Wildlife photography without having to rob a bank :)

[peterq]

<p>Dear Ganz,<br>

You need more than millimeters ............<br>

1. time, much time to wait for the wild getting close enough to your spot.<br>

2. An itinerary that doesn't push you.<br>

3. Patience, much patience.<br>

4. Luck, just luck.</p>

<p>About the millimeters, did you considder renting lenses?</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Your going all these expensive places without adequate equipment seems like a non sequitur to me, too.<br>

But if you simply can't get past the expense of better/faster glass, then you'll have to get closer with the best glass you can afford, either in a blind or hide, or with remote cameras.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>There is a very nice looking 400mm f/3.5 EDIF AIS Nikkor on Fleabay right now for under $900 <em>including a TC-301</em>, making it an 800mm f/7 lens. If you are using DX, that means 1200mm f/7</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Even folks with 600mm glass have to get very close to the little birdies, big ones too. Many, many bird shots are taken near the food that is put out to attract them. 'Reminds me, oddly enough, of bear bait camps I have seen in Canada for great white hunters who want an easy shot at the poor critter without actually going on a hunt. Photos, though, are a much more respectable activity.<br>

I am becoming a convert to what I always thought of as "lousy" teleconverters, believing that a possible shot is better than no shot at all. Even the cost of shorter Nikkor telephotos is becoming beyond reason for many people.<br>

Did I mention getting close?</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>David,<br>

Teleconverters are not the dogs they used to be in the early 70's when I first started this photography jazz. Nikon's TC's are fine pieces of optical design. But by virtue of how they work, the prime lens has to also be of very high quality. I have a Nikon TC-14B I use with both my 300mm f/4.5 AIS and 500mm f/8 Reflex Nikkors, and I have to tell you, I cannot tell the difference on the baseboard with and without all the way up to 16 x 20.</p>

<p>Of course the TC-200 and TC-300 series offer more magnification, and the amount of image degredation will be greater, but they are not not "just for emergencies" anymore.</p>

 

[stan_schurman1]

<p>How about the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR? It goes for between $600-700.<br>

Also, a monopod is a great tool, but not very practical if you're shooting birds in trees from the ground. The VR in the 70-300mm should eliminate that need in any case.</p>

[ganz_schrott]

<p>Thanks again for all these great suggestions, which I will research more thoroughly a.s.a.p. Meanwhile, just to clarify, no, I don't get free trips to all these places (I can only dream). I do spend a lot of my disposable income on travel and am also a (frequent flyer) mileage junkie - hence the trips to faraway places. Photography is a hobby and I allocated whatever resources I could - but I suppose you have a point - perhaps I should scrap a trip and use the money thus saved to buy better glass :)</p>

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>I advise against getting a manual focus lens. Based on the problems you describe, I just can't see it helping. It sounds good on paper, but getting back into wildlife work myself just now with a D3, I'm having a heck of a time getting anything good at all from my old 500/4 P. Based on my testing so far, by far the most important determinant is AF, becauase even my old 300/4 AF of the same vintage of my 500 is kicking the 500's ass in the sharpness area, despite having loud, slow AF, because AF just works that much better. Even when the animals aren't in motion, however, I'm really struggling with the 500/4. I fear that, as described on a lot of blogs around the web, this particular vintage of lens suffers badly from CA on digital that wasn't a problem with film. I've read very similar comments about several contemporary lenses, including the 400/3.5 which was considered superb in the 90s with film. Plus, the 400/3.5 is massive and forget hand-holding.</p>

<p>What's missing from the Nikon line right now is a good hand-holdable option. All the people around me shooting wildlife this year are Canon people, both here in L.A. and in Costa Rica last month. They all have those hand-holdable slow 400s with with or without TCs and they probably play with ISO. So far I'm coming up short because Nikon doesn't even have an entry in this category to combat Canon for the FX world. For DX, however (the OP didn't say what cameras he has), that 300 VR or 400 VR would be the answer. Get it and you're done, as long as you have a body that can deal with medium or higher ISOs.</p>

<p>I would also point out that, similar to other comments here, having several Nikon DSLR bodies kicking around but no proper lenses also suggests a misuse of your available funds. Glass is always the most ciritical thing. I hope you don't have multiple DSLRs because of upgrade fever.</p>

[ganz_schrott]

<p>"<strong><em>I hope you don't have multiple DSLRs because of upgrade fever</em></strong>."<br>

Bro, you've hit the nail on the head! I started with a D70, then 'upgraded' to a D80, then bought a D40 (because "it was such a deal" and I thought a spare body would be useful) and after having succumbed to the temptation of a D90, I have finally seen the folly of my ways! So I am definitely NOT in the market for another body anytime soon.<br>

Having read the comments and wonderful advice yet again, it seems that my choices are really limited to either the 70-300 VR @ $500 or the 80-400 VR at three times the price. I suppose I could swing for the 80-400, if the 3x price factor is worth it in your opinion.<br>

All other lenses mentioned (e.g. 200-400, 200 f2 VR etc) with price points of $5K+ are beyond reach right now; perhaps if the (stock) trading gods smile on me in 2010, I can take another look. Renting gear seems to be uneconomical, since my trips tend to be somewhat long.<br>

