carl_becker2 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>I have learned the hard way that my sharpest lens is my tripod. And after four tries I finally have a very good Gitzo 1327 that may out last me. That and a good head will last a very long time. There seems to be a problem with the Nikkor 300mm AF-S tripod mount so if you get that you might want to add a Kirk or home made block to stiffen it up. Combine the 300mm with a TC 1.4E and you should have a lasting sharp setup that will deliver very good results. I believe your budget will cover this. IMHO the time you are up and shooting is probably more important then any thing else. I agree you should get up early and look around with tripod at the ready.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_peterson9 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Cynthia - Comments on this thread about a good tripod and a lot of reach are right on. Of course really fast glass also helps for those early morning, low light setups. I took the 18-200 VR to Yellowstone and found that it was too short, too slow and not as sharp as I would like. <br> Shun said, "At least for Yellowstone, a lot of the popular wildlife are big mammals so that even your 18-200 may be sufficient. A 300mm/f4 is quite long for Yellowstone." Shun is much more experienced than I am but I don't think you can ever have too much reach for a park like Yellowstone. True, 300mm is probably too long for side-of the-road buffalo or elk shots. In most other circumstances, however, you will be glad for every bit of reach in your bag. The eagles that nest on the West entrance road are quite a distance from the road up in high trees and even 300mm is not really sufficient. To make it worse, the eagles tend to come out in late evening when the light conditions are not ideal.<br> Also, based on my experience, many of the large animals (moose, bear, mountain goats, sheep) you see will likely be well off the road. I found my 200mm lens to be quite short for many opportunities, and 400mm would have been very nice to have. Of course, fast glass is also very helpful as especially the moose and bear tend to be out at first light or late in the evening.<br> Based on your budget, I think suggestions of a good tripod/ball-head and a faster 300mm or a slower 400mm lens are right on. Which you choose will depend a bit on what you are most interested in photographing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>David, I wish you had quoted me for just one more sentence as I did mention birds righ there:</p> <blockquote> <p>At least for Yellowstone, a lot of the popular wildlife are big mammals so that even your 18-200 may be sufficient. A 300mm/f4 is quite long for Yellowstone. If you get into bird photography, you can always add a TC-14E onto it and still get good results, ...</p> </blockquote> <p>The last time I was at Yellowstone was 1993 when I left my 500mm/f4 P lens at home (bad choice??) and only had my 300mm/f4 AF. Even on 35mm film bodies, I thought that was sufficient most of the time and in fact I mainly used my then 80-200mm/f2.8 for the larger mammals. Again, if you get into birds, that is a totally different story.</p> <p>Since Cynthia is using a DX format D90, if anything, all the teles are "1.5 times longer than what I had on my then F4." But if I go to Yellowstone again, I'll probably bring the 200-400mm.</p> <P> Having said that, again, please remember to keep a safe distance from the large animals, especially at Yellowstone. Even though a lot of them are not carnivores, they can still be very dangerous because of their size. </P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Cynthia,<br> these two shots are the 300mm AF-S f/4 with my cheap Kenko TC - - but on the D700. These are taken off my Feisol CT-3371 tripod carbon fiber & a Markins M20 ballhead.<br> <img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p1065203552-4.jpg" alt="" /><br> I wanted to see how far in I could zoom/crop with out loss on my subject.... But I just stopped at 100% because why bother.... ;-)<br> <img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p856364594-4.jpg" alt="" /><br> Yes - shot at f/8 this is the result I got with the 300mm AF-S f/4 & a Kenko 1.4 TC<br> How do you like it?<br> Lil :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Lil, I know you are waiting for Cynthia's response, but I have to say that it is a fantastic shot and a very good example. Very nice!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Cynthia, regarding your ball head and tripod comments, I suggest you stick to the arca swiss system and I urge you to consider the ball heads made by Kirk or Really Right Stuff as opposed to Bogen. You will get more value for your money. Regarding tripods, my Bogen 3221 sits on the floor of my closet and the tripod I use is made by Gitzo. Go here to see some recommendations on different Gitzo tripods: <a href="http://www.naturescapes.net/store/home.php?cat=19">http://www.naturescapes.net/store/home.php?cat=19</a><br> If you get the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 lens you will need a Gitzo series 2 tripod. That is the series I use for my everyday photography and lenses up to a 300mm f 4.0. <br> IMO the older Bogen 3221 are better made than the current models which have flimsy leg locking devices that I have seen break in the field.