Bird photography
Andrew Hardacre
If this ng has a FAQ and my question is 'old' - sorry folks! First
posting.
I am interested in photographing birds - I have a Canon EOS 50Eqd and
the longest lens I have is a Tokina 80-400mm zoom (ATX?). Is this going
to get me reasonable results or what focal length should I be thinking
of? Advice appreciated direct to me at hard...@hkstar.com or via ng.
Thanks.
--
Andrew Hardacre
Ich weiss nicht was es bedeuten soll, dass ich so traurig bin
Alexander Gardner
Andrew Hardacre wrote in message <35111ACE...@hkstar.com>...
>If this ng has a FAQ and my question is 'old' - sorry folks! First
>posting.
>
>I am interested in photographing birds - I have a Canon EOS 50Eqd and
>the longest lens I have is a Tokina 80-400mm zoom (ATX?). Is this going
>to get me reasonable results or what focal length should I be thinking
>of? Advice appreciated direct to me at hard...@hkstar.com or via ng.
>
>Thanks.
>
I use a similar length lens 100 - 300mm or a 500mm and get wonderful shots.
The key here is to stalk your prey.
I use either my VW Campervan or if I really want the shot I get into my
ghillie (sp?) suit and crawl up to the area the birdis in and with alot of
patience get that photo.
You can also construct a little camoflague(sp?) shelter and wait for the
birds by a feeder or something similar.
Al Gardner
Merlin11
Generally, you'll find that once you really get going with bird photography,
you'll want 600mm. If you get a GOOD tele-converter... 1.4X.... you'll have
560mm, and that should make you very happy as time goes on. What is the
smallest aperture on your 80-400 lens? Hopefully not more than 4.0 ???
Have fun !
Don Baccus
In article <3517b599...@news.itis.com>,
Sean <mb...@badgerstate.com> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 1998 00:10:22 GMT, merl...@aol.com (Merlin11) spake unto
>rec.photo.technique.nature:
>I disagree. If you really want to get serious about bird photography you'll
>learn how to use your 400mm and get the pictures. To get truly good photos of
>birds you can't sit 75 yards away with a good lens. You need to get up close.
>So learn how to approach birds without spooking them.
>Expect to take quite some
>time to approach birds. Once you learn that you'll find that your photos are
>much better.
Despite this, 400mm is often STILL too short to get the kind of intimate
shots you so frequently see in birding and other wildlife magazines.
>Take a look at most bird photo books and you'll see that very few of the photos
>werre taken with anything larger than a 400mm.
This is simply not true. Professional bird photographers routinely
use 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, very frequently with 1.4x teleconverters.
There are exceptions (I certainly own a 300, too) but the long lens
is the bread-and-butter lens for the serious bird photographer.
>While using a longer lens can be
>useful, I find it's cost prohibitive for most people. To get a fast 600 lens
>(fast enough to limit the shake from a long tele) you'll need to spend a couple
>thousand $$.
Unfortunately far more than that.
>So I would suggest you learn how to use your existing lenses and see where
>things go from there.
Here we agree. But there's no point in misleading him into thinking
that the kind of bird photographs he sees in birding and other magazines
are most often taken at 400mm rather than 500-800mm. He'll just get
needlessly frustrated by his inability to get a decent percentage of
good shots.
So - learn to use your gear, learn to get close, but understand that
you're going to find it difficult to get intimate bird portraits,
particularly of small or skittish birds, using a 400mm lens. You
may want to concentrate on feeder birds, or birds at refuges known
for having approachable individuals, and the like. But don't beat
yourself up if you rarely get the kind of intimate shots you see and
love in the magazine and bird book venues.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Don Baccus
In article <351b6699...@news.itis.com>,
Sean <mb...@badgerstate.com> wrote:
>
>==>This is simply not true. Professional bird photographers routinely
>==>use 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, very frequently with 1.4x teleconverters.
>==>There are exceptions (I certainly own a 300, too) but the long lens
>==>is the bread-and-butter lens for the serious bird photographer.
>==>
>
>Don,
>
>I just went through 4 of my bird books and here is what I compiled.
>
>Listed are the number of pictures for each lens listed.
>
>75-300: 1
>105: 1
>180: 1
>200: 5
>300: 24
>400: 51
>500: 14
>800: 9
>Now about 40% of the 400mm pictures were taken with a 1.4x or 2.0x
>teleconverter, but the results were still excellent.
The very fact that none were taken with a 600 makes me believe these
are fairly old books. Certainly many bird shooters have used the
Nikon 400/3.5 + 1.4x and 2x with great success but this is a far
cry from trying to shoot with a 400/5.6 + 1.4x or 2x (800/11 is damned
hard to use). Before 600/4s became available, it's understandable
that bird shooters weren't using them.
My first bird photographs that were published were taken with a Sigma
400/5.6, one with a 2x believe it or not. But, after trying for a
couple of years I had a handful of good bird images, that's it. A
400/5.6 is just too slow to routinely use with a teleconverter. It's
too short to routinely get good bird photographs.
I'm not suggesting folks give up with such a lens. Only to be realistic
and to accept the fact that their opportunities to take the kind of
frame-filling, intimate shots they routinely see in birding magazines
will be limited.