<strong>Senthil</strong>, thanks for your detailed comments. I had never heard of stuff like groofwin & wimberley...and perhaps I should be getting them. But if I buy the 80-400, there will be no money left over for these accessories.<br>

<strong>Leo Grillo</strong>, yes, please post the website of your partner ... thanks<br>

<strong>Danny Low</strong> - yep, another bullseye. f16 & speeds faster than 1/500 are an unimaginable luxury, especially when the critters are sitting in the shade in a dense forest. But I have been hesitant of pushing the ISO much beyond 200, because I have been afraid of the grain devil, especially after the inevitable cropping. What, in your collective opinion, is the max ISO that can be used safely without ruining 11x14 or 16x20 prints?<br>

Finally, back to <strong>Steve</strong>...yes, I wondered about the alternatives from Canon as well. However, I think it was more a question of irrational behaviour that made me think of that horde of Nikon bodies and hence dismiss any thoughts of flirting with Canon. But may be, just may be, I should before plonking down $1,500 for that 80-400 Nikkor.<br>

Again, thanks everybody!</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Steve, I wonder how well that 500P would focus if it were tried on a body with a Katz Eye split prism ground glass?</p>

<p>My old manual focus lenses, none longer than 200 mm (and I do have a TC200 for them, which I have used once in a while and seems just a tad soft), are hard to focus on the digital focusing screen. My tired eyes do not trust that little green dot that much. The only one I have success with in my old 105mm F4 Micro, but which I usually use on dead still flowers and the occasional butterfly.</p>

<p>A couple of months ago I put a roll of film through my old F for a couple of portraits in B&W for the first time in years. How easy it was, and a pleasure, to get dead accurate focus on an eye with that split screen in the F. But, the models are not moving, are not distant animals, and I do not plan to shoot another roll of film for another couple of years. Digital is where it is at, and autofocus seems to be the way to go.</p>

<p>The 500P is one supertele that I have toyed with as a long lens that I might be able to afford. I am sorry to hear that your shots are not sharp. I had heard that it was supposed to be a very sharp lens. If you have assured that focus is accurate, and if the lens is clamped down. then I guess the may be a problem.</p>

<p>Too bad.</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_quiroga]

Sometimes it's a matter of of using what you have to the fullest. This was taken with a Nikon D80 and a 300mm f4.5 Ais ED manual focus lens with a 1.4x Tamron teleconverter.<div></div>

[leo_grillo]

<p>Hi Ganz, <br>

Chris Weston (UK) can be reached through our site:<br>

www.animalsontheedge.org<br>

He's a great guy and will answer freely. He's also been to most places. Mention that I said to email him.<br>

Good luck --<br>

Leo</p>

[raymond_petty1]

<p>Ganz, you might think about getting the 70-300 VR right now. The 80-400 VR is pretty long in the tooth and rumored to be uprgraded soon. In 6 - 8 months there might be some pretty good deals on this lens, or you might prefer to begin to slowly save for what could replace it. Thom Hogan has mentioned the possiblity of a 100-500 AFS/VR. Sounds like something like this could be Nirvana for you ( and at variable aperture, probably within your price range at some point in time ).</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you have been happy with your VR 55-200mm lens, you may be really happy if you check out the VR 70-300mm AF-S Nikkor lens. It would have a bit more reach and the glass gives good results. And it would be <em>lighter</em> to carry around than a 500mm lens.</p>

<p>Taken with the VR 70-300mm AF-S Nikkor lens</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10332912</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>I see Nikon 80-400mm VR regularly selling for around $1,000 on E bay. That lens will do what you want. I would not buy a new one. There is also the very similar Sigma 120-400mm OS HSM. "OS" is Sigma's equiv. of VR and it works well. The lens also has HSM, which is Sigma's version of AFS for faster focus. This lens sells new for just under $900 and is worth a VERY serious look by you. If you can find a used one that would likely be a terrific deal. Either lens will do what you want. Long range and doesn't need a tripod. I bought the Nikon 80-400mm VR to photo birds from my kayak. It did the job.<br />The only other lens with VR/OS in your price range is the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I think I'd rather have a Sigma 120-400mm OS, myself. BTW, I don't think you went crazy with your purchase of camera body. The D90 is a good value.<br>

If Nikon actually were to come out with a 100-500mm VR AFS lens, I'm betting it would cost $1,800 like all the other lenses they've been releasing. Groan.</p>

<p><br />Kent in SD</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I have heard rumors of a new Nikon 100-500 variable apperture zoom and am impatiently waiting. A lot of Canon shooters very successfully use their 100-400/4-5.6 and Nikon really does not have a competitive option. I too would love the 200-400 with TCs, but the price is just too high. I'm thinking of getting the new 70-200/2.8 with the new TC-2.0 III. That would be 140-400/5.6 and could be a be an option. I have the 70-300 VR, but it's just too slow and won't take tc's.</p>

<p>If the 100-500 has both superior optics and build quality, I would imagine it costing at least as much as the new 70-200/2.8, or about $2,500.</p>

[hbs]

<p>I disagree with Kent about the Sigma 120-400mm OS lens. I had one and sold it recently. It wasn't as sharp as I had hoped (at least my copy wasn't), it seemed very big and heavy for its optic size, and the OS (Sigma's VR) was noisy. I now have a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF (not the AF-S) and a Tamron 1.4x TC that I'm much happier with.</p>

[brians.]

