Canon extender 2x III with 70-200mm F4L vs 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L for wildlife shooting

Question

Photography.SE, hello there, this is my first question, hence please pardon my inexperience of phrasing the question.

I am about to go to Yosemite and Yellowstone for 3 weeks next month, and exhilarated to do some wildlife shooting. I currently have an EF 70-200mm F4L which is the entry level Canon telephoto lens.

Now I wonder either to buy an extender or to buy a new lens(supposedly the entry level supertelephoto lens EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L)? also I am somewhat concerning with the performance of these two choices performing on my 6 years old 30D, how about the focusing speed of each?

Or there are other greater lens choices of wildlife shooting for my 2k budget?

Asked by Jon

Answer

This is going to depend very much on what camera body you are using. Canon cameras do not focus past f/5.6 unless you are using a 1-series body (or are willing to do some warranty-voiding pin taping to force f/8 AF on unsupported bodies...which is usually a moot exercise anyway). Slapping a 2x TC onto a 70-200 f/4 is going to give you an f/8 aperture, and you are most definitely going to lose AF on anything other than a 1D something. Given that you are on a 30D, the AF speed will be a perfect zilch with the 70-200 f/4 + 2x TC combination, which is pretty much a no-go for wildlife and birds.

I'm a die-hard bird/bif/wildlife shooter myself, and I currently use the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. Its a great lens, has decent IS, and is pretty easy to carry around for a few hours at a time (or pretty much all day with the right kind of strap, such as a BlackRapid R-Strap...or better yet, a more durable home-made version of the same.) The IQ of the 100-400 is great. The lens is definitely getting a bit dated...the IS mechanism is good up to about 2 stops at most, however when it comes to birds, its maybe good for 1 to 1.5 stops at best. Canon is rumored to be working on an f/4-5.6 replacement with 4-stop IS, which would be a significant improvement to any replacement...however expect it to come with a heftier price tag ($2000+ vs. the current f/4.5-5.6 $1600 street price).

For wildlife shooting, the 100-400L is superb in pretty much every respect. You don't need as much IS for hand-held shooting of wildlife as you do for birds/bif. It offers good reach with a modern high-res cropped sensor (it offers an FoV effective 160-640mm), however with the 30D's 8.2mp sensor, the benefit of extra reach is not really going to be as great as if you were using a 600D/60D/7D with their 18mp sensors (roughly 75lp/mm vs. 113lp/mm spatial resolution.)

You could certainly try to manually focus for wildlife...and so long as what your photographing is fairly slow-moving, you could probably get away with that on a 30D. Its lower spatial resolution means its not going to be capturing fine detail to start with, so it will be more forgiving of less precise focus. For anything that is moving that you will want to track, AF is pretty much essential. To that end, the 70-200 f/4 + 2x TC is a non-starter, especially if you were considering the non-IS version. For hand-held tracking, both IS and AF are pretty much given essentials for wildlife and birds, so the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS is really the only option here.

---

There are also other options you could look into if you can expand your budget a bit. A 300mm f/2.8 L or 400mm f/2.8 L, IS or non-IS, with a gimbal-type tripod head and a sturdy tripod, offer a LOT of flexibility with TC's. An f/2.8 lens can take a 2x TC and still be only an f/5.6 aperture, so it will still AF on any Canon body. These are certainly more expensive than the $1800 100-400 L, but older used ones can often be found on eBay and Craigs List for around $3000 to $3500 (original non-IS versions), and starting around $3500 to as much as $6000 (IS versions). A 300mm with 1.4x TC is 420mm, while with a 2x TC is 600mm. The 600mm reach is pretty much the ideal sweet spot for a LOT of birding, as it lets you frame birds pretty tightly without encroaching their comfort zones. A 400mm with 1.4x TC is 560mm, and with a 2x TC is 800mm. At 560mm you have some great reach and excellent IQ to frame wildlife at a safe/non-intrusive distance. At 800mm you can frame wildlife and bird portraits without intruding into safe/comfort zones. All the while, any of these focal lengths would be at an f/5.6 or f/4 aperture, and plenty capable of supporting AF on any Canon body.

If you have the funds, a older 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC could offer a lot more than the 100-400, greater reach with better IQ.