To suggest otherwise will simply lead to frustration on their part. They'll
believe they're simply incompetent if they believe those of us who sell
to birding magazines and the like are using the same tools to routinely
come up with superior results.
David Hay Jones
Don Baccus wrote:
> I'm not suggesting folks give up with such a lens. Only to be realistic
> and to accept the fact that their opportunities to take the kind of
> frame-filling, intimate shots they routinely see in birding magazines
> will be limited.
>
> To suggest otherwise will simply lead to frustration on their part. They'll
> believe they're simply incompetent if they believe those of us who sell
> to birding magazines and the like are using the same tools to routinely
> come up with superior results.
I agree with this. On a recent two-month birding trip to the States
most of my photographs were taken with a 500, 4.5. I also used a 300
2.8 but found I had to use a 1.4 or 2x converter to get frame-filling
shots with this lens. In the Bosque del Apache there were thousands of
snowgeese and cranes fairly close to my camera but the 300 2.8 on its
own did not give the results I wanted: the frame contained too much
empty space. With 2x converter it was just about right and the 500 4.5
was perfect, even for coyotes hunting among the geese. At home I
routinely use the 300 2.8 on its own but do so in an area that I have
worked for the past 10 years. I know the area and the birds seem to
know me, which means I can get very close.
David
Paul
>I disagree. If you really want to get serious about bird photography you'll
>learn how to use your 400mm and get the pictures. To get truly good photos of
>birds you can't sit 75 yards away with a good lens. You need to get up close.
>So learn how to approach birds without spooking them. Expect to take quite some
>time to approach birds. Once you learn that you'll find that your photos are
>much better.
Nonsense. Take any old photo and then use digital tricks to make it
look like the bird you were trying to photograph. In this digital
age, going to all that effort to get a bird picture is silly.
Woods Elec
In article <351c56a8...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, paul...@eskimo.com (Paul)
writes:
>Nonsense. Take any old photo and then use digital tricks to make it
>look like the bird you were trying to photograph. In this digital
>age, going to all that effort to get a bird picture is silly.
Paul,
I think your missing the point. These guys "want" to take great photographs.
Thats not silly...
Silly is probably fixing bad ones on a computer... :-)
Besides, how in the world would you know what the bird "looks like" without a
picture of it in the first place????
I challenge you to take a fuzzy (poor) picture of a subject that you have never
seen before and use digital techniques to make it look real (at least the way
you think real is)...
Then try to pass the picture off as un-altered to someone that really knows
what the subject looks like.. Odds are you'll be caught.... Good Luck...
Digital techniques start with a good photograph...
Steve Yanke
High Speed Photography spoken at my Web site:
http://members.aol.com/woodselec
Email:
Wood...@aol.com
Woods Electronics Inc.
14781 Pomerado Rd. #197
Poway, CA 92064
(619) 486-0806 Fax (619)486-6608
Andrew Hardacre
Paul wrote:
> >I disagree. If you really want to get serious about bird photography you'll
> >learn how to use your 400mm and get the pictures. To get truly good photos of
> >birds you can't sit 75 yards away with a good lens. You need to get up close.
> >So learn how to approach birds without spooking them. Expect to take quite some
> >time to approach birds. Once you learn that you'll find that your photos are
> >much better.
>
> Nonsense. Take any old photo and then use digital tricks to make it
> look like the bird you were trying to photograph. In this digital
> age, going to all that effort to get a bird picture is silly.
I assume this was not intended as a serious comment but was firmly tongue in cheek.
However it does raise the interesting point that British Birds is now having to
confront - when photos are submitted for competitions or - more importantly for BB I
suspect, for identification of rarities - how do you know whether the photo has been
digitally doctored? If birders start sending in photos of rarities that have been
doctored to make the record more acceptable to the Rarities Committee we are into
real problem territory.
I started this thread some days ago and have enjoyed and learned from the postings
and some direct e mail - thanks to all who troubled to contribute. I think the
answer is to go with my 400mm and a) see what results I can get and b) whether this
develops into a passion that will justify the outlay on a fast longer focal length
lens. As an aside I have also 'ditched' my print film and jumped into the deep end
with slides - trying 2 rolls each of Sensia II 100 (HK$33 per roll) and E200
Ektachrome (HK$48). To begin with I am autobracketing 0.5 stops. Does this sound
sensible?
Andrew Hardacre
Ich weiß nicht was soll es bedeuten, daß ich so traurig bin
scott a fairbairn
In article <35111ACE...@hkstar.com>,
Andrew Hardacre <hard...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>If this ng has a FAQ and my question is 'old' - sorry folks! First
>posting.
>
>I am interested in photographing birds - I have a Canon EOS 50Eqd and
>the longest lens I have is a Tokina 80-400mm zoom (ATX?). Is this going
>to get me reasonable results or what focal length should I be thinking
>of? Advice appreciated direct to me at hard...@hkstar.com or via ng.
