A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What lens for wildlife photography?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 30th 18, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On Apr 30, 2018, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 30/04/2018 13:31, Savageduck wrote:

Big cats are a start.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrpea4ijzw3kxbl/DSC_3629-E.jpg


That's a fantastic image! :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4uvzrovv5d4gvmr/DSC_3633-E.jpg


They seem to know that they are photogenic.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpfv07cuiki518s/DSC_3647.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #12  
Old April 30th 18, 05:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On 2018-04-30 12:31:07 +0000, Savageduck said:

lens they uses was a phone less broguth for under $20, but the mounting
equipement the guides and movement systen came to $1000s

WTF is a “phone less broguth”?


A phone lens brought for under $20


Aah! “brought”


Yah! "Brought" as something some one has taken with him/her. Could be
hot really! APBs could be in order... :-ppp
--
teleportation kills

  #13  
Old April 30th 18, 06:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On 4/30/2018 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 30/04/2018 13:31, Savageduck wrote:

Big cats are a start.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrpea4ijzw3kxbl/DSC_3629-E.jpg


That's a fantastic image! :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4uvzrovv5d4gvmr/DSC_3633-E.jpg


They seem to know that they are photogenic.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpfv07cuiki518s/DSC_3647.jpg


So does this guy:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp33a9q8ffbiefz/20180421_animals%20birds%20reptile_2909-Edit.jpg?dl=0

And this guy thinks he is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bte8bx2hib56q4b/_DSC8755-Edit.jpg?dl=0

--
PeterN
  #14  
Old April 30th 18, 08:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David B.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On 30/04/2018 18:12, PeterN wrote:
On 4/30/2018 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 30/04/2018 13:31, Savageduck wrote:

Big cats are a start.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrpea4ijzw3kxbl/DSC_3629-E.jpg

That's a fantastic image! :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4uvzrovv5d4gvmr/DSC_3633-E.jpg


They seem to know that they are photogenic.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpfv07cuiki518s/DSC_3647.jpg


So does this guy:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp33a9q8ffbiefz/20180421_animals%20birds%20reptile_2909-Edit.jpg?dl=0


He's magnificent! :-)

On *MY* screen though, he looks a bit like a digital painting rather
than a photograph.

And this guy thinks he is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bte8bx2hib56q4b/_DSC8755-Edit.jpg?dl=0


He's cute!

--
David B.

  #15  
Old April 30th 18, 08:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:31:15 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:02:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Sunday, 29 April 2018 04:38:26 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 28, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

A YouTube video included the latest Nikon Rumours..
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/28/w...lash-468.aspx/
Good value even if you don't own a Nikon.

That depends on the wildlife, and location, but I am getting ahead of
myself.

That is true the bit where you said depends on the wildlife.
A recent david attenbought TV series where they photographed an ant mould
the
lens they uses was a phone less broguth for under $20, but the mounting
equipement the guides and movement systen came to $1000s

WTF is a “phone less broguth”?

A phone lens brought for under $20


Aah! “brought”


Yes all the letters are there just not necessarily in the right order.
(from a morcambe and wise sktech but about musical notes)

That's the amazing thing about the human brain well those that have one. ;-)

https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-c...umbled-letters



I had problems because my brain was looking for 'bought'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old April 30th 18, 09:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On Apr 30, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 4/30/2018 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 30/04/2018 13:31, Savageduck wrote:

Big cats are a start.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrpea4ijzw3kxbl/DSC_3629-E.jpg

That's a fantastic image! :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4uvzrovv5d4gvmr/DSC_3633-E.jpg


They seem to know that they are photogenic.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpfv07cuiki518s/DSC_3647.jpg


So does this guy:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp33a9q8ffbiefz/20180421_animals%20birds%20reptile_2909-Edit.jpg?dl=0


However, he seems to be a tad oversharpened, and over saturated. I guess that
was done in post since you couldn’t possibly get a shot that noisy and
oversaturated out of a D500. I see from the EXIF that the saturation was
pegged at +15, the vibrance at +12, and then you hit it with Dehaze at +17.
It might be to your taste, but not to mine.

And this guy thinks he is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bte8bx2hib56q4b/_DSC8755-Edit.jpg?dl=0


He would be if he wasn’t OoF, I guess you were shooting through glass. It
is also somewhat oversaturated. Again, I note that saturation is set at +66,
and vibrance at +14! There are a few other settings I find odd, but I guess
that is your process. I just find it strange to see such a low quality shot
(to my eye) from a D800.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #17  
Old April 30th 18, 09:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On Apr 30, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:31:15 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:02:14 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Sunday, 29 April 2018 04:38:26 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 28, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

A YouTube video included the latest Nikon Rumours..
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/28/w...lash-468.aspx/
Good value even if you don't own a Nikon.

That depends on the wildlife, and location, but I am getting ahead of
myself.

That is true the bit where you said depends on the wildlife.
A recent david attenbought TV series where they photographed an ant
mould the lens they uses was a phone less broguth for under $20, but the mounting
equipement the guides and movement systen came to $1000s

WTF is a “phone less broguth”?

A phone lens brought for under $20

Aah! “brought”


Yes all the letters are there just not necessarily in the right order.
(from a morcambe and wise sktech but about musical notes)

That's the amazing thing about the human brain well those that have one. ;-)

https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-c...ain-can-read-j
umbled-letters


I had problems because my brain was looking for 'bought'.


Yours was not the only brain looking for ‘bought’. That is why I was
still out there when he came back with ‘brought’, which made no sense at
all. I also have a feeling that the ‘ant mould’ was meant to be an ‘ant
mound’.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #18  
Old April 30th 18, 10:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:27:21 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
...
I had problems because my brain was looking for 'bought'.