---

PhotoSE is currently running a "lending library" of sorts that allows our members to try out gear rentals and be reimbursed for it, at the cost of having to ask questions related to the gear or write a few blog entries on the PhotoSE blog about your experiences with the gear you rent. You could use this offering to try out the 100-400 to see if would work for you, and if you were willing to chip in a little money and some extra time writing more blogs, you might even be able to try out a 300mm f/2.8.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

Is staging, live baiting and sedating animals in wildlife photography a common practice?

Question

I am not a wildlife photographer and frankly I have little interest in wildlife photography outside of the birds and squirrels outside of my kitchen window. I do however enjoy looking at some of the many great wildlife photos out there. I have recently came across a comment by someone on a travel photography blog questioning the ethics of many wildlife photos on 500px namely owl photos and photos of skittish bugs that "appear unusually cooperative". This person speaks of live baiting owls to get otherwise impossible shots (in-flight/ flying directly at the photographer/ landing) and refrigerating bugs or placing them in various substances. This person has called such practices unethical, disrespectful to the animal, cruel...

I always tend to associate animal cruelty and unethical treatment of animals with the pharmaceutical and such industries but it never occurred to me that a wildlife photographer, one who is in the business of capturing the essence of animals in the wild, could possibly be associated with such things...

Then I was thinking about all the unbelievable animal shots (not only owls and insects) on 500px and elsewhere and begun to wonder whether this is a normal and I was just unaware? Forgive my ignorance but do wildlife photographers often stage shots using bating, live baiting and sedation? Is this a common practice?

Edit: I just punched a few other things into Google and it seems that renting wild animals for photo-shoots is also not uncommon.

Asked by Jakub

Answer

This addresses only my opinion on one less-central aspect of the question:

I agree that the more extreme forms of what you describe are unethical or immoral.
As well as avoiding mistreatment of the target animal, I would personally never use live-bait for anything, but that's a personal choice and many would be happy to do so.

But I don't see too much wrong with using food as a bait or attractant. This may be meat (bits of dead animals) for Owls or Falcons and bread or grain for sparrows or whatever. The point is that the ethics of the treatment of the target animal and the ethics of the treatment of the bait can be separaed. In my case I'd be happy to use meat which met my standards for treatment but a vegetarian or Vegan may be horrified at that choice.

The photo below is not presented for any technical merit (you just TRY and get a good photo of the about fastest bird on earth :-) ) but because of its relevant here.

This is a NZ Falcon. It lives in a specialist raptor rescue center - birds arrive in damaged condition and stay long enough to get them back to a point where they will probably survive in the wild. This bird is free to do what it chooses every single time they release it - which is frequently. Even when "in captivity" NZ Falcons live on the very very edge of being always genuinely wild. A week or so on the loose and it will not come back. But when fed and cared for it will return reliably.

This one is heading for me not because of my gastronomic attractiveness but because a young lady (one of only 7 qualified falconers in the country) is standing behind me with an unknown piece of dead animal on her gauntlet and I'm an incidental in its path.

Is this ethical? I'd find it hard to see it wasn't (ignoring for now arguments re feeding bits of one animal to keep the latter alive). Is this photo (or any better one that others may manage in the circumstances) less "real" due to the circumstances? [Shame about the fence - I left it in here but it's edited out in other versions]. And, yes, I'd say it's less real - and in the no-fence versions I know the circumstances, even though others may not. If wholly wild it would probably have gone and found a live rabbit that wasn't lurking just behind me.

How far is it acceptable to extend this treatment? of bird or environment. I could set up a hide with non live bait. These Falcons come to a lure swung in circles at speed by their handlers - emulating a live animal. Enough :-)

500mm f/8 Minolta mirror lens (hence the bad bokeh).
Minolta 7D, 1/750s, ISO 800, f8.

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

Can knowledge and preparation offset the need for longer lenses in wildlife photography?

Question

One of the biggest barriers to wildlife photography as I see it is the requirement for fast, long expensive lenses. I have in the past used a teleconverter to get my 300mm lens up to 600mm but even that seems barely adequate for anything except particularly large or close subjects.

If you are properly prepared, e.g. scout your subject in advance for several days (or weeks), wear appropriate camouflage, find downwind vantage points etc, can you actually offset this need for expensive glass by allowing yourself to get closer and thus manage with, say, a 300mm lens? Or is there still a longer minimum focal length you should be working with?

Please bear in mind that I am referring to UK wildlife, which generally consists of small mammals and birds - no elephants here!