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Andrew Hardacre
>Ich weiss nicht was es bedeuten soll, dass ich so traurig bin
>
>
From my own experience, 400mm is the minimum I would recommend for birds. It is a good
focal length to begin with for several reasons, the least not being the cost! If you are
photographing birds like warblers or sparrows, lenses of 500mm and higher are better. But
the cost of these lenses is astronomical. (for a fast lens) I currently use a 500mm, and I
always seem to be wishing for more.
Ilkka Nissil{
In article <35186...@news.pacifier.com>,
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>
>>==>This is simply not true. Professional bird photographers routinely
>>==>use 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, very frequently with 1.4x teleconverters.
>>==>There are exceptions (I certainly own a 300, too) but the long lens
>>==>is the bread-and-butter lens for the serious bird photographer.
Don, I am not a bird photographer but what I've seen
in Finnish nature photography, the 300 seems to be
by far the most popular tool for serious bird and
other wild animal photography. There are some people with
500's, 600's and 800's but *many* of the top nature
photographers use the 300/2.8 (sometimes with TC's)
as their main lens for the application.
I do see the 500 mm as the most typical lens in some
international competitions. I don't
know for sure why this is so. I certainly wouldn't
go backpacking with a 500 no matter how much I wanted
the bird shot. And using a car is not very 'nature',
is it?
The counts of individual animals are considerably
lower than in Africa or USA, and hides are used
considerably more often here, I believe. In Finland,
the close-up shot hasn't been well respected in
recent years, most seem to prefer the kind of shot
that shows significant surroundings (the animal's
living environment). I really like these too; of
course if you don't have access to nice surroundings
then you don't have much choice except to hide the
tall building in the background etc.
A lot of animal photography happens in the forest,
too, and there the f/2.8 aperture of the 300 is
very useful. Besides, in a dense forest, it should
be pretty hard to find use for a 800, not?
The guy who won last year's
BBC Nature photographer of the year competition, T. Rasanen,
takes a lot of close-up shots of birds, but he takes them
with a 300/2.8 and a tube (typically from a hide).
Cost could be an issue here too; income taxes can be as high
as 60% here, and a 600/4 would cost about $14000 in US currency
if purchased here.
Ilkka
Don Baccus
In article <351C93E6...@hkstar.com>,
Andrew Hardacre <hard...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>I started this thread some days ago and have enjoyed and learned from the postings
>and some direct e mail - thanks to all who troubled to contribute. I think the
>answer is to go with my 400mm and a) see what results I can get and b) whether this
>develops into a passion that will justify the outlay on a fast longer focal length
>lens.
This makes sense. I hope it's been clear that in my posts I've not been
trying to discourage this approach, only to do what I can to keep you from
being disappointed at the difficultly you'll often find getting truly great
bird photographs with a 400 mm lens. You will make some great bird
photos, simply not "at will" or on a daily basis.
>As an aside I have also 'ditched' my print film and jumped into the deep end
>with slides - trying 2 rolls each of Sensia II 100 (HK$33 per roll) and E200
>Ektachrome (HK$48). To begin with I am autobracketing 0.5 stops. Does this sound
>sensible?
Yes. Try pushing the Sensia a stop, too - you'll pay a little extra in
processing but shouldn't have to pay as much extra as you will for the
E200 (check your processor, some dip-and-dunkers charge by the rack, i.e.
mine charges $2 to push up to 12 rolls because they have to dunk one
rack which can hold up to 12 rolls. This means push charges will add
$2 for one roll, or $2 for 12 rolls in my lab's case).
is...@execpc.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:07:06, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> >I started this thread some days ago and have enjoyed and learned from the postings
> >and some direct e mail - thanks to all who troubled to contribute. I think the
> >answer is to go with my 400mm and a) see what results I can get and b) whether this
> >develops into a passion that will justify the outlay on a fast longer focal length
> >lens.
>
> This makes sense. I hope it's been clear that in my posts I've not been
> trying to discourage this approach, only to do what I can to keep you from
> being disappointed at the difficultly you'll often find getting truly great
> bird photographs with a 400 mm lens. You will make some great bird
> photos, simply not "at will" or on a daily basis.
Canon makes a 400/2.8L lens, and you can use the 1.4x or 2x converter
on it.
Don Baccus
Oh gosh, I thought it would be clear that I was talking about the 400mm he
already owns. That is, after all, the 400mm lens he was referring to in
his post when he said he's going to be using it for now.
And a 400/2.8 lens with a 1.4x isn't a 400mm lens, is it? It's a 560/4.
Nikon makes a 400/2.8L, too. Most bird shooters shun them - they weigh just
about as much as a 600/4 and aren't much cheaper. The 600/4 is slightly
longer and is sharper at 600 and 840 (with a 1.4x) than the 400/2.8 is
at 560 (1.4x) and 800 (2x) so is really a better choice for photographing
birds. Why lug around the weight of a 400/2.8 that will almost always have a
1.4x or 2x hung on it when you can get the sharper (at that length)
600/4 with no weight penalty? And of course the 600/4 gives the option
of using a 2x in a real pinch.
