bob_royse

Rue's "Ultimate Blind" is the only blind that I've ever used (I haven't used them all)that I can stand being in for more than 2 minutes. I haven't looked at the price for them lately, but they can't be too expensive. They're reasonably portable, especially if your heaviest lens is a 400f5.6. Those bag blinds from Rue or Planck aren't comfortable at all. You feel like you're suffocating inside of them and you can't see what's going on around you. They make the "Ultimate Blind" seem like a luxury chalet.

The increased number of birds at your feeder at this time of year during or before a storm likely pertains to migrating birds that have been forced to stop en route. Warm weather in the NE recently may have coaxed such birds as White-Throated and Song Sparrows north. Blackbirds such as Red-Winged and Common Grackles are also moving north. Stopping at feeders is a logical place to feed and wait it out until the winds again become favorable to their journey.

I live (and photograph) mainly in Ohio. There are no seals here. There is also very little thought from the human inhabitants towards the natural ecosystem. I find this current discussion very irrelevant to my world. How can photographers compare to the onslaught of bulldozers? As a naturalist/birder/photographer I gingerly approach a singing White-Eyed Vireo singing on territory for a photograph only to come back the next year to see dozens of acres in the area cleared for condo developments and lawns. I, personally, only see government wildlife agencies as people who take dollars for hunting licenses and as people who care no more about the wildlife than the post office does about the words in your letters.

Are zoos bad places for nature photography? They AREN'T places for nature photgraphy. Nature photography is photographing the natual world. What's natural abobut a fat leopard in a small enclosed space? Call it animal portraiture if you want, but please don't call it nature photography. If you like that sort of photography then by all means do it. If you want to photograph a starving leopard struggling to take its kill into a tree before a hyena pulls it away, then go to where you can photograph that and you can call it nature photography.

The price Jim mentions seems like a decent one for a 400f2.8. But as others have noted 500f4's are even less expensive. If the lens was to be used a good deal of the time at 800mm I'd certainly like to know how it performs there before I put my money down on it. The newer AF Nikkors can only be presumed to be better optically. The same goes for the newest Canon version. The Zeiss lens would be attractive to me because of the reputation of their 300f2.8 and mythological 600f4 with teleconverters. The Nikon 400f3.5 can also be found used at a decent price and it is highly regarded with a matched 2x. Larry West's "How to Photograph Birds" has many shots taken with this combo. The weight issue seems most significant on slow days when there's not much opportunity to set down the tripod and you find your self saying "why am I lugging this thing around?"

 

<p>

 

You do need one of these big lenses for quality wildlife photography, though. They're all a compromise somewhere. For myself I doubt that I'll purchase anything new in the next few years (unless I win the lottery). I think that patience, persistence and knowledge of subjects have more to do with a successful photograph than whether you have 700mm or 800mm. I'd rather put the money into travel to use what I already have.

Jim, sorry to load up you mailbox with questions you haven't asked, but I have a question for all those 600f4 freaks. How often do you really take quality shots with a 600f4 and 2x? Is how a lens performs at f8 even a consideration here? I haven't even seriously considered purchasing a matched 2x for my 500f4 for a 1000f8. Yes I could put a 2x on my 500, load it with fast film and get some fuzzy shots to document some state bird record, but there are already so many people who do that kind of stuff and I'd like to keep my photography as artful as possible. I really consider f5.6 the limit in both focusing ability and quality on film. Beyond that it's time for me to pull out the binoculars to enjoy the view or put a macro or wide angle lens on the camera and find a different photographic subject.

 

<p>

 

I must say, though, there are many times when I would have liked to have had an 800 or 840f5.6 vs. 700mm or would have appreciated an f2.8 over f4 when light got low. I also have had back or shoulder aches from carrying around ONLY a 500f4+tc, camera, tripod, and ballhead all day.