Asked by Nick Miners

Answer

Whatever length your lens, knowing the habits and personalities of your subjects is an essential in wildlife photography, and I have found that the knowledge I have picked up along the way, has enabled me to make good use of my 70 -300mm lens in this field. I am in Florida, where we have a variety of spectacular water birds. I have learnt that if the osprey leaves the branch upon which she was eating a fish, and flies off, she will inevitably turn and come back down the river, enabling some great in flight shots of bird and prey. I know not to worry that the dragonfly that I was about to capture sunning himself on a reed has departed, as, if I am patient and get set up focusing on the tip of the reed, he will return to that same reed, and I am ready for him. I have learned not to get out of the car for that shot of a hawk on a telegraph pole, as I can invariably get closer in the car than on foot; indeed any kind of transport, be it car, boat or horse makes me less of a threat for some reason. (I have to add that horses are good camouflage but bad tripods). Also, some birds become accustomed to walkers, or canal boats for example, just as deer in large parks are used to cars and hikers, so you have a much better chance of getting within range with them, than in a really wild spot. I could go on at length, but this is just a long-winded way of saying ‘yes’, decide what you want to capture, and then get to know it and it will pay off.

Answered by Gillie Bengough

Check more discussion of this question.

How do you take pictures of creatures which may move away when you get close to them?

Question

How do macro pros shoot animals, even flies or dragonflies since they can fly away forever at any moment? I sometimes suspect they have some trick to stun or immobilize them.

Just as an example look at these pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3852436738/composition-basics-in-macro-photography.
How is that done?

In particular this one http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/3852436738/image_7.6_1.jpg?v=1383 is hardly made just waiting. The fly is perfectly on the center of the picture and is even sprayed with water.

Asked by Paolo

Answer

There is no magic method that makes it work. There are a combination of factors:

1. Patience. Most of the time you're not going to get a reasonable shot. Be prepared to spend a lot of time waiting. While you're doing that, watch a lot and see how your subject behaves. Once you learn what it does when, you have a better chance of approaching closer.

2. Take anything that looks like it could be good. Sometimes there are subtle things that make a shot good or useless that are not apparent when you're thinking about 20 other things and ballancing in some uncomfortable pose, lying in the muck, or being eaten by mosquitos (they actually want to get close to you). There is no point shooting obvious crap, but otherwise the more you have to chose from later, the more likely you find one good shot in the bunch.

3. Get the critters used to you. This simply takes time. See #1.

4. Don't try to get closer all at once. That is pretty much guaranteed to make anything that can run or fly away run or fly away.

5. As you do get closer, never go straight in. Most things get scared off by a large "eye" moving right at them. Head somewhere off to the subject's side, but still get slowly closer in the process.

6. As you get slowly closer, take this is better than anything else I've got so far shots. Sometimes with some good cropping they may be useful if you don't need to display them at large size or close up.

7. With very mobile insects, it's often better to find their routine and wait for them to come to you. Insects don't seem to think of you as a problem if you appeared to be part of the fixed landscape when they got there. And, "there" can be quite localized from your point of view, like 5 meters away from where the insect was previously busy around a clump of flowers.

8. For insects, try to pick cooler times. You don't always have that option, but insects in general move slower when it's cooler since they are cold blooded.

9. Luck. Good technique makes the outcome more likely, just like bad technique less likely. But, in the end there is still a considerable element of chance. Sometimes, even most of the time I'd say, you get skunked. That's just the way it is. Wildlife photography isn't for everyone, especially the impatient. It also helps if you actually like to be outdoors away from crowds.

Here is a case of a rather fast flying insect:

This is Hyles lineata, commonly known as a hummingbird moth or sphynx moth. I saw this moth making the round of a small hillside of scarlet gillia flowers. It didn't mind me following it too much, but didn't stay long enough at a flower for me to set up and focus (all manual back then). Eventually I noticed a pattern it was sortof following. I set up on a flower it was going to get to and waited. Eventually it came and I got a decent shot. No, I'm not going to show you the other 20 shots that didn't work out so well. Although it was mid afternoon, the sky was overcast. I used a flash on a extension cord held by the front of the lens so it would dominate the exposure to get faster effective shutter than the cloudy light and near macro would otherwise allow.

Sometimes, actually most of the time, it doesn't work out that well:

This was one of those better than what I have so far but not really what I want shots. This is a crop from a rather larger frame. You can see the film grain even at only 600 pixels maximum dimension. I still like this shot because it shows a pepsid waspe mimic eating a moth, something the real pepsid wasps don't do. I have been back to this area in Arizona several times trying to get a better shot, but haven't even seen another pepsid wasp mimic since then. I just have to keep telling myself to feel lucky having gotten this.

