Animal pictures--lens?
Toby Falk
I'm going to South Africa in a few weeks and am
going to buy a new camera (I'm an inexperienced
photographer). I'm going to a couple of game parks and I'm hoping to
get some nice pictures of the animals. This may be a difficult question
to
answer, but will a 28-200 lens get me close enough to the animals? At
one camera store I was told that 200 should be plenty, while at another
I was told I'd
probably be happy to have a 75-300. There are of course other issues
involved in a lens choice, e.g. photo quality vs. convenience, but for
me it comes down to the question of "Will 200 be enough?" I've never
been to a game park, so if anyone here has taken pictures in an animal
reserve: how close does one typically get to the animals, and will a
28-200 lens get me close enough?
Thanks for any advice!
cheers,
toby
W Scott Elliot
and a 400 mm f/5.6 Sigma. Nearly all my best wildlife photos were made with
the 400.
This lens has to be held securely to get good photos though. Unless you are
going to use a tripod, bean bag or other support, I would stay with the
shorter lens.
Scott
Toby Falk wrote in message <36C093...@tpau.physics.ucsb.edu>...
Jack Daynes
I've just returned from 6 weeks in RSA and Zim. This was my 2nd trip and was
better prepared due to having been there 2 1/2 years ago. Up to a point, I agree
with Scott's advice (see below).
On my first trip I took (Nikon gear) an N6006 with a 28~200mm (f3.5~5.6) and a
200~400mm (f5.6) and a Kenko 7 element 2x attachment. I took many photos which I
was very pleased with, but as Scott said, the longer focal lengths are very
useful. At 400mm the Tamron (200~400mm) is decent, but not as good as at, say
370~380mm. Put the 2X on and it "softens" even more.
The 28~200mm was pretty good, but over the last couple of years I've replaced it
with a Tokina 28~70 f2.6~2.8 ATX, and a Nikkor 80~200mm f2.8 AFD. Both of these
lenses are very nice. I do advise taking a suitable landscape lens, as you will
probably want to capture the countryside.
Prior to leaving last November 29, I bought a 2nd camera for the trip (N70), a
400mm prime (Tokina 400mm f5.6) and a Kenko 1.5x adapter. Having 2 cameras was a
real advantage. I kept the 80~200mm mounted on one and the 400mm on the other
(adding the 1.5x as needed for a 600mm f8 capability). On my first trip, I
missed a potentially great shot of a leopard because I was carrying the
200~400mm with the 2x and the leopard was only 15 feet away (I may have got one
of his spots). Before I could change lenses, the animal disappeared into the
bush (sigh).
This trip, I found myself wishing for a faster 400mm, but NOT wishing for it's
bulk. I probably shot 40% of my animal shots at 400mm, 20% at 600mm, and 40%
with the 80~200mm. I got good photo opps at Lake Kariba (from a boat), at Krugar
Park and Hluhluwe/Umfoloza Park. My best trips were to Kariba (although the
rainy season allowed the animals to leave the lake where they are easier to
see), and Hluhluwe/Umfoloza (where I saw 10 times the game in 1/10th the driving
as compared to Krugar).
--
Jack
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
/ Remove "[NOSPAM]" for email replies /
\____________________________________/
Fred B.
A 70-300 or so is a bit better.
An ideal combination would be a 70-300 with a 170-500 Sigma.
Also a 28/36 to 105 would be good with the 170-500 Sigma.
You must also realize you will need some faster film for the long
shots, and sometimes something to stabilize the camera, like a tripod
or MONOPOD. Travelling, a monopod might be easier to carry overseas.
-----------------------------------
Fred B.
EMAIL: photobug at ibm.net
For you spammers: postm...@ibm.net
Vladimir Sujan
picture, if an animal is not more far than some 20 metres - what is not
enough for wildlife animals (of course, it depends on an animal). And with
focus length 200 you need to take a time 1/250 or shorter (with 5.6
diaphragm) - it's not everytime possible.
Vlado