To answer the questions that have diverted from the original question - The Nikon F4 underexposes everything by about 2/3 stops when an extension tube is added. That's just the way the meter works. Various tube, lens, and focusing screen combinations might be different. A Nikon technician explained it to me once and I don't want to embarrass myself by trying to paraphrase him. Call 1-800-NIKONUS if you want the technical details. On the Contax AX the spot meter OVERexposes with an ext. tube added. This can be annoying if you're photographing wildlife moving through tricky lighting situations. Changing meter patterns, exposure compensation dials and following agile subjects doesn't work too easily. Camera makers obviously don't consider this to be important when designing their meters. Some cameras, like the Contax RTSIII, 167MT, and numerous others aren't affected by extension tubes while spot metering. To answer Don's question - no, Nikon doesn't make any ext. tubes that allow AF functions, although some third party makers (Kenko, I think) do.

 

<p>

 

Getting back to the original 400f2.8 question - I think it's a valid option if it fills a need for speed at 400mm and/or close focus at 800mm. I really want that Zeiss lens - bad! But an amateur like myself could never justify its (presumed) price.

There is one feature in using the 400f2.8 with tc's where I think it would excel over the other alternatives - that's in the closer minimum focusing distance.

 

<p>

 

I use a 500f4 and 1.4x. I purchased it largely for the reasons stated above by Bob Atkins. Nevertheless, one of my primary phtographic subjects with this lens is small passerines. I'd say that least 50% of the time I have an extension tube attatched so I can have a 700mm lens that focuses as closely as 12ft. When using the 500 alone from a blind I have to add even more extension. Since I use a Nikon F4, I also lose spot metering unless I add 2/3 stop (not convenient). If I was using an AF lens, I'd also lose AF. The 500f4 focuses down to between 15 and 16ft. by itself, but that's not quite enough. The idea of a close focusing 560f4 and 800f5.6 sounds very attractive.

 

<p>

 

I primarily use Contax cameras and Nikon only for this telephoto. There are rumors that Zeiss will be releasing a 400f2.8 this year. That will certainly be my dream lens assuming it's the expected quality. If it's also the expected price, I better start buying lottery tickets :)

Actually - if there's a lot of rain in southern Africa, the Kalahari Gemsbok N.P. will be at its very finest. The wildlife will congregate in the riverbeds where the vegetation is most nutritious. The roads through the park are in the riverbeds. Etosha in Namibia probably wouldn't be a good bet after heavy rains, though.

I said that I'll be going back to Africa (for the first time since 1991). Where will I be going and what will I take (not that anybody asked) on my next trip to Africa ? I've already had the luxury of exploring southern Africa when I lived there, so when I return I'll only hit my favorite spots and most photographically (to me) inspiring places.

 

<p>

 

With a month to kill in Africa, I'll spend 18 days to three weeks of that time in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park. The other week will be spent visiting friends in Cape Town, photographing birds along the coast, day hikes in the cape and Table Mountain, and hitting smaller National parks and nature reserves such as the West Coast N.P., Bontebok N.P., Augrabies Falls N.P., Nieuwoudtville Nature Reserve, the De Hoop Vlei, Cape of Good Hope Nature Preserve, Rondevlei Bird Sanctuary, etc.....(yeah, right - in one week)

 

<p>

 

My photo gear will be all that's allowed. I'll lug a heavy bag through the airports containing a Contax RTSIII and AX and Nikon F4. The camera bag will hold Zeiss 18, 28, 35, and 50mm wide angles (to me the 50 is wide), a 100 makro and 180f2.8, 300f4, and 100-300 vario sonnar. The MutarIII 1.4x will be usually attatched to the 300f4. In a separate bag will be the 500f4P Nikkor and TC14B 1.4x and LOTS of film. I'll hope to get my Contax 7.5mm ext tube adapted on the female side to have a Nikon mount. This will give me more flexibility to use a variety of camera bodies containing different films with my Nikkor.

 

<p>

 

My suitcases will contain my trusty tent, sleeping bag, and camping mattress, a week's supply of clothes, some old but reliable Yashica FXD's with Contax 139 winders, tripods and Studioball, empty Kirk huggers, a Kirk car window mount, and some American Peanut Butter (I hate that S.African stuff). Other supplies such as thermoses, gas cooking essentials, pans, cutlery, dishes, pillows can be found in a few hours in Cape Town.

I lived in South Africa for 3 years in the 1980's and am planning to return for a month in Aug., so I'm also planning what to take for myself. I'll tell you one thing - you'll be VERY disappointed if you head into any National Park without a least a 400f5.6. I don't know exactly which places you're thinking of visiting, but a 1.4x for your 300 would be far more useful than a 2x.