Be prepared for lots of these:

You get set up, in focus, reasonably close to get good resolution, good lighting, framed, and you take the picture. Then between the time the brain says to take the picture, your finger pushes the button, and the camera actually does it, the little bugger buzzes off. Yes, they can do that in a fraction of a second.

However, keep on going. Sometimes everything comes together and you get something you actually like and are willing to show others without pretending someone else took the picture:

These Diogmites are quite active. Fortunately they aren't bugged too much by photographers as long as you don't get within some magic radius. I found this one minded me less and less as I hung out by the same manzanita bush it was perched in. I don't know, but I'm guessing this was it's inactive period and it didn't want to bother moving too much. After about 30 minutes of it slowly letting me get closer each time before flying off, I could get close enough with a 135mm lens and extension tubes to get a decent picture. If I had been more prepared and willing to spend a few hours there, I could probably have done better. Again, see point #1. As it was, I got caught in one horrendous downpour and thunderstorm before getting back to the car later.

Answered by Olin Lathrop

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I shoot momma possum and her babies?

Question

I have a wood deck in back that a possum family has decided to move in to. Momma has been there for a few days now. She lines up her nose and eyes straight through the 1/4" gaps between the floorboards. This could be a decent photography opportunity, but it would be pretty intrusive for the family. Because of the gap size and the angle, I would have to be within 6 inches of them or so. So the question is - should I try getting a couple shots off, or should I respect their space and leave them alone?

Asked by reuscam

Answer

I would say no, but only because I have been around possums. If cornered or threatened, they can get downright vicious and they move very quickly. If you've ever seen one in this kind of state, you'd appreciate the damage they can do.

Getting you and your camera inches in front of a mother with babies will probably result in (at least) your camera getting attacked. I'd look for another angle, one that affords a little more safety and a lot less disruption.

As Jordan says, its probably a good idea to get them out of there anyway. You can try a battery powered / cheap transistor radio. They hate rock / rap music.

Answered by Tim Post

Check more discussion of this question.

Where can I find advice on using an advanced AF system for wildlife and bird photography?

Question

I recently purchased a Canon 7D, as my previous 450D had become a severely limiting factor in my endeavors to wildlife and bird photography (particularly bird photography, which I LOVE, but for which I have a bare handful of keepers out a few thousand shots.) The AF system of the 450D had a single cross-type point and a total of nine, while the 7D has a much more advanced 19 point system, all of which are cross-type. I've taken the 7D out a few times since I first purchased it, and while I have definitely had better luck photographing wildlife, I am still having trouble photographing birds on the move.

I have read through the 7D manual, however I am still not exactly sure where to start on learning how to use an advanced AF system in the real world for moving subjects. I could really use some insight from photographers who regularly use advanced AF systems for tracking subjects and keeping them in focus. I would also like to know how to take multiple shots of a subject on the move and keep them in focus between shots. While I can often nail one shot in a motion sequence, I regularly seem to fail to get proceeding or trailing shots after the one keeper (and that keeper is often not the most interesting one of the bunch.) The 7D supports a variety of AF modes as well, including AF Expansion and Zone AF, where the camera can supposedly utilize extra points around the selected point in case the subject moves away from the selected points area of sensitivity, or the selected point lands on a low-contrast part of the subject and a neighboring point lands on an area of high contrast (so focus can always be achieved, even if the selected point isn't detecting anything to focus on.) I have also not had much luck using either of these modes, and I think its primarily because I simply don't know how.

From a lens standpoint, I have used the following lenses:

• EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L
• EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
• EF 50mm f/1.4

My most frequently used lens is the 100-400, usually at the 400 end, so aperture is only f/5.6. I am not sure if that might be a problem or not (as far as I understand, the 7D supports AF at f/5.6, although I am not sure how many points might be considered "high precision" at that aperture.)