Yours was not the only brain looking for ‘bought’. That is why I was
still out there when he came back with ‘brought’, which made no sense at
all. I also have a feeling that the ‘ant mould’ was meant to be an ‘ant
mound’.


Typos happen. Fortunately, we're able to recover from them
in many instances.

In any case, I'm going to go back to Savageduck's comment of:
"That depends on the wildlife, and location, but ..."

It does depend on just what kind of wildlife, including the
relevant environment, etc, and what one both wants, and what
one is willing to commit to.

For example, I try to make sure that my wife always has a good
P&S when we're out gallivanting ... even if half of my motivation
is to have a good camera to borrow if I don't have mine handy ;-)

Thus said, I'll divide my wildlife endeavors into a couple of
different lanes, with a what I've used (and did it work well).

#1) 'Big Game' subjects, including birds

In general, the trend here is for a telephoto, and one can never
really have too much ... although with practical considerations
on size (and cost) as well as zoom vs prime.

I've used a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 on a crop body (1.6x) and 1.4x
teleconverter, which is a film-equivalent of 150mm-450mm at f/4.
I've found it to be a pretty versatile setup, as having a zoom helps
to find subjects and zero in. Even though it is a bit weighty (7lbs?),
it pack into a carry-on bag pretty well. But it is short for
general birding, except for bigger birds and/or when you're able to
get in really close (for finch-sized birds, "close" is less than 15ft).
FWIW, a lens like the Canon EF 100-400 IS is a strong candidate here
too; I'd be tempted to choose that today over the 70-200 with 1.4x.
At the time, I went for the shorter-but-faster lens, not realizing what
would happen soon thereafter with ISO sensitivity in digital technology.


Going longer, I have a 400mm DO IS f/4, which stacked with the 1.6x
body and 1.4x teleconverter is ~900mm @ f/5.6 The DO leaves some
image quality to be desired (low contrast; to fix in post), but more
important to note are that the field of view is very narrow and
with no zoom, it takes some work (& practice, practice, practice)
to get onto subjects. And even though the DO technology cuts down
its size/weight, this is still a bit of a monster to haul (and get
through airports as carry-on). But with a pretty close (30ft) subject,
you'll fill the frame on a head shot like this:

http://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN/2016-cheetah-7Y8A1412

Similarly, for pulling in distant stuff, I've estimated this one as
being ~400m (and also uncropped):

http://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/SAN/2016-black_rhino-7Y8A2031-no_GPS

All in all, I've found it to be a good addition, but I'm concerned
about how much it may be left at home because it is a hassle to
get into an aircraft carry-on, haul around, etc. There's something
to be said about image quality and cropping ;-)


#2) Stuff where "bigger telephoto" doesn't apply, which
typically means a macro lenses for tiny stuff up close.

For macro magnification, it really depends on what your intended
subject is. I'm using a 60mm on a crop body (1.6x) which is roughly
a 100mm equivalent ... I've thought about going longer, but I'm
afraid that my eyesight to spot the critters (before bringing the
camera to bear) isn't good enough anymore to be worth it ... plus
my macro application is underwater, so there's more inherent motion
which pulls me off of subjects. Especially in the shallows where
there's more macro interest ... and more wave surge to push me around.
As such, I'll stick with what I have.

BTW, a set of extension tubes can also be occasionally handy tool
too and they're cheap. These alter an existing lens's focus distances
while being used ... moves them closer, which makes a non-macro
lens closer to being a macro lens. The trade-off is that you won't
be able to focus at infinity with the tube(s) in place. To be honest,
I've not used my extension tubes on my land cameras much at all.


-hh
  #19  
Old May 1st 18, 02:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

On 4/30/2018 4:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 4/30/2018 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 30/04/2018 13:31, Savageduck wrote:

Big cats are a start.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrpea4ijzw3kxbl/DSC_3629-E.jpg

That's a fantastic image! :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4uvzrovv5d4gvmr/DSC_3633-E.jpg

They seem to know that they are photogenic.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpfv07cuiki518s/DSC_3647.jpg


So does this guy:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp33a9q8ffbiefz/20180421_animals%20birds%20reptile_2909-Edit.jpg?dl=0


However, he seems to be a tad oversharpened, and over saturated. I guess that
was done in post since you couldn’t possibly get a shot that noisy and
oversaturated out of a D500. I see from the EXIF that the saturation was
pegged at +15, the vibrance at +12, and then you hit it with Dehaze at +17.
It might be to your taste, but not to mine.

And this guy thinks he is:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bte8bx2hib56q4b/_DSC8755-Edit.jpg?dl=0


He would be if he wasn’t OoF, I guess you were shooting through glass. It
is also somewhat oversaturated. Again, I note that saturation is set at +66,
and vibrance at +14! There are a few other settings I find odd, but I guess
that is your process. I just find it strange to see such a low quality shot
(to my eye) from a D800.


Both are indeed low quality shots. They were saved in sRGB at low
quality. As to my oversaturation, I am not shooting for a catalog, or
scientific journal. I like doing an impression of the critters. But we
have had that discussion before. I do appreciate your comments, even
though we have different tastes.

--
PeterN
  #20  
Old May 1st 18, 03:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default What lens for wildlife photography?

I wouldn't invest in a wildlife lens before looking at the
soon-to-be-released Questar 5.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best lens for wildlife photography? No Name Digital Photography 46 May 25th 13 03:36 AM
digicam for wildlife photography [email protected] Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 June 7th 06 08:39 PM
digicam for wildlife photography vivek Photographing Nature 0 June 7th 06 06:02 AM
wide angle lens for wildlife photography Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 3 June 2nd 06 06:20 AM
Wildlife Photography [email protected] Photographing Nature 4 January 12th 06 04:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.