Some like the 500/4 or 500/4.5 as being a lighter option with
a bit more reach. Let's see, lighter, cheaper, more reach - I'd
definitely recommend either of these options to the bird shooter
over a 400/2.8. This presumes you really intend to focus on birds,
of course - not that the 400/2.8 is much of an all-around lens. In
theory it is, but at 13lb+ it really isn't. 300/2.8s are great
all-around lenses, in part because the sharpness, speed, and moderate
length are combined in a lighter 6+lb package. A 300/4's a far
more portable option, of course.
The 400/5.6, with a 1.4x extender available, is a great way to start
shooting birds, as I've said many times (indeed, I've made it clear
that's how I started, and how I made my first sales). Just understand
the limitations and don't get frustrated, depressed, or lose self-confidence
(the latter being the real issue I'm concerned with) when you feel
like you've run into a stone wall in attempts to get a high percentage
of good bird photos. The limitations are real, that's my point. There's
nothing wrong with living with the limitations, and of course working
hard to circumvent them. Just be realistic - and give realistic
advice.
Markie
I wonder if you could expand a bit on your comments below...particularly
the limitations of the 400/5.6. I'm considering buying the Sigma
400/5.6 to be used with a 1.4X; Canon has the same lens at twice the
price. For bird/wildlife photography (I live in Alaska and have ample
opportunity), would the lenses give equal results? What about resale
value of these two lenses? Is there a reasonably priced, good quality
500 on the market that is not monstrously huge? (BTW, I'm looking at
lenses for an EOS Elan.) Appreciate any guidance you can offer.
markie
Charlie Hicks
I hesitate jumping into the middle of this without reading all the other
posts first, but from my experience I have to let the situation determine
the focal length. If I am shooting small song birds or the like, then I
frequently cannot get physically close enough to sufficently fill the
frame with a 300. I have found that a 400 is frequently too short as well.
I would love to have a 600 + TC or even an 800/5.6 for such times.
For larger birds (pheasant, etc.) a 300 or 300 + TC14 is often ok.
I agree completely with trying to get close physically rather than
attempt to substitute via focal length. However, most of the time
I haven't been able to get close enough physically to fill the frame
for the small birds.
I have noticed that much of Moose's bird and small animal work is done
with the 800/5.6.
I don't think that one should discount the use of a long (500-800) lens if
the environment and situation require it. I believe that if one has
unlimited
time to setup feeding stations, blinds, etc. and can go back many times
then one can eventually probably get a large percentage of shots with the
shorter (300-400) lenses. But not all of us have the time or opportunity
to always do that. Especially when you're visiting an area and only get
one
chance in a lifetime to get the shot.
Charlie
Chris
Your posting appears to be coming from Hong Kong - where do
you plan to photograph the birds?? If you are after birds in open
spaces, such as at Mai Po marshes or in flight, you'll need the longer
lengths that people have been mentioning in the posts. However, if you
are photographing in the more general steeply sloping scrub covered
hillsides, you may find that you may not be able to get a clear line
of sight for more than 10 metres and the critical factors will become
lens speed and close focusing distance.
A further factor is the size and weight of the longer lenses,
can you be bothered to carry perhaps 15kgs of camera equipment (inc.
tripod for the big lens) up a steep hill during a Hong Kong summer
(+35 C / 95% humidity)
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 14:08:39 +0800, Andrew Hardacre
<hard...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul wrote:
>
>> >I disagree. If you really want to get serious about bird photography you'll
>> >learn how to use your 400mm and get the pictures. To get truly good photos of
>> >birds you can't sit 75 yards away with a good lens. You need to get up close.
>> >So learn how to approach birds without spooking them. Expect to take quite some
>> >time to approach birds. Once you learn that you'll find that your photos are
>> >much better.
>>
>> Nonsense. Take any old photo and then use digital tricks to make it
>> look like the bird you were trying to photograph. In this digital
>> age, going to all that effort to get a bird picture is silly.
>
> I assume this was not intended as a serious comment but was firmly tongue in cheek.
>However it does raise the interesting point that British Birds is now having to
>confront - when photos are submitted for competitions or - more importantly for BB I
>suspect, for identification of rarities - how do you know whether the photo has been
>digitally doctored? If birders start sending in photos of rarities that have been
>doctored to make the record more acceptable to the Rarities Committee we are into
>real problem territory.
>
>I started this thread some days ago and have enjoyed and learned from the postings
>and some direct e mail - thanks to all who troubled to contribute. I think the
>answer is to go with my 400mm and a) see what results I can get and b) whether this
>develops into a passion that will justify the outlay on a fast longer focal length
>lens. As an aside I have also 'ditched' my print film and jumped into the deep end
>with slides - trying 2 rolls each of Sensia II 100 (HK$33 per roll) and E200
>Ektachrome (HK$48). To begin with I am autobracketing 0.5 stops. Does this sound
>sensible?
>
>
Andrew Hardacre
Chris wrote:
> Your posting appears to be coming from Hong Kong - where do
> you plan to photograph the birds??
You are right Chris - I'm in HK. In the last week I've been to Mai Po 3x, Wu Kau Tang,
Nam Chung, Tsim Bei Tsui etc - a real mish mash of habitats. I guess Mai Po is the
obvious place to start - from the boardwalk hides, but even with 400mm it is a struggle
to get decent shots of anything but egrets and the odd dalmatian pelican. I tried
photographing caspian terns at the weekend - a nice scene but too distant for detail.