Asked by jrista

Answer

There are several custom function options available to the 7D which can be configured to assist with tracking moving objects:

• C.FnIII -1 AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity You want this set to "Slow" - this will stop the AF system trying to refocus on anything that briefly passes between you and the subject you are tracking - handy with birds where branches etc might flash by as you track

• C.FnIII -2 AI Servo 1st/2nd Image Priority This should be set to 0 so that the camera will give priority to focusing on the subject over taking shots - basically, if it thinks it hasn't got a lock, it won't shoot while it obtains one

• C.FnIII -3 AI Servo AF Tracking Method Set this to 1 - this further adds to the system ignoring obstacles by allowing the system to use AF points around the main focus point when something gets in the way of what you were tracking

Use single point AF with the AF Expansion custom function (C.FnIII -6) switched on - this gives you accuracy on the initial pick up but then allows the camera to help out as you track.

These settings should be correct from the camera side of things but the story doesn't end here.

Your 100-400mm L lens has a 2 mode IS system, with more predictable objects, you should use mode 2.

For tracking moving subjects it is important to get a good solid stance and to track the subject as it approaches some time before you want to start shooting (trickier with birds but achievable depending on the behaviour of the species). You should also follow through after you shoot (much like when shooting a shotgun).

You need your feet about shoulder width apart and need to be facing across the path of travel of the object you're tracking:

Object -------------------------------------------->

               ^ 
              You 

Hold the camera with your right hand as normal and with your hand a good way down the lens (similar to holding a rifle or shotgun). Keep your elbows tucked in, possibly resting against your torso to provide extra support and twist your torso from the hips upwards to meet what you want to track. Track it in the viewfinder, ideally if you can switch eyes so if you're tracking right to left, look through the viewfinder with your left eye so you can keep your right eye open to help keep track of the object (especially if it moves erratically) - do the opposite for left to right.

Start tracking the object, and smoothly pan with it. If you are shooting birds, turning off IS altogether is probably a good idea as the movement is likely to be too erratic for the IS to keep up with (even in panning mode 2) - aircraft are steady enough to use IS mode 2 with usually.

Squeeze the shutter release, don't press it (just like with a rifle) or it will jolt the camera and try to keep the object in the viewfinder as you get glances between shutter releases. Carry on tracking as the object moves away.

Getting a smooth torso twist is paramount and takes practice but getting the stance right gives you the foundations to build upon.

Answered by JamWheel

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any pro wildlife photographers using the Pentax DA* 300mm?

Question

Are there any pro wildlife photographers using the Pentax DA★ 300mm? I have spent a week searching for anyone who is using Pentax kit in wildlife photography and who is getting paid for their work.

Answer

Aditya Panda has touched on it (twice), and finds DA★ 300 quite superb but simply too short for wildlife photography. Unfortunately, the small user base means it's hard to design quality supertele lenses with competitive price. Also, judging current lens lineup and omission of full-frame body, Pentax seems to avoid expensive market niches. So, very likely wildlife photography using Pentax gear will remain challenging in near future.

Check more discussion of this question.

What mm lens for distance shots?

Question

If I am looking to take landscape and wildlife shots and some of those shots being from a decent distance what mm lens would I need? I am not sure what else I should be adding here, I am just looking for decent quality above all else.

Answer

The mm of a lens is the focal length. To take close-up shots of things far away, you need a "long" focal length, which means high mm.

An entry or mid-level Canon camera has an "APS-C" sized sensor. The sensor size is really what determines what the meaning of the focal length is — focal length and sensor size together give you angle of view. (See my visual exercise for understanding that.)

To get another visual idea of what all this means, look at the answers to How can I visualize or simulate the effect of different focal lengths?, particularly the one that points to Nikon's web-based lens simulator. As mentioned, the numbers are slightly different from Nikon to Canon (choose Nikon's "DX" format to be closest to an entry-level Canon), but close enough that it really doesn't matter for basic purposes. Drag the slider at the bottom to see the effect of a focal length ranging from 10mm to an extreme 600mm.

After playing with that, come back here to read some explanation of what all this means:

Canon's APS-C is slightly smaller than that from Nikon, Sony, or Pentax. This isn't a big deal, but for those systems the numbers below should be a few percent larger for the same meaning. All of the definitions are rough categories, though, so it's close enough that it really doesn't matter.

Anyway, on Canon's APS-C, a focal length of about 27mm is considered normal — that means when printed at normal size, you get a perspective that seems natural and about what you might expect your memory of the scene to be.

Focal lengths in somewhere in that neighborhood are also considered normal: probably up to 40mm or so, and down to about 22mm.