<br> Joe Smith </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Impressive cropping power Lil.<br /> Re: tripod and ballhead. I second Shun's comment on the Bogen QR plates - I had two Bogen heads and was never happy with their QR system. In fact, I distrusted them so much that I ended up leaving the tripod at home most of the time. Just recently, I upgraded to a new tripod and head. Gitzo was out of the question because of their cost - which I consider exorbitant. I ended up with a Giottos MH-1300 Pro Series II Extra Large Socket & Ball Head on a Manfrotto 055XB Classic Tripod. Again, as Shun pointed out, the one drawback is the weight - which actually doesn't bother me (and for a lot more money, you can get the lighter carbon fiber equivalent). I added the RRS Quick Release Plate and the purchased the lens plates and camera plates for my camera bodies (the bigger portion of my tripod spending).</p> <p>This was shot with a D300, 300/4 AF-S and TC-14EII on a Gitzo126 with small Giottos MH-1302 Pro Series II RRS clamp and lens plate (original Nikon collar still in place). I use this tripod as a ground pod without the legs extended - it is not sufficiently sturdy otherwise. Uncropped and fully open aperture:<br> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3256816854_568fe1e150_o.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /><br> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3267878059_c3c0c5b10f_o.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Same camera and lens/TC combo, f/6.3 hand held<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3352/3203312002_9cfce9d0f9_o.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></p> <p>And one more, again same lens/TC and camera, fully open, hand held<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3195466451_91be731f1e_o.jpg" alt="" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_j._eberle1 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Not having read through all the responses, let me just say that the distance between you and wildlife at Yellowstone will often be considerable-- and that is all to the good. Many photographers who get gored or mauled there are under-equipped with too-short focal length lenses and were trying to get closer to fill the frame. Word to the wise: don't get out of the car to photograph grizzlies with your 18-200! Likewise, more people get gored by bison than all the other creatures combined.<br> I have the Nikkor 200-400VR and find it a great length-- but most often use it racked out to 400mm on a DX body. A fast enough lens to still autofocus well with a 1.4 T/C proves extremely useful for birds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynthia_darden Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>I'm loving the discussion, suggestions, and most of all pictures! I just got back from my local camera shop where I spent all morning playing - I played with some prime lenses and was a bit frustrated that I couldn't zoom, like I'm so used to, so I went ahead and ordered the 200-400mm (get it Wednesday - so excited!!!!). My friend/manager there reassured me that either lens choice I made I probably wouldn't be disappointed :-) but since I was so used to zooming to frame that I'd probably be happier in the long run with the 200-400. And, then, as if the price of the lens wasn't enough, the filters to go on top - OUCH!</p> <p>So...next is my tripod decision and I love all the comments you've offered up. All I can say is, I'm so glad I stumbled upon this forum and this wonderful group of people so willing to share!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarmstrong Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Congratulations Cynthia!!! Excellent choice that will not disappoint you. Hope to see some shots from Yellowstone here after your trip!<br> Have a great time!<br> Dick</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Excellent choice Cynthia - now I am envious. I have been considering the 200-400 for some time now, but the price tag kept me from getting one. The lens is on the heavy side - so a Gitzo 2 or even 3 series tripod seems in order, and maybe the BH-55 ballhead from RRS - maybe in conjunction with the Wimberely Sidekick - or go for the full Wimberely gimbal head directly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Money spent on a good tripod and head will reward you for a long time. I suggest you take your lens with you to the camera store and try out what is available. Personally I think the Gitzo's are worth the cost even though its a lot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>The Nikon 200-400mm lens is an excellent choice for you. You should love it. Some Canon shooters add a Nikon system just to use this lens. Joe Smith</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brians. Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Congrats Cynthia, Tell them moose to "Smile!"