Hot answers tagged wildlife
15
From my experience with my 7D and now a 5D (mkIII), I'd say for wildlife stuff, the 7D would be your preferred choice, for four reasons:-
APS-C 1.6x crop sensor. This will extend the reach of any and all lenses you put on your camera. A 200mm becomes a 320, a 400mm becomes a 640, etc.
Using teleconverters will cost you light, and therefore require slower ...
7
The 70-200 F2.8L IS II works fine with a 2.0x teleconverter. That's my standard birding and critter lens these days. It's sharper than a 300F4+1.4x (my previous go to lens), and MUCH sharper than a canon 100-400 @ 400mm (my initial birding len). All are acceptable, the 70-200+2.0x is incredibly sharp and I'm really impressed with that lens combo. I use that ...
6
It is great that you know what you want to shoot and have a respectable budget. The issue with what you are asking is that you will not be able to satisfy all those requirements at any price.
The most critical is that bird photography takes long lenses which are they also need to be bright when you want to shoot wildlife in low-light. Honestly, it's hard to ...
5
That's a complicated want list with things that are fundamentally in conflict. Here are what I think are the key thigns you're asking for:
Canon Body
landscapes and people (wide angle zoom)
flowers and occasional macro-style shots
birds and critters (big, powerful telephoto)
Body $2000, lens $2000 (max, $1500 preferred). So, $3500 total.
Lightweight.
...
5
Except in low light at end/beginning of day it's not too demanding.
Lens sounds good.
Most whales are bigger than most birds (you'd hope) so 250mm is big enough as long as regulations and whale availability allow close approach.
Whales move slower than birds so for most purposes the setup is not too critical and you can use smaller aperture to get good ...
5
There is no one lens that can do everything you want because wildlife and landscape require almost the exact opposite lens properties.
I have the 18-135 and I love it as a travel lens - but it's not a good wildlife lens.
For wildlife you want a long focal length and fast accurate auto-focus, long lenses tend to be big and heavy so they aren't very ...
4
I'll take a stab at giving you some hints. Remember that nearly all photography stores will let you try out gear. This is key when selecting bodies and lenses. If you've researched and found 2-3 lenses you might be interested in coupled with a body or two, go to the store and check the combinations out. Maybe you will find that what seemed ok on the paper is ...
4
Versatility & Tradeoffs
A lot of arguments for the 70-200mm at the moment, so I feel good about providing my own counter opinion. I don't deny that the 70-200mm lenses, in all their variants, are excellent lenses. There is also something to be said about versatility, and the 70-200mm definitely has that. There are drawbacks to it as well, and there are ...
3
Wildlife and sports have very similar requirements. They both need long lenses. Sports also really needs a fast lens and so does wildlife except when at rest. That is one reason to avoid an 18-200mm or even 18-300mm, it gets so slow at the long end.
The 300mm F/4 should be much better. If you add the teleconverter though, the aperture drops to F/5.6 which ...
3
I have a D7000 and recently bought a 300mmf4. I do have the 18-200VR as well which is probably the best all round lens, but you are correct, for wildlife and sport it just won't work. So far I have achieve some amazing results with the 300, it is super clear and fast enough for most of what I have been shooting. Depending on what wildlife you hope to shoot, ...
3
These cameras are extremely close. They are both entry-level DSLRs with basic controls but completely usable image quality.
For wildlife in movements, such as birds in flight and other animals in action, people normally go for a camera with faster autofocus than these two models but between them I would give a slight edge to the D3100 because its AF is more ...
2
I would get the Nikon 300mm f/4. I chose a 300mm f/4 as my first lens when I got into wildlife photography and it's been excellent, I've used it extensively.
non-Nikon lenses will autofocus more slowly, which is a hindrance with wildlife
f/2.8 lenses, while having some advantages, are a lot heavier and a great deal more expensive.
Image Stabilisation is ...