Once you get smaller than 22mm, you're into wide angle. Wide angle won't be terribly flattering for portraits (it will cause features to be exaggerated if your subject is close enough to fill the frame), but the more-normal end of the wide range is pretty common for street photography. And, wide angle is very common for the landscape shots you mention.

Down below 15mm, it's "ultra-wide", where perspective distortion starts to be a key feature of the way the lens sees. This can be used for landscapes, but you have to be very aware of the distortion and the field of view of the lens — see this question on ultra-wide composition.

On the other side, there's the telephoto range. Telephoto has a technical meaning, but generally we use it to just mean a lens with a relatively long focal length (high mm). The range from around 50mm to 85mm is considered short telephoto or portrait — the latter because, well, it's a good range for flattering perspective for portraits, and it's not so narrow that you have to stand hundreds of feet from your subject.

Beyond that is the real telephoto range. This is generally what people want for action and wildlife shots, because they enable you to get right into the action without actually being close.

Consumer-priced telephoto zooms usually go to 200mm, 250mm, or 300mm. Lower-cost lenses in this range tend to have less ability to let in light — they are "slow lenses". The fancier, "faster" lenses in this range used by professionals and enthusiasts for sports and wildlife cost one to two thousand dollars. And for fast lenses beyond 300mm, you could pay several times that, even.

But that's probably not what you're looking for right now. It might be — one advantage of just getting the nicer equipment to start is that you can forget about buying stuff for a while and just go out and enjoy while you grown into your gear, rather than growing out of it soon and wasting money trading up. So if you know a 70-200mm f/2.8 pro lens is right for you, it's not a mistake to just start there.

However, it's likely that you'll feel most comfortable starting out with a standard two-lens zoom kit. This isn't a bundle as sold by those shady camera stores: it's something from the camera makers. Almost all entry-level SLRs come with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (note that the numbers go from wide angle at 18mm up through normal to portrait length at 55mm — this is a very versatile range, which is why it's the default). Many are also offered in two-lens kits with a 50-200mm telephoto zoom — or else, a 50-200mm lens is available separately cheaply. Sometimes, there's "upgrade" options like a 55-300mm zoom, also usually of lower-end features and quality for a similarly-reasonable price. You won't go wrong buying a setup like this from any of the top handful of brands.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best spots around Louisville, KY to shoot wildlife?

Question

Just as the title says, does anyone know any good wildlife spots around Louisville, KY? I am interested in birds, small critters, but also larger animals.

Answer

I love going to Papa John's Park over off of Bluegrass Parkway. If you're able to travel and getting up early, you can go to Birnhim just south of Louisville near bardstown. They have some awesome woods and trees.

May sound silly, but when I got into photography several years ago, I got a season pass to the Louisville Zoo and had some awesome learning experience and amazing photos.

Just across the bridge, you can check out Falls of the Ohio and get some awesome water shots.

Over by riverfront, there's a water park that has sprinklers that makes for neat photos.

If you have a dog and member of a Louisville Dog park, you can go and get some cool pictures of dogs running.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I photograph hummingbirds?

Question

The rules for photographing normal birds largely don't apply to hummingbirds. You're unlikely to be able to predict or keep up with their flight path, especially with autofocus. Additionally, the wings move so fast that traditional shutters only capture them well at max speed with bright light.

What are some techniques to overcome the focus and wing-freeze issues?

Answer

Disclaimer: This is second hand information, so YMMV.

While I was guiding a tour in Ecuador, I met a photographer who spent almost 10 years chasing hummingbirds for a book. We spent an hour or so talking about how to photograph them. Here are the basics:

• They are too fast to freeze with a high-speed shutter.
• Use flash with an ultra-fast discharge speed. He said around 1/20,000s.
• He said using the flash on lower power increases the discharge speed.
• Shoot continuously as fast as possible.
• Manual focus on where you want them to be. Usually an interesting flower or branch.
• They can be moved by hand while in their sleeping state. They are very delicate, avoid nets to catch them.
• Move them to a tent with a sweet flower as bait and studio lighting setup. Take a few shots and let them go. They need to eat every few minutes apparently.
• Learn about the flowers they like to know where they'll be and how to bait them.

Check more discussion of this question.

What “start up” telephoto lenses do you recommend for Canon for wildlife photography?

Question

I'm sort of a "weekend" photographer who likes to take photos of landscapes/cityscapes and nature/wildlife.

At the moment I'm using Tamron AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro that has served me well so far in landscape photography, but it is not sufficient for wildlife photography.

