Need help choosing a wildlife lens

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the 300mm AF-S F/4 with a potential of the 1.4 TC - it's an excellent combination & far faster than the 80-400VR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I second the "excellent combination" but the "far faster" is an exaggeration - I actually own both and would very likely take the 80-400 on a trip such as yours - for the VR and the higher versatility of a zoom. Forget putting a TC on the 80-400 - I tried and AF accuracy was down the drain.<br>

<br /> One lens that hasn't been mentioned but that might be an alternative to the 300/4 AF-S with TC-14EII is the Sigma 100-300/4 and its corresponding 1.4x extender. I read good things about that combo and had I known about it at the time I purchased my 300/4 AF-S I would at least have given it a look. From what I have read, the 100-300/4 is in a different class than the 50-500 Bigma.</p>

<p>The 100-300/4 costs a bit less than the 300/4 AF-S, and when you include the price differential between the Sigma and Nikon TC, the difference might already cover the purchase price of the 10-20.</p>

[bob_worrell]

<p>If you want to save some money and get good hand held quality check Sigma new 120 - 400 afs & VR.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"Generally speaking you want to be as close to your subject as possible, and that way even if you have 80-400mm, if you can make a few more safe steps towards your subject and use 200mm instead, you would probably like the image more."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just noticed this piece of advice. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of large mammals at Yellowstone. Bears are obviously dangerous, but even an elk or something of that size can easily kill or seriously injure a human. Use plenty of common sense and always keep a safe distance. I would much rather err on the safe side. It is also unethical to approach so close that annoys the animals.</p>

<p>While we are on this topic, I have heard a couple of tragic stories that happened at Yellowstone (I have no way to verify them, however):</p>

<ol>

<li>One visitor brought a dog, and somehow the dog jumped into a hot spring. Without thinking, the owner also jumped in to save the dog. He quickly yelled something like this is stupid before he was burned to death.</li>

<li>Some guy approached a bison and got closer and closer. He eventually put his arm around the bison's neck and asked a friend to take a picture. The bison turned its head and instantly killed that guy.</li>

</ol>

<P>

I am sure those tragedies are uncommon, but as human beings, we all have lapses in judgment occasionally. It pays to be extra careful in the wild.

</P>

[carl_becker2]

<p>As I also mentioned above. The animals in and around Yellowstone are wild. Please don't get close to them for your safety and theirs. I don't want any thing hurt. In the car is one thing, hugging a bison gets the Darwin award quickly. All wild animals may be dangerous to some degree, even squirels.</p>

[cynthia_darden]

<p>I am loving you guys!</p>

[hal_edmonds]

<p>Cindy, I live 75 miles from Jellystone and from my experience I have never found a need for less than 18mm but a need for more reach. My YNP lens is a 18-200 like yours. I get very sharp results. But you'll find a need for at least 400mm. I'm planning on a 200-400 in the next few months. YNP can be dusty so you wont want to change lenses too often unless you have a changing bag. I use a tripod for almost all my shots.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Cynthia,<br>

I want to share with you some shots I took the other day with the 300mm AF-S f/4 & the TC 1.4x from Kenko.... Shot at ISO 400 in A mode at f/8 - shutter speed changes from shot to shot. EXIFs are embedded....<br>

These are a few I took with a monopod...<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p425650156-4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Here's her mate...<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p100493006-4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

She was very generous & landed near me....<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p91003884-4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

My full series is <a href="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/p959641064">here</a> -which I think you may enjoy.... Granted these are small birds & not large Bison etc..... I have yet to get a chance to shoot large wildlife correctly. But hopefully May will bring me those as well...<br>

Lil :-)</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Huuuummmm they look better on Zenfolio than here....</p>

 

[indraneel]

<p>Hey everybody, I've never been to yellowstone, but usually it doesn't hurt to get out of the car and walk a bit. My longest lens is a 135mm. From a trip to florida couple of weeks back:<br /> <strong></strong></p><div></div>