[Apologies to anyone who doesn't know HK and is bored by this].
Andrew Hardacre
is...@execpc.com wrote:
Canon makes a 400/2.8L lens, and you can use the 1.4x or 2x converter on it.
I brightened up when I saw this, then checked out the price of the 400/2.8L - gulp! A bit
'rich' for an inexperienced chap like me. More something to aspire to?
David Hay Jones
Andrew Hardacre <hard...@hkstar.com> skrivningar: >
> is...@execpc.com wrote:
>
> Canon makes a 400/2.8L lens, and you can use the 1.4x or 2x converter on it.
>
> I brightened up when I saw this, then checked out the price of the 400/2.8L - gulp! A bit
> 'rich' for an inexperienced chap like me. More something to aspire to?
>
Another option is a previously-owned manual focus 500 4.5L. I chose
this route and am very pleased with the results. I use the lens with
a T90.
I also have an AF setup, using an EOS 5 with 300 2.8 and
converters. I rarely use the 300 2.8 on autofocus, finding that
predicting movement and behaviour leads to better shots (in my opinion)
than the ones with the lens on AF. In other words, not having AF is not
a drawback.
There are times when AF will get you shots than manual won't
but for me these rare opportunities do not counteract the additional
price for an AF 500 4.5. I paid 2000 GB pounds for my secondhand T90
and 500 4.5L. I've since been told I paid too much.
David
Don Baccus
In article <6fns1v$665$1...@ritsa.cs.hut.fi>,
Ilkka Nissil{ <i...@niksula.hut.fi> wrote:
>Don, I am not a bird photographer but what I've seen
>in Finnish nature photography, the 300 seems to be
>by far the most popular tool for serious bird and
>other wild animal photography. There are some people with
>500's, 600's and 800's but *many* of the top nature
>photographers use the 300/2.8 (sometimes with TC's)
>as their main lens for the application.
600 is too long for much wildlife photography, but we're
speaking birds here, and at one point songbirds seemed to
be a focal point.
I *am* a bird photographer, and though I don't make my
living at it I do have a photograph in the current issue
of "Birding" (April) and will have close to twenty in
the May issue of "WildBird".
For someone interested in general nature/wildlife
photography, rather than bird photography as a specialization,
300mm + 1.4x and 2x extenders is an excellent choice (the
flexibility and high quality afforded by modern extenders
is why the 300/2.8, specifically, is so popular).
You'll find that 300/2.8 working very often working as as a
600/5.6 when used to shoot songbirds.
Perhaps terminology is part of the problem. A 300/2.8 with a
2x on it is *not* a 300mm lens. It is a 600/5.6 lens. I
know several birders who've bought Tamron 300/2.8s as a
moderately priced means to get length - and they never take
off their 2x. They are, in essence, buying a 600/5.6.
>I do see the 500 mm as the most typical lens in some
>international competitions. I don't
>know for sure why this is so.
Since you admit you're not a bird photographer, I'm not
surprised you don't know for sure why this is so :) Go spend
a few days trying to shoot songbirds with a 300mm lens
and you'll quickly understand why that 500, often with
a 1.4x attached, is popular - as are the bigger and
heavier 600s.
>I certainly wouldn't
>go backpacking with a 500 no matter how much I wanted
>the bird shot. And using a car is not very 'nature',
>is it?
Using film, camera, lens, and perhaps flash isn't very
"nature", is it?
Nor is using a static hide. Or a birdfeeder. Or a tape.
Or "pishing". What makes a car any more "unnatural"? It's
a hide with wheels, very appropriate where a road goes
through habitat, as in our National Wildlife Refuge system.
Since birds and other animals are acclimated to cars, it is
also likely to be more critter-friendly than, say, walking
to a spot and setting up a hide alongside the road. This
will cause more disturbance than driving to the spot and
shooting from your car.
Indeed, our Wildlife Refuges often encourage folks stay in
their cars for this very reason.
"Real" wildlife photographers should be much more concerened
about their impact on the subject than on any philisophical
dislike of automobiles. If using a car can decrease
disturbance, I'm all for it. On the other hand, driving
a truck willy-nilly over a sensitive unroaded area in
search of a photograph is a sin, IMO.
In reality, I think you'd be surprised at how many of your
favorite wildlife photographs were taken from a vehicle.
>The counts of individual animals are considerably
>lower than in Africa or USA, and hides are used
>considerably more often here, I believe. In Finland,
>the close-up shot hasn't been well respected in
>recent years, most seem to prefer the kind of shot
>that shows significant surroundings (the animal's
>living environment). I really like these too; of
>course if you don't have access to nice surroundings
>then you don't have much choice except to hide the
>tall building in the background etc.
I like environmental-type wildlife photographs, too.
As well as intimate portraits. I have been arguing
that getting the kind of intimate portraits
you see in birding magazines - which are the kind
of photos many aspiring bird photographers want
to achieve - is difficult at 400mm. Adding extenders
makes that something other than a 400mm lens, of
course. We can also talk about the difficulties
inherent in 560/8 and 800/11 lenses (which is what
you get with extenders).