I know that there aren't many Contax owners out there, but the Zeiss 100-300 Vario-Sonnar is one of the finest lenses out there. It has replaced having to carry the 180f2.8 and 300f4 in my backpack. That lens along with a 100 macro and shorter lenses from 18mm to 50mm are all I need for general nature photography. Of course for wildlife photography there's no sustitute for longer, faster prime lenes w/TC's.

Scott - The northern edge of Chobe NP along the river is only a tiny sliver of the park. The road to Maun is probably usually passable in a regular car, but you not going to be able to do much wildlife photography from that road!

 

<p>

 

As far as Kruger goes, I glanced throug my notes from my very first visit in 1986. I had lion, cheetah, wild dog, and spotted hyena on my first day and ended up with 4 leopards before my trip was over. Yes I studied the animals I was going to see before I went - as every one should before they dump a big sum of time and money into a trip of that sort. As a photographer, I couldn't think of anything more frustrating than shooting from a car that I wasn't driving. I'd like to be the one to have total control of where I position the vehicle for my composition. Slow driving and peripheral vision makes for good wildlife spotting. You do it your way and I'll do it my way.

Scott - where in Botswana would you go without a 4WD ? There's one paved road running through the SE corner of the country. The other roads in the country are tracks through Kalahari sand. It would be extremely foolish for any one to venture out on their own. Ideally travel through Botswana should be with 2 4WD vehicles and a large supply of petrol and water.

 

<p>

 

Mark - hiring a guide to take you through Kruger or the Kalahari Gemsbok National Parks would be a silly waste of money. They probably aren't even avaiable. South Africa's National Parks are easily done in your own private car. The game moves around and is evenly distributed at Kruger. In the Kalahari game follows the rainfall. If you have trouble finding a particular species all you have to do is ask a ranger.

As far as photographic possibilities go - Kruger is a great place to get excellent "trophy" shots of a large variety of species. The Kalahari is the place to experience raw Africa and be an artist with your camera.

 

<p>

 

Since returning to my native Ohio after 3 years of living in Africa I personally don't care if I see another giraffe, elephant, zebra, rhino, or hippo. I've been back twice to visit and the Kalahari was my only destination and any future trips abroad will definitely be there.

 

<p>

 

For a first visit to Africa, however, I think Kruger is a great place. Go there first if you do both. After that - driving from CapeTown to the KGNP via Vanrhynsdorp-Calvinia-Brandvlei-Keimoes-Noenieput must be one of the most pleasurable rides on Earth. A lot of incredible shots could be taken on this route, but I've always been too eager to get to the Kalahari to stop. On my last visit there I DID stop at the Nature Reserve at Niewoudville on the way back and the transmission on my rental car gave out and was stuck in 3rd.....then neutral. I managed get to the edge of the plateaeu and rode the clutch to Vanrhynsdorp, where I called the Avis people to bring a new car. On my second to last visit the fuel pump on my Budget rental car gave out while at the Nossob camp. I was stuck there for three days while another was brought up from Kimberly. Another visitor dove me around for a couple of those days and the other day was spent doing laundry and doing macro and owl shots in the camp itself. On my first three visits I drove my own VW without a problem of any sort(other than getting stuck in the sand). Geez, I was planning to go to Churchill this June - you have me thinking about the Kalahari instead!

Mike,

I'd reccomend going to the Kruger National Park and the Kalahari Gemsbok N.P. in S.Africa in March. I've been to both those places at various times of the year and March is as good of a time as any. They compliment each other very well as far as habitats and species likely to be seen go. Going to Etosha in Namibia would NOT be a good idea in March. March is the rainy season and the game will be widely dispersed. Botswana also wouldn't be a good idea in March and it's not really accessable for one person in a rented car. Unless you feel that you absolutely had to see Victoria Falls there's probably no need to go to Zimbabwe.

 

<p>

 

Here's the official website of South African National Parks Board :

 

<p>

 

http://africa.com/~venture/saparks/

 

<p>

 

Kruger will be green in March, but you would still have no trouble seeing the big game and antelope. The bird life will be at its best. The Kalahari is also good in March because the game (and their predators) will be attracted to the nutritious grasses in the riverbeds. Both places can be explored in an ordinary rental car. Book huts as far ahead of time as possible or take a tent. If your car gets stuck in the sand in the Kalahri (which usually happens) the rangers will come get you out.