[bob_flood1]

<p>Cynthia - another recommendation, budget permitting, as always. If you don't have two camera bodies already, I suggest you try to pick one up. It's always good to have a spare, but I think the better value is in having a significantly different lens on each so you don't have to change lenses at all (or very often) in the field. The animals can't be counted on to pose, and while the landscape allows you time to change lenses, there's no telling when the wildlife shot of a lifetime will pop up. A used body thru the local newspaper classifieds, a local camera club, or online buying can make the shooting more relaxed. Even an older film camera would be better than no spare.<br>

Tripods - if you plan to hike, carbon fiber is definately better - lighter without giving up strength. An alternative to a heavier tripod is a monopod, not as steady and doesn't help for sunrise/set shots, but otherwise a good alternative where weight or space is an issue. Cheaper, too. <br>

Ball heads: I have two - the Manfrotto (Bogen) 484RC2 is a small head that's easy to use, but its weight carrying capacity is limited, and so it doesn't do well with the 80-400 VR. I also have a Manfrotto 3265, a hand-grip operated design. It is a long head and it makes the tripod/head combination taller - if you like the design, you should try it on your tripod before buying. The total height it produces make be awkward for you or be just fine - it'll depend on your height, the height of your tripod, and your preferences for the height of the camera eyepiece.</p>

[andy_chen8]

<p>You've rec'd lots of great advice and could be spending lots on equipment. You may want to consider renting some of it. I was there Jan 07. You will have a great time.</p>

[brians.]

 

<p >I have waited to post anything about the Sigma 150-500mm because I get a lot of conflicting results in different environments and with different cameras (D90 vs D50). I bought is lens back in November of '08 and immediately got beautiful sharp hand-held shots at 500mm. However, within a week the OS started making a loud whining noise, so I exchanged it for another one. The second lens wasn't as sharp at at 500mm but quite good at 400mm. The OS is not noisy like the first one but still squeaks and whirs at times, especially on startup. I sent it to Sigma for calibration and it came back better but not as sharp as the first lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you consider this lens, take into account that it is hundreds dollar less (around $900) than a comparable Nikkor, and that it weighs (just over 4lbs) 2 to 4 lbs less then comparable Nikkors. Also, despite being noisy and using a lot of battery, the OS is excellent – you really can use this lens hand-held.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To my surprise, the Sigma 150-500mm delivers a sharper picture on my D50 than on my D90. I haven't figured out what's happening with that – some people say Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90, but that's just conjecture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, in low or gray light image quality suffers greatly. I never go further than 400mm on overcast days.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All in all, I like this lens, but there are significant trade-offs. Also, my experience indicates that there is a big difference between versions of this lens. I won't consider Nikkors because of their heavy weight and price so the Sigma 150-500mm is a better alternative for me. </p>

 

[wallywolfe]

<p>I live just outside of Yellowstone. Most of the wildlife inside Yellowstone gets pretty tame after the tourist season starts. As you can tell from some of the posts in the thread so far, part of the challenge in Yellowstone is getting a good "critter" shot without the vehicle traffic jam. That is why I don't do a lot of shooting inside the Park. The wildlife in the wonderful country just outside Yellowstone isn't as tame, so I'd add one inexpensive item to the fine lists already offered here. Your car is the best shooting blind you are likely to have short of going the full archery hunter route. I use one of the window-clamp tripod mounts (Nikon has a good one designed for their spotter scopes for about $50.00.) Bean bags work if you are kind of short, but at 6'2" I just can't scrunch down in the seat that far. Just don't forget to turn off the ignition, or you'll get blur in telephotos from engine vibration.<br>

Enjoy your trip. Yellowstone is a wonderful place.</p>

<p> </p>

[brians.]