</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_peterson9 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 <p>Shun - Understand - no offense. I just didn't want Cynthia to head off to Yellowstone with a 300mm and think that she would have plenty of reach (based on your comment that 300mm is "long for Yellowstone"). The eagles on the west entrance road were just one of many examples. Others were the the mountain goats, prong horns and big-horned sheep (north gate), moose throughout the park (even when viewed from roadside), bear, elk in natural habitat (as opposed to walking on the lawns in Mammoth), etc. Even if your focus is not birds, 400mm or more is a huge plus while 200-300mm is probably a reasonable minimum for all but the luckiest of park visitors. Only when the buffalo or elk (or others) were right on the road did shorter focal lengths come in handy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 <p>Well well Cynthia - - a huge congratulations. You did however blow your budget somewhat. Excellent choice in lens. You will enjoy it.<br> Can't wait to see what you get to shoot with it.<br> Lil :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_peterson9 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 <p>Cynthia - I am really jealous.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 <p>Cynthia,<br> The 200-400VR is perfect for large mammals. I am sure you will have plenty of sharp and attractive images. However, don't raise your expectations too high for shooting small birds with that lens, you may get somewhat disappointed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 <p>Wow, how did we get to that budget? Anyway, someone called a Canada Goose a duck! As a Canadian I take personal exception to that. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynthia_darden Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 <p>I woke up this morning so excited to get my lens today, and then my daughter wakes up with over 102 fever. So, I went and picked it up and took it out of the box, but that's about it - so sad, sniff sniff! All I could do was look f.a.r down the street and read the license plates off the cars parked in the street. My hubbie has assured me that birthday, anniversary, mother's day, valentines, etc. are all "covered" for this year, if not more!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 <p>Well, the good news is that you won't need any filter, as a filter is built into the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. (In case you haven't discovered that yet.) But you now indeed need a good tripod with ballhead ....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 <p>Yes a nice Gitzo with a nice Arca Swiss ballhead is needed<br> <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals08/images/2008-07-27-rip-canon500-18188.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br> A good ballhead is Arca Swiss Z monoball for around $330. Kirk or RRS will be within $50 and imitations probably around $200.<br> Gitzo tripod would be over $400 new, probably closer to $800 for the taller ones. "Wilderness green or black Manfrotto" will be around $200.<br> You want the tripod to be tall enough for you to stand next to it without center column extended.</p> <p>And of course you have to practice taking pictures... and we want to seeeeeeeeee the pictures</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbody Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 <p>Oooops that's not a good idea to have a ballhead for that lens, you want a Wimberley gimbal head...... $600.... ooops, and that's before the lens-plate that bolts into the foot and slides into the Wimberley.<br> Above is a shorter Canon 500mm f/4, and that's already a barely-usable setup, both of these lenses are too heavy for comfortable operation on a ballhead. 500mm f/4 is barely usable, but in the long run [if you know that super-telephoto photography is for you] you want a Gimbal head.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micahfriedman Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 <p>I use a 70-200 with the TC17e teleconverter with a D700. Light enough to carry around for a few hours with no fatigue.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave wyman Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 <p>I'm late to the party. I think Cynthia made a great choice, because it will give her the most flexibility. </p> <p>I think, too, she will find herself more often closer to 200mm than 400mm, at least in Yellowstone. It's just too easy to come close - not too close! - to many animals in the park, from ground squirrels to bison. I say this having been to the park at least once a year for the past 17 or so years.</p> <p>Without a doubt, in the past few years that I've had my 18-200mm lens, that's the lens I've used the most. After that it's my 400mm prime. Although I have a 70-300mm lens, I've left it home some years. </p> <p>It's great to be able to fill a viewfinder with the eyeball of a bison or a bear, but some of the most affecting photographs of animals can put them in their surrounding environment, too.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now