 

<p>

 

Let me know if you have any questions about routes, the best rest camps, books to buy, other places to check out near Cape Town, etc. I wish I could go there myself again !

You have to ask yourself if AF would be a useful tool for YOUR photography. Invest the money needed to solve your photographic problems - not someone else's. Do you find that you currently miss a lot of shots because you don't have AF? For MY wildlife photography I find AF a must only when photographing flying birds, but not really a necessity at other times. Most mammals move slowly enough where AF would probably be a hinderance. Investing in faster glass would be my priority if I was doing a lot of work with mammals.

I agree with the others that designing a bean bag for your lens is the way to go. It is easy to grab and quickly get in place when a creature suddenly appears by the side of your car.

 

<p>

 

I have a Kirk mount that permanently resides on the floor in the back of my car. Setting it up means searching my camera bag for that allen wrench, taking the ball head off my tripod, and putting it in place. It isn't very stable in my car (VW Jetta) or in any other I've used. The lower part of the mount rests on the car door. All vehicles have some sort of upholstery, which makes the whole assembly very unstable.

To answer Eric' further questions. I felt that the Tamron 400f4 was sharper than the Nikon 500f4P when using both lenes wide open. At the time I did a lot of bird photography sitting in a blind. I can see more detail and contrast in feather detail with the Tamron lens. No, the Tamron 400+1.4x certainly isn't sharper than the prime 500mm lens. When adding a 1.4x I would say, if anything, Nikon's tc14B does a better job in the 560 vs. 700 test.

 

<p>

 

I can't emphasise enough how much better the Nikon 500mm lens is mechanically ! This is obviously a sharp enough lens. Countless professionals use this lens with and without a 1.4x. There is also significant increase in magnification between the two. You don't state what type of wildlife photography you're into, but a 700f5.6 is certainly more useful for photographing birds than a 560mm lens is. If you're seriously into wildlife photography I feel that it's worth the extra money buy a Nikon or Canon telephoto. They can be found used at decent prices and hold their value. I still am a big-time Contax fan, but I also appreciate my Nikon. When you're out there in the field with a big telephoto lens you're probably not going to be carrying around your complete photo gear anyway. When working from the car having two systems is no problem at all.

I use primarily Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses so I understand your interest in good third party telephotos. I once owned the Tamron 400f4 and 1.4x (about 5 or 6 years ago). I can attest to it being a great telephoto optically - extremely sharp with excellent contrast. Mechanically it wasn't at all acceptable. The lens mounts weren't reliable. I always had to jiggle it around to get the right aperture to show in the viewfinder then set the exposure manually. All the screws in the lens would come loose very easily. I added a Nikon 500f4 and 1.4x with a Nikon body to my regular Contax system and have never been mechanically bothered since. With that said, the Tamron lens really was MUCH superior optically.

I live in Ohio and I agree that Nov. through Jan. can be uninspiring, especially if there is a strong overcast. The best idea is just to hike around with a macro lens and see what catches your attention. Morning frost, decaying leaves, fallen seeds, and ice patterns are all possibilities. When light is good there are plenty of birds around. Just get out there and look.

After reading your second request all I have to say is go out, explore, and find your places. Ohio offers a lot of opportunities.

 

<p>

 

Since no one else has menioned it, southeast Ohio is relatively pristine compared to the rest of the state. Hocking Co. is very celebrated and should be visited , but the Shawnee State Forest is really THE place in Ohio for both photo ops (and spring birding). It touts itself - and rightly so - as the "Little Smokies".

I live in Columbus and can't give you any great specific locations for general nature photography, but Cleveland's Metropark system is excellent and any of them should have great opportunities throughout the year as should the Cuyahoga Valley Recreation Area. I head up to the lake often for birding. The winter offers interesting opportunities to photograph a good variety of gulls along the lakefront from Conneaut all the way to Huron. For spring passerines, Headlands Beach near Mentor is probably the best spot in NE Ohio. In spring it's definitely worth heading to NW Ohio to the Ottawa NWR/Crane Creek area.