It does not get me as close as I would like. There is too much of the surroundings in the frame. With this lens I have to get close to photographed animal, which I find difficult with wild animals.

So I'm looking at some "start-up" telephoto lenses for wildlife photography, and my options so far are:

• Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM
• Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6,3 Di LD

What do you think?

Answer

The tamron 28-300 is a fascinating and frustrating lens. It doesn't go wide enough (on a cop sensor camera like the 500d or 7d, I'd want the wide angle for landscape to be more liky 15-17 and not 28; it makes me want to add the sigma 10-20 to my arsenal). And at the telephoto end, it goes soft like most super zooms do. I try not to use it much past 28-150 except in an emergency. This week I had that emergency (ran across a bear in yosemite with the "wrong" lens in hand) and realized just how much I wish I'd had my other lens available. Oh well.

But it's a perfectly nice street lens, especially for what it is, once you learn its weaknesses and work around them.

Having said that, for landscape, 28mm isn't wide enough, and 300mm isn't telephoto enough for wildlife or birds. IMHO. You will find that no matter how powerful a telephoto you buhy, you'll run into situations where you want more. There are days when 800mm isn't enough. This implies that as you progress, technique and planning become as important, or more important, than raw lens power. So don't overbuy lenses expecting it to solve things magically, it won't.

300mm, however, isn't powerful enough for most bird photography and most wild animals. 400mm on a crop sensor can be used very successfully. I use the canon 100-400 a lot; I use the canon 300/F4 + 1.4x tele some and I'm leaning on that combo more because it's sharper than the zoom but not as flexible; basically, I use the 100-400 handheld, the 300+tele mostly on a tripod. Either will run you roughly $1500 out the door. ($US).

Art Morris his shifted to using the canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM (you want IS) with a 2x Tele instead of the 100-400. That's a big hunk of glass, it's much sharper, and it'll run you twice the cost of the 100-400. But that combo is very powerful and flexible and good, and it's something I'm considering experimenting with, not that I can afford it any time soon.

I've read a number of reports on the sigma 50-500 indicating it's a good lens, but like most megazooms, goes soft at the top magnification. You should rent and test these lenses before buying them, to see if they're acceptable. some photos I've read think it is, others don't. That's really true of any lens: rent and test before buying.

You won't cover all the ranges you want happily with one lens. Maybe not two. And lenses bigger than 300mm get expensive, although the canon 400 F4 is surprisingly affordable amd would probably tolerate a 1.4x tele on it fairly well. I haven't tried yet.

If getting closer is your primary wish, then I'd suggest looking at the 400F4. It's a bit more expensive than the Sigma but it'll be a much higher quality lens. Add in a 1.4x tele at some point to push it further. Or plan to upgrade your lenses over time. I have as I've gotten better at this moved away from zooms that cover larger ranges in favor of higher quality zooms that don't zoom as much, but are sharper and crisper and faster. Faster gives you options in the field to shoot in poorer llight or use teleconverters to leverage your lens collection.

In a perfect world, the Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-70 F2.8, Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM, Tele 1.4, Tele 2x and the Canon 400 F2.8 would make me happy. That's ONLY $4000 US in glass, not including the $8000 US for the canon 400 F2.8. Here in the real world, not gonna happen. and I haven't asked for a macro, fisheye, or tilt shift yet... (grin)

But with the lens you have, the Canon 400/F4 adds range. Over time, you can add in a better wide angle (canon 15-85, maybe?) and then the 70-200 F4. Not sure I'd use that with a 2x tele, but the 1.4x would cover your rang up to the 400. and the 1.4x on the 400 pushes you out over time from 15-500mm coverage with reasonably fast, sharp glass. That's still $4000 US, but it's a lot better than $12,000 US for being about a stop slower across the range. Going from F4 to F2.8 is expensive.

One other option to consider: upgrade your body. the Canon 7d sucks in a lot of pixels. One thing that lets you do is CROP without losing your detail, and you still keep the crop sensor which is useful for leveraging your glass for wildlife. So instead of pushing more powerful glass, get a more powerful body that captures more pixels so you can crop them away and still have usable images. or do some combination of all of this. Over time. Remember, buying GOOD glass over time is a nice investment because lenses should last you a long time if cared for, where bodies are going to get upgraded more often. So it's usually better (IMHO) to buy better glass and lesser bodies, or wait a bit and buy better lenses later than a cheaper one now...

Check more discussion of this question.