Wildlife lenses

If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

those are toys compared to this:
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/15/the...-at-the-sigma-
200-500mm-bazooka-lens/

On Feb 4, 2021, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In s.net, Alfred
Molon wrote:

If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

those are toys compared to this:
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/15/the...-at-the-sigma-
200-500mm-bazooka-lens/

How much is the lens cap? About $500? You’d need a backpack just for that.

On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 1:38:33 PM UTC-5, Alfred Molon wrote:
If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes.

Welcome to the land of long reach, particularly for birding...
....or of three letter agencies (at least, back in the days of film):

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/...l-L-Lenses.jsp


It's not something you would carry around for hours/the full day
while walking in a tropical rainforest.

How about while sitting in a blind for hours?

Oh, don't forget to add a suitably beefy tripod too...
....perhaps with a Wembley style gimbal.



-hh

On 04/02/2021 18:38, Alfred Molon wrote:
If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

The Assistant carries the kit!

(I think I get longer reach, and greater depth of field, on my 300 mm
MFT lens, weight 520g, albeit not at quite the same quality!).

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 3:40:03 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
On 04/02/2021 18:38, Alfred Molon wrote:
If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

The Assistant carries the kit!

LOL, true that.

Many moons ago, I was on a scuba dive on Little Cayman while Howard Hall
was also diving there at the same time...saw him swim past with his dive buddy
/photo assistant going the other way.

His project was for National Geographic; the filming of "Jewels of the Caribbean Sea",
released in 1994.

My brief impression was that they seemed equipped a bit oddly.

The first was that they were both decked out in thick wetsuits & hoods, despite the
water being ~80F. This makes perfect sense when one considers that they were
spending hours & hours daily underwater, as there's body core heat loss even in
tropical waters (its called "warmwater hypothermia").

Likewise, the assistant was struggling to keep up with Howard ... which was apparently
due to all that they were carrying. I'd never seen anyone carry a tripod underwater before.
Plus they were carrying multiple UW cameras: after the dive, I found out that in addition
to those that Howard was carrying, the assistant was carrying ... FIVE ... more Nikonos V
camera systems, each of which included its strobe(s).

This was in the film era, so max 36 shots per camera, plus since zoom lenses were never
invented for the Nikonos V, to change focal lengths during a dive meant reaching for
another camera (or two, or three...) that was already set up with the prime you wanted.

For OEM Nikkor lenses only, my recollection is that there were 13 permutations possible:

15mm,
20mm,
28mm,
28 w/Closeup Kit,*
28 w/Extension Tube A, *
28 w/Extension Tube B, *
28 w/Extension Tubes A+B stacked, *
35mm,
35 w/Closeup Kit,**
35 w/Extension Tube A, **
35 w/Extension Tube B, **
35 w/Extension Tubes A+B stacked, **
80mm,
80 w/Closeup Kit.


* - varying degrees of 'macro', sequenced from lowest to highest magnification;
** - as above, but for just the 35mm (I didn't try to cross-compare 28 vs 35).

-hh

On 2/4/21 3:01 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Feb 4, 2021, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In s.net, Alfred
Molon wrote:

If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

those are toys compared to this:
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/15/the...-at-the-sigma-
200-500mm-bazooka-lens/

How much is the lens cap? About $500? You’d need a backpack just for that.


I have the Canon FL-mount 1200mm f/11 lens. It's about 3 feet long, and
fairly heavy- it gets heavier the longer you carry it. I would never
consider using it without a tripod, which also gains weight. I would
never consider it for wildlife.

And I will not be walking around a tropical rain forest with it.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart says...
I have the Canon FL-mount 1200mm f/11 lens. It's about 3 feet long, and
fairly heavy- it gets heavier the longer you carry it. I would never
consider using it without a tripod, which also gains weight. I would
never consider it for wildlife.

What do you use it for (if not for wildlife)?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

If you look he
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFFNZYNYxFQ

these lenses have absurd sizes. It's not something you would
carry around for hours/the full day while walking in a tropical
rainforest.

those are toys compared to this:
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/15/the...-at-the-sigma-
200-500mm-bazooka-lens/

How much is the lens cap? About $500? You¹d need a backpack just for that.


I have the Canon FL-mount 1200mm f/11 lens. It's about 3 feet long, and
fairly heavy- it gets heavier the longer you carry it.

interesting discovery in the world of physics.

perhaps if you carry it long enough, it will weigh as much as this one
does initially, a 1700mm f/4 lens at 256kg/564lb.
https://www.cemec.de/en/worlds-largest-photo-lens.html
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8307/7841942100_f813136b5e_o.jpg

a more realistic choice is nikon's 1200-1700 f/5.6-8 zoom:
https://www.cameraegg.org/the-zoom-n...6-8p-if-ed-len
s-specs-images-unboxing/

that nikon lens is actually quite easy to carry, and unlike canon
lenses, its weight remains constant.
https://www.cameraegg.org/wp-content...-Nikkor-1200-1
700mm-f5.6-8P-IF-ED-lens-2.jpg

I would never
consider using it without a tripod, which also gains weight.

nothing significant.

I would
never consider it for wildlife.

you should, because it could double as a weapon in case the wildlife
chooses to attack.

one key advantage to canon lenses is because its weight increases, it
becomes more effective for a wider range of wildlife.

the downside is that the lens would end up being coated with blood and
fur and who wants that. at least use a protective filter on the front.

And I will not be walking around a tropical rain forest with it.

your loss. there are many good photo ops in a tropical rain forest.

On 2/5/21 7:46 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ken Hart says...
I have the Canon FL-mount 1200mm f/11 lens. It's about 3 feet long, and
fairly heavy- it gets heavier the longer you carry it. I would never
consider using it without a tripod, which also gains weight. I would
never consider it for wildlife.

What do you use it for (if not for wildlife)?


Perhaps it's my understanding of "Wildlife". To me, wildlife is moving;
perhaps a narrow view on my part. And this lens is not good for objects
that are in motion (notwithstanding the rotation of the Earth). I have
used it quite a bit for scenic photos. The biggest problem (other than
weight and size) is the fact that you can't really see plainly/clearly
with the naked eye what the lens will see.

A full moon will nearly fill the 35mm frame.

And it's good for telling time. From the top of the Tuscarora Mountain
off of PA74, this lens will see the courthouse clock in Mifflintown six
miles away.

--
Ken Hart