Anyway, I've been careful to be specific in my phrasing,
talking about INTIMATE PORTRAITS.
Obviously, critter-as-a-small-bit-of-the-habitat type
shots are well-suited to shorter lenses.
And I have a personal goal of shooting rails this
spring with wide-angle lenses, but that's another
story altogether...
>A lot of animal photography happens in the forest,
>too, and there the f/2.8 aperture of the 300 is
>very useful. Besides, in a dense forest, it should
>be pretty hard to find use for a 800, not?
The kind of intimate portrait many bird photographers
aspire to take require one to be within 15 or so
feet of a songbird with a 600mm lens. I.E. 5
meters or less. I normally have a 25mm extension
tube mounted to my 600/4 because the 6 meter close
focus length of the lens doesn't let me get close
enough.
To take this kind of photograph with a 300/2.8
requires you to consistently get within 7 or
so feet (2 meters or so) of your subject.
This is HARD. It doesn't happen very often.
>The guy who won last year's
>BBC Nature photographer of the year competition, T. Rasanen,
>takes a lot of close-up shots of birds, but he takes them
>with a 300/2.8 and a tube (typically from a hide).
Using a hide(blind) is a good way to get many good shots of
a handful of individuals. This only works when the
individual comes to known places. In practice, this often
means the nest. Use of a hide at the nest is something I
would not suggest most people do, as serious disturbance is
likely to result unless you reall know what you're doing.
That means studying the species involved, and putting in a
LOT of time at one locale.
There is certainly a place for this kind of photography,
and results are often spectacular.
However, try this approach in the US with sensitive species
like eagles, snowy plovers, and others protected by our
Endangered Species Act and you're likely to find yourself
in jail...
>Cost could be an issue here too; income taxes can be as high
>as 60% here, and a 600/4 would cost about $14000 in US currency
>if purchased here.
Prices for the EF 600/4 have doubled in the past several
years, here in the US, due to the rising yen (or falling
dollar, take your pick). If I were buying today, I'd
search for a used manual-focus Nikkor 600/4 or 500/4.
Don Baccus
In article <35207730...@micronet.net>,
Markie <mar...@micronet.net> wrote:
>I wonder if you could expand a bit on your comments below...particularly
>the limitations of the 400/5.6. I'm considering buying the Sigma
>400/5.6 to be used with a 1.4X; Canon has the same lens at twice the
>price. For bird/wildlife photography (I live in Alaska and have ample
>opportunity), would the lenses give equal results? What about resale
>value of these two lenses? Is there a reasonably priced, good quality
>500 on the market that is not monstrously huge? (BTW, I'm looking at
>lenses for an EOS Elan.) Appreciate any guidance you can offer.
The Sigma 400/5.6 is an excellent value for the money. The question
really is "how useful will you find a 560/8". You'll want to shoot
relatively fast film.
Fortunately, there are some nice newish slide emulsions out there,
for instance E100SW and E200, that provide fine-grained performance
speed, and saturated colors. E200 is neutral, which some folks may
not like as well as E100SW, but pushes nice to ISO 400 and you can
always warm it up with an 81A (I just shot a roll here in Portland
rain with an 81A and it looks very nice indeed - our rain looks
just like SE Alaska rain).
You'll find using Velvia at 560/8 very difficult.
And, of course, you'll find plenty of opportunity to shoot
around feeders, etc, at 400/5.6 if you're patient and work on
your feeder setup so you can shoot from an open window covered
with blankets, or put up your own blinds with feeders or bird
baths, etc.
In all of this, I've tried to stress that I'm only trying to
make it clear that shooting birds with a 400/5.6 with or without
an extender is a tough proposition. Not that you can't/shouldn't
do it. Only that you shouldn't become frustrated or feel that
you are personally incompetent as a bird photographer if you
rarely obtain the kind of intimate portraits featured in our
popular birding magazines.
If you understand this, you can have a lot of fun photographing
birds with a 400/5.6 (with or without a 1.4x). I certainly did
when I used a Sigma 400/5.6 for my bird photography.
I don't know of any bargain 500s on the market, I'm afraid.
You're better off with a 400/5.6 than with a 500 mirror.
In the Canon world, you might search for a used EF 300/4 L as
an alternative. It has the reputation of being VERY sharp, and
now that the IS version is out, might possibly be found for
a decent price. For instance, at a recent swap meet I saw one
marked at $800, mint (VERY mint), and given the amount of dickering
I saw at the meet I think it probably could've been had for $700.
You'd get a very good 420/5.6 and quite decent 600/8 even with
cheaper (than Canon) extenders from Tamron. And an incredible
300/4. For not much more money you'd be getting a more flexible
setup for non-bird photography, and wouldn't really be sacrificing
much performance compared with the Sigma 400/5.6 and the 560/8
you'd get with the 1.4x (and 600/8 is a bit longer, too).
A 300/4 is a really nice lens for all that megafauna stuff
you have up there...
Don Baccus
In article <3520e853...@news.netvigator.com>,
>spaces, such as at Mai Po marshes or in flight, you'll need the longer
>lengths that people have been mentioning in the posts.
