is not that bad off. A friend of mine has a 500mm mirror lens and is snagging a lot of suprising wildlife shots. Use your gear and find a way to make the shot..Sometimes a person has to get creative and certainly you must work for it...For Birders who wish to view and snap birds, Zeiss now has a spotting scope that has a built in 7mp camera. It has a focal zoom reach to about 1600mm. Runs about $6000.00 which is nothing to sneeze at. If I were passionate about birding I would certainaly take a look at this camera/spotting scope.</p>

<p>Unfortunately there is no free lunch - as they say. I you need the reach and if you cannot use a tripod, then you will have to spend lots of money to achieve what you want. How come you have the means to travel to all these exotic places and not have the money for a decent lens? If I were in your shoes and photography was important to me, I would start saving money towards a super tele lens.</p>

<p>What Juergen says is very true. You are traveling to expensive places for wildlife photography. I wud seriously consider saving some money to buy good long lenses, even if it means u have to sacrifice a trip or 2. It'll serve u much better in the longer run.</p>

<p>300mm 2.8 AFS + 1.4x on crop sensor too is a very good option. My friend tried sigma 50-500mm on trips to Masai Mara and Bandhavgarh. Seeing the pics from my 200-400mm during the same trips, he got rid of it, and bought 200-400mm for the next trip; he is very happy with it.</p>

<p>My partner (Chris Weston) lives in the UK and he travels the world photographing endangered species. He also has written over 20 books, many "how to." If you'd like, I can post the web site here, through which you can email him for more tips. But as these things go, I don't want to do it without permission lest I am accused of shameless promotion! </p>

<p>I bought the Nikon 80-400 mm VR lens for a trip to East Africa in 2008. It worked well. Most of our shooting was done from inside a vehicle and a tripod was impractical. I strongly recommend the use of a beanbag. I used this lens for most of my shots and a 18-200 of a Canon G9 for the rest. Here's the link to my Africa photos on flickr:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29286060@N06/sets/72157615903588769/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your basic problem is you are not holding the camera steady enough. Getting a more expensive lens simply means you will have spent more money to get the same blurred photos. The solution is better technique.</p>

<p>To minimize body shake, you need to shoot at a faster speed. For your focal lengths, this means 1/500 or faster. To minimize focus problems you need to get reasonable depth of field at the long focal lengths. You need a small aperture such as f16. If you cannot get such a combination of speed and aperture due to poor light, increase your ISO setting.</p>

<p>How you hold the camera is also important but any beginner's book on photography will have tips on how to hold the camera steady.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p>the only thing that you can do is get a better lens. i'm afraid i have to echo shun's comment on this one. ....</p>

<p>don't waste those trips! get better tools to document them. have more fun.</p>

<p>The lens you want is the Nikon 80-400mm VR. The VR works. I really doubt you'll get many sharp photos from inside a vehicle with other people moving around if you use a non-VR lens. Find a used 80-400mm VR on e Bay. It has the reach and the VR works. Optics are good, AF is slow.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Ganz,</p>

<p>There is no way around it, no way to cheap out in this regard. Big glass costs big money. Save up to buy new if you can't afford the outlay. Buy used if you want to save. Tripods are another reality you have to accept.</p>

<p>I'm trying to imagine someone using a 600/4 from a canoe... :-)<br>

If the platform is unstable for a tripod, then you really need a lot of light to get a sharp shot without and the longest lenses are out of bounds anyway. VR could help a bit, but you need to be realistic in what you are trying to achieve. The affordable lens that comes to mind is the 80-400 VR, although it's getting a bit old by now.</p>