<p>

<p >I have waited to post anything about the Sigma 150-500mm because I get a lot of conflicting results in different environments and with different cameras (D90 vs D50). I bought is lens back in November of '08 and immediately got beautiful sharp hand-held shots at 500mm. However, within a week the OS started making a loud whining noise, so I exchanged it for another one. The second lens wasn't as sharp at at 500mm but quite good at 400mm. The OS is not noisy like the first one but still squeaks and whirs at times, especially on startup. I sent it to Sigma for calibration and it came back better but not as sharp as the first lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you consider this lens, take into account that it is several hundred dollars less (around $900) than a comparable Nikkor, and that it weighs (just over 4lbs) 2 to 4 lbs less then comparable Nikkors. Also, despite being noisy and using a lot of battery, the OS is excellent – you really can use this lens hand-held.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To my surprise, the Sigma 150-500mm delivers a sharper picture on my D50 than on my D90. I haven't figured out what's happening with that – some people say Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90, but that's just conjecture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, in low or gray light image quality suffers greatly. I never go further than 400mm on overcast days.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All in all, I like this lens, but there are significant trade-offs. Also, my experience indicates that there is a big difference between versions of this lens. I won't consider Nikkors because of their heavy weight and price so the Sigma 150-500mm is a better alternative for me. </p>

</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Great and not overly expensive tripod - that's the second hardest question after affordable super-telephoto :-).<br>

I use Gitzo because i love what it does for me, no centerpost yet goes up higher than i can reach standing up on flat land [which is useful when the ground is uneven and just one leg is at full extension], i got a used Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber which is out of production, and it got it for... $400. New is $800... oops that's more than most spend on a lens.<br>

That's without the $300 Arca-Swiss ballhead. That's the good stuff, the 2 together. Bogen/Manfrotto makes Ok stuf with aluminimum legs, but their $100 ballheads are too wobbly, and with my Arca Swiss B1 it can take even a big 500mm f/4 with 1.4X on it [on temporary basis], and it feels great with anything shorter such as 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 [that's a Canon lens].<br>

Bogen/Manfrotto [same company, US/Italian name] has some legs for $150 or so, they go up to i think i like 4.5 feet then center column goes up another 2 feet, that's an ok combo, but my Gitzo has a wider base and is more sturdy because of that. I think that's Bogen 2021 for $150, i forget, it's their Wilderness Green/Black one that's their tallest for $150-$200 [i think it's closer to $200 than $150], but that tripod kept me happy for 3 years until i found this gem of a used Carbon Fiber.<br>

So $350 or less is for a good tripod plus head, Manfrotto, but the question is will you use it enough to justify the cost? I have used my tripod eversince I got it, just about every single day [but not every single shot] that i took pictures since i got the tripod, i love using it, but i know why -- i used other tripods and found them limiting. I won't be putting my Gitzo into middle of a river, 4 feet deep anytime soon though... and i had no problem doing that with Manfrotto, getting water into the aluminum inside, so when i tipped the tripod on the shoulder, water would come out from either end :-).... ooops, but otherwise i have been good to my tripods.<br>

The advantage of no centerpost is that i can spread the legs and get the camera a few inches above ground while still attached to the tripod, otherwise you can't go lower than your centerpost.<br>

There are wobbly $50 tripods which include head and legs, but...... you won't like that tripod for long.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I bought is lens back in November of '08 and immediately got beautiful sharp hand-held shots at 500mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brian, could you post a couple of samples from those images?</p>

<p>The only long Sigma lens I have used was a friend's 50-500mm zoom. I tried that briefly on my Gitzo 1325 tripod that normally supports my 500mm/f4 AF-S. In fact I posted some side-by-side comparison between those two lenses on the D2X:<br /><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Gdym">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Gdym</a><br />For a $1000 lens, the Sigma 50-500 is not bad optically.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Indraneel, yes that is a Great Blue Heron, a very colorful Heron, common in North America... commonly beautiful and tall, better body language and not as shy as Great Egrets. He is in much smaller numbers in Arizona than Great Egrets, but he becomes territorial, chasing away Great Egrets... :-)<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals09/images/2009-02-04-riparian-egrets-88299.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