Mai Po's blinds are VERY far away from the scrapes shorebirds roost
in at high tide. Great for birding with spotting scopes, not very
useful for photographers. Fortunately, I decided to go there to
bird as I went with non-shooting birder friends, and had a great
time seeing something like 45 species of shorebirds, including
the Holy Grail for the trip - spoonbilled sandpiper.
>However, if you
>are photographing in the more general steeply sloping scrub covered
>hillsides, you may find that you may not be able to get a clear line
>of sight for more than 10 metres and the critical factors will become
>lens speed and close focusing distance.
For most songbirds, you need to be closer than many telephotos will
focus (10x focal length is common and is nearly always further away
than you'd like to be - that's 3 meters for a 300 and 6 meters for
a 600).
> A further factor is the size and weight of the longer lenses,
>can you be bothered to carry perhaps 15kgs of camera equipment (inc.
>tripod for the big lens) up a steep hill during a Hong Kong summer
>(+35 C / 95% humidity)
This is, indeed, the bird-shooter's dilema...
Don Baccus
In article <3520f...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>Another option is a previously-owned manual focus 500 4.5L. I chose
>this route and am very pleased with the results. I use the lens with
>a T90.
This is an excellent lens, the same optical formula as the EF 500/4.5L.
It's relatively lightweight (about 6 lbs) and provides excellent
performance with good telextenders, as I'm sure David will confirm.
> I also have an AF setup, using an EOS 5 with 300 2.8 and
>converters. I rarely use the 300 2.8 on autofocus, finding that
>predicting movement and behaviour leads to better shots (in my opinion)
>than the ones with the lens on AF. In other words, not having AF is not
>a drawback.
I disagree, but then again, I usually use AF to speed focusing rather
than replace manual focusing. Canon's nice that way, using CF 4. It
really does give the best of both worlds. I've used the system
often enough to MF or AF reflexively. It takes time to get used to.
I always enable CF 4 when photographing birds (except in flight
using continuous AF, or sometimes birds swimming for the same reason).
I do agree that AF is oversold by some, however.
Given current prices, I'm not at all sure I'd pay the price
penalty involved in buying new EF or Nikon AF-S gear. Used FD
500/4.5 Ls, used manual-focus Nikkor 600/4s, etc start looking
very attractive when they're less than half the price of the
equivalent AF gear.
> There are times when AF will get you shots than manual won't
>but for me these rare opportunities do not counteract the additional
>price for an AF 500 4.5. I paid 2000 GB pounds for my secondhand T90
>and 500 4.5L. I've since been told I paid too much.
It's hard for a Yank to judge prices overseas as more than simply
the currency conversion is involved, but I think you probably did
pay too much for the secondhand gear. That's OK, just love it and
enjoy it, now that you've bought it :) Also, getting a good deal
might require you to wait a very long time before you stumble across
one. There's something to be said about the "a somewhat overpriced
500/4.5 L in my hands is worth far more than a cheaper 500/4.5L in
someone else's hands" philosophy, no? :)
Markie
Thanks for the advice Don. Migrating waterfowl are already showing up in
Anchorage and I want to get shooting!
markie
stans...@mailexcite.com
Let me backup Don's advice on several points. I feel I owe this to him after
the comment about aquarium photography. :(
I have borrowed both 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 lenses. The 600mm was an
autofocus and it is absolutely wonderful for shooting swiming and flying and
walking birds. The 500 f/4 was the manual focus Nikkor and combined with the
1.4x convertor it does a great job. But I spent the first 1/2 of the day I
had it just learning how to follow focus again. I must have shot 3 rolls in
under an hour and then finally left the film out of the camera and practiced
for another hour. However, by mid day I was much better and therefore believe
that that manual focus lenses are a very viable alternative for those of use
who can't afford $10,00 USA for a USM or AF-S 600mm f/4. At under $3000 USA
for a nice used 500mm f/4, they are a real bargain compared to the auto-focus
lenses. Can anybody spare $2900?
I also have found that using blinds/hides is not feasible in many public parks
and preserves. The authorities just won't permit it. In fact many of our
National Parks are now getting very insistent that people stay on the trails
and roads, so approaching some birds is out of the question. Even trying to
change perspective becomes a problem when you are stuck on a trail. Granted
I could wander off the trail and probably never be caught, but I find this
habit to be one possessed by people of bad character.
On the other hand a back yard blind works great. Even an old sleeping bag can
be effective if you remain still under it.
Have fun.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
M. KUO
Andrew, I can heartily recommend the 300 f/4 as a good lens for many uses,
including birds. However, you might find that you rarely use it without
the extenders attatched. Unless you use special techniques like blinds,
it's rarely long enough to really fill that frame up.
I'd say go for the 500 f4.x lenses, if you can swing it. They're a good
compromise between speed and length. A 300 2.8 is similar, but I think
you'll find yourself attatching an extender most of the time - so you
might as well go for a naked lens that will go that far. I know that
Nikon makes a 400 /3.5, and that Minolta makes a 400 /4.5. None of these
are cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the Minolta
actually isn't that expensive (all in relative terms, of course). I hear,
however, that the Minolta is pretty slow at AF - depending on whether
that's important to you.