<p>I have owned the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS for about a year. I bought it new for about $1000. Not much can touch it for the price. I recommend the lens, however it only works well in bright light because of the small aperture and some copies are a little soft. The OS is as good or better than VRII but can be noisy and power hungry. This is one of the best price/feature values around.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I used the cheapo Canon 75-300mm lens for years and got many great shots. My best buddy at that time was a bean bag. Rest it on you knees, branches, walls or whatever. It makes a huge difference. I've been on a shoot with Andy Rouse (one of the world's best) and he got me into bean bags. Don't spend money on something that you may regret in the future. Try the cheaper options first.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Example 2:</p><div></div>

[hughes]

<p>Ganz<br>

a manual focus 400mm 5.6 used is available from KEH for $449 this is probably by far the best bang for the buck, I know there is a whole generation of people unable to use or even consider a fixed focus manual focus lens but they are very useable and with care can yeild extraordinary results. I bought a 400mm 3.5 Nikon on the auction site a little beat up but very useable for less than $800. You will find for wildlife photography a zoom will spend 90% of it's life at full length so why not consider an older fixed focus lens with a good solid monopod off course. A 500mm F4 would be my choice but of course it is much bigger and more expensive as to the poster who finds his 500mm unsatisfactory I'll happily take it off your hands because my experience has been quite different.<br>

Steve </p><div></div>

[hughes]

<p>enlarged section</p><div></div>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Ganz, you dont need one of those exspensive lenses. I use a 300mm f/4 with 1.5 TC and 1.5 crop DSLR. I shoot tiny songbirds with this setup. With a monopod you can shoot all day long. You can also buy used.</p>

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>I agree with the thought about the 300/4, particularly for DX, although I've read bad things about the degredation of the original 300/4 AF with TC.</p>

<p>Further thoughts on my 500/4 P. I completed a brief test yesterday, images I was actually downloading from my camera as I made the above post. Now that I've looked at them, I have unexpected results. Based on a tripod-mounted test, the lens appears remarkably sharp and aberration free (far as I can tell, I'm not an experienced lens tester) at f/8, with good but noticeably diminished sharpness at each adjacent f/stop (5.6 and 11), and incredibly degraded results at all other apertures. Wide open at f/4 the results appear virtually indistinguishable from results at f/32. These results (to be confirmed with more testing) really surprise me as this lens had the reputation for being very good wide open. Interestingly, the shutter speed at f/4 was 1/500s, compared to just 1/125s at f/8, yet the f/8 results are shockingly better. In fact, f/11 was also far sharper than f/4 despite a shutter speed of only 1/60s. This seems to suggest that my long lens technique was at least acceptable, and doubly reinforces the limitations of the lens wide open. Doh.</p>

<p>But at least there seems to be a pair of usable apertures. The problem is, f/8 was clearly the winner, not 5.6 as reported elsewhere, and f/8 is going to be very difficult to use with wildlife in motion. In fact the f/11@1/60s is slightly sharper than the f/5.6@1/250s. My task now seems clear, go forth and see if I can make good at f/8. That'll be fine for the relatively static bird portraits I've been focused on lately, but my ambitions definitetely lean towards action. For that I'm hoping the current generation of long Nikkor lenses are sharper wide open (the claims certainly suggest it, with bloggers proclaiming wide open is the sharpest aperture in some cases), and combining that with super fast AF and VR seems like it should be night and day over my classic. I plan to rent and test.</p>

<p>Regarding some comments above, I certainly agree that in wildlife it's usually all about the prime. I want to be as long as possible, as I found out early on that my zooms (before I sold them) spent all their time at the long end when wildlife was the target. Right now I'm salivating over the newish 800/5.6 IS from Canon, yet another place where Nikon isn't even in the game. Arthur Morris's love letter to that lens in the current Nature Photographer magazine seems persuasive to me. At FX sizes, 500 is a length I used to consider adequate, but there is no doubt that having a lens almost twice as long without a TC would really deliver more results. That said, the original poster specified hand-held, so that's why I pointed to the VR zooms. But, on a cropped body I think the first gen 300/4 AF would also get you there even without a TC, so good options there on a budget.</p>

<p>To <strong>Steve Hughes</strong> : nice parrot shots, very impressive, thanks for the 100% crop. What aperture was the shot taken? To other photo posters, remember if you don't post at 100% crop, it tells us almost nothing about the quality of the image.</p>

<p>Shout out for Avatar: those of you interested in wildlife and nature, this film is a pleasure. Skip 3D, which gave us all a headache, see it in 2D, which was glorious, with fantastic textures we seemed unable to perceive with the 3D gimmick. My wife and I just returned from Costa Rica and this film put us right back there.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Sigma 150-500 ??</p>