[robertbody]

<p>[that Great Blue Heron is with 300mm f/4 by the way]</p>

<p>Cynthia, If you want to get great quality, get 300mm f/4, use a tripod [always. take a photo without one not to miss the bird, but have your partner setup your tripod as you're taking the photo :-), then use the tripod].<br>

If you want convinience [which i can't spell], get 80-400mm VR, use it handheld, but 300mm f/4 on a tripod will beat it every time, not just for sharpness but also for the framing and observing body-language of the animal you're photographing, the best shots are when you track the bird through the viewfinder, watch for that head looking at your over the shoulder as the sun shines on the head, but the rest of of the body is in the shadows, but not really....<br>

but then you might get 10 great shots, not 100 ok shots... it depends if it's quality or quantity that matters<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals09/images/2009-02-21-riparian-shov-40d_0936.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

Zooms have their place, but quality comes from primes... [and light and effort]</p>

[brians.]

<p>Shun, I had a little trouble getting the upload to work but I'll try it again...<br>

First shot is with first lens, D50 @ 500mm</p><div></div>

[brians.]

<p>Second shot is with D90 @ 500mm</p><div></div>

[robertbody]

<p>May i provide an example to my above comment about tripod and patience with 300mm f/4... of the same bird, female Mallard<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals09/images/2009-02-07-riparian-malards-89860.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

[robertbody]

<p>Brian, one of your sharpness issues is you're not focusing on the eye, you're focusing on the big body, which is a common mistake with birds in motion. The head is quite small and your focusing system might even have an issue locking on [happens to 300mm f/4 too, in Continous tracking].<br>

The middle back of your Goose is sharp, but not her head.<br>

Also, your "Sharpening Value" might be higher on your D50 than your D90, like a 3 vs 1. Sounds like you use JPGs, not RAW files, that Sharpening is applied to JPG only, not RAW, and since JPG is "compressed", that adds softening or lack of sharpness as part of saving the file in a "lossy" JPG format [a format designed to save files in smaller sizes].</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Brian, also, in those 2 pictures, looks like you are focusing on the body of the duck as well, but because the body and the eye are in the same plane parallel to your sensor -- or basically since the head is as far from your sensor as her body is -- you get both in about the same focus.<br>

Using flash [as fill-in flash, set to like -1 setting in TTL.... and with $40 Better Beamer] but more importantly waiting for her to turn her head a little towards you, so her face is illuminated by the sun properly..... would make your shot better... and also shooting a little later in the day.<br>

Also using Auto-Levels in PHotoshop with a touch of Saturation can make your images pop... also adjusting Levels manually to make the photo a bit darker. A bit of PHotoshop can make the outcome look like it came from a different camera, and it's part of the photo process. You will like the photos more :-).</p>

[brians.]

<p>You're right Robert, but that's the best autofocus (spot focus) would do when aiming at the eye, which makes me wonder if comments that Sigma lenses don't focus accurately on the D90 aren't true. As far as sharpening is concerned, I shoot at low sharpening and sharpen in pp. That way I can get more detail in my JPEGS (I don't shoot RAW). I'd rather have a softer image than halos, so what you see is what I prefer. Thanks for the suggestions.</p>

<p>Shun, I finally got a look at your comparison, it sure makes the Sigma look good. Thanks for sharing.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Brian, may I suggest you give tripods or at least a monopod a try? I know for a fact that I'll never be able to get a reasonable percentage of sharp images if I hand hold a slow f6.3 500mm lens. There is exactly one person who posts to the Nature Forum here claims that he can hand hold a 500mm/f4 lens, and he has images (in fact plenty of them) to show. But for those of us without super-human capabilities, proper long lens support is key.</p>