: Ich weiß nicht was soll es bedeuten, daß ich so traurig bin
Hmm...... going through my old High School German days, I seem to remember
that the verb needs to be either the second element or the last element of
a sentence..... So shouldn't that phrase be
"Ich weiss nicht was es bedeuten soll, dass ich so traurig bin" ??
My apologies if I'm wrong about this.
Cheers,
Tim
Chris
On 31 Mar 98 19:05:13 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>In article <3520e853...@news.netvigator.com>,
>Chris <ch...@diputs.com> wrote:
>> Your posting appears to be coming from Hong Kong - where do
>>you plan to photograph the birds?? If you are after birds in open
>>spaces, such as at Mai Po marshes or in flight, you'll need the longer
>>lengths that people have been mentioning in the posts.
>
>Mai Po's blinds are VERY far away from the scrapes shorebirds roost
>in at high tide. Great for birding with spotting scopes, not very
>useful for photographers. Fortunately, I decided to go there to
>bird as I went with non-shooting birder friends, and had a great
>time seeing something like 45 species of shorebirds, including
>the Holy Grail for the trip - spoonbilled sandpiper.
>
>>However, if you
>>are photographing in the more general steeply sloping scrub covered
>>hillsides, you may find that you may not be able to get a clear line
>>of sight for more than 10 metres and the critical factors will become
>>lens speed and close focusing distance.
>
>For most songbirds, you need to be closer than many telephotos will
>focus (10x focal length is common and is nearly always further away
>than you'd like to be - that's 3 meters for a 300 and 6 meters for
>a 600).
>
There is the option of using extension tubes to give you closer focus.
>> A further factor is the size and weight of the longer lenses,
>>can you be bothered to carry perhaps 15kgs of camera equipment (inc.
>>tripod for the big lens) up a steep hill during a Hong Kong summer
>>(+35 C / 95% humidity)
>
>This is, indeed, the bird-shooter's dilema...
>
Doug Stemke
I use this combination with the Pentax K mount Sigma version. The 400 mm
by itself is a very sharp lens. Under the correct lighting conditions I
have also had fairly sharp photos with a Sigma 1.4 TC (blown up to 5 by
7). Much beyond that I wouldn't bet the farm (although I'm not certain)
that this TC will still deliver sharp photos. But then as an underpaid
postdoc this is what I can afford and as such I've been very happy with
the combination. It is slow though and I have the blurry grouse photos to
prove it. I did take some very nice flying eagle photos on a clear day,
polarizer too, that I'm happy with.
Best of luck!
Doug
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Markie wrote:
> I wonder if you could expand a bit on your comments below...particularly
> the limitations of the 400/5.6. I'm considering buying the Sigma
> 400/5.6 to be used with a 1.4X; Canon has the same lens at twice the
> price. For bird/wildlife photography (I live in Alaska and have ample
> opportunity), would the lenses give equal results? What about resale
> value of these two lenses? Is there a reasonably priced, good quality
> 500 on the market that is not monstrously huge? (BTW, I'm looking at
> lenses for an EOS Elan.) Appreciate any guidance you can offer.
>
> markie
>
> Don Baccus wrote:
>
> >
> > The 400/5.6, with a 1.4x extender available, is a great way to start
> > shooting birds, as I've said many times (indeed, I've made it clear
> > that's how I started, and how I made my first sales). Just understand
> > the limitations and don't get frustrated, depressed, or lose self-confidence
> > (the latter being the real issue I'm concerned with) when you feel
> > like you've run into a stone wall in attempts to get a high percentage
> > of good bird photos. The limitations are real, that's my point. There's
> > nothing wrong with living with the limitations, and of course working
> > hard to circumvent them. Just be realistic - and give realistic
> > advice.
>
>
******************************************************************
Douglas J. Stemke, Ph.D.
Biological Process Technology Institute
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
dst...@biosci.cbs.umn.edu
******************************************************************
Thomas Schreyegg
M. KUO wrote:
> Hmm...... going through my old High School German days, I seem to remember
> that the verb needs to be either the second element or the last element of
> a sentence..... So shouldn't that phrase be
>
> "Ich weiss nicht was es bedeuten soll, dass ich so traurig bin" ??
>
> My apologies if I'm wrong about this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
Tim,
congratulations, your highschool obviously was quite good, and your
German seems to be good as well. But the lines the other guy quoted were
perfectly right. They are from a poem by German poet Heinrich Heine
(1797-1856). In 1838, Friedrich Silcher composed the melody for this
poem. The song "Die Loreley" has been a very famous German folksong
eversince, and it has been played and sung until today. If you are
interested in the text, you may want to look at
http://is-fun.com/edv-schaefer/loreley/gedicht.html
The song describes the legend of a beautiful maiden (Loreley) who sits
ontop of a rock, high above the river Rhine. She is combing her golden
hair and sings sad songs with a beautiful voice. The sailors on the
river look up to the woman, forget about their ships and the dangerous
river and are lost.
Have fun with German folklore and folk-lore (I don't :-)
Tom, Regensburg, Bavaria
Thomas Schreyegg
Thomas Schreyegg wrote:
Oops, sorry for being off-topic, this was meant to be sent by Email :-(
Tom