2
For general comparison, check here
Actually both are pretty the same. I don't want to repeat what the above link is saying cause I'm encouraging you to read it. Basically for wildlife and nature photography, any good cropped sensor DSLR will do. It's a matter of what lenses you are going to get cause for wildlife you probably will have to buy telephoto ...
2
Considering that it seems low light photography is important for you, I suggest you to get a full frame.
Canon 5D Mark II is a bit old, but it's a really great camera and you'll be amazed by its performance in low light conditions. you can get it just under $2K.
As for the lenses, it seems almost everyone here is ignoring that you want a ...
2
I'm surprised that no options that can take a teleconverter have been mentioned. There are many extensive answers here, however I think one lens in particular might fulfill most of your needs (landscapes excepted, as you will probably want something fairly wide angle for your general landscape photography). The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (Mark I, not Mark ...
2
Others have written about needing a long lens for wildlife photography. That's true, but "a long lens" doesn't qualify just how long it needs to be.
I have bird feeders set up outside of my home which brings the birds 15-20 feet away from me. Occasionally, one will sit as close as 10 feet away wonderfully close! With a 70-200mm + 2x lens on a crop body I ...
2
Funny enough, I did just that last February with a K5...
Use TAv mode and set a high shutter speed with a good aperture (at least f/8) for depth of field, let the camera pick ISO. Then put the camera in high speed mode and go for the rapid sequential shots. Don't chimp, you might miss a shot, like I did with a whale breach that was maybe 30 feet behind our ...
2
Yes that is a reasonable lens. The most popular for wildlife is actually the Sigma 50-500mm which, despite the larger range, actually performs better.
When choosing a lens like either one of those you have to manage expectations:
The lens is not super-sharp, particularly towards the long end. If you intend on shooting birds and small wildlife, you do need ...
2
(later edit of my answer: for a newer photographer, most of the suggestions made in this thread including mine are overkill. For a trip like this, something like a T5i (or choose a body. APS sensor is fine), the 24-105, and the Canon 100-400 would be a great setup and cover pretty much any need you could have that wouldn't require $10,000 lenses to shoot. ...
1
Before actually buying any lens, I would like to suggest you to rent/borrow a lens first, test a lens for a few hours and it will help you to decide how long is long enough for your needs.
You know your budget and your needs, you also know that you need a fast/bright lens, if you know your desired focal length then you can take a look at online shops such ...
1
You will only need to use 70-300mm for far subjects and of course it will work better when the light is high especially during midday. Shooting at noon or high light, image stability will not be a problem because you can use a shutter speed of 1/500 to 1/2000 anyway. It will be much more difficult to use in low light. If I can shoot in a near distance, i ...
1
What this seems to boil down to is which is better: f/4 without IS or f/5.6 with IS?
There's also the difference in reach between 200mm and 300mm but they are still within the same ball park (just crop 33% out of the frame if you want). So basically you're asking whether IS can make up for a smaller maximum aperture at reach.
A few points you might want ...
1
Expecting one lens to excel at capturing moving animals from long range, shooting in low light or at night, and serving as a general duty travel lens is not just a tall order: it is totally unrealistic.
For such a rare opportunity like an African Safari, I would consider renting the lenses that could fill each of those roles.
For the wildlife you need a ...
1
Quick answer, if you can't use a tripod, I'd go with the IS since it will be critical without a tripod at 300mm focal lengths (granted I'm also a little biased since I own that lens and love it).
On the other hand, if you think you'll be shooting on the shorter end or will have a tripod (or at least monopod) for longer shots, the L will certainly give ...
1
Although @Itai is right that 300mm is somehow short for usual wildlife photography, but IMO it really depends on how close you could get to the subject and how large you wish to print.
Nikon 55-300mm is about $400, if that's around your budget, I'm afraid it's the best thing you could get. if you could pay more, I recommend the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR ...
1
300mm is minimal for wildlife. Actually very minimal for smaller ones like reptiles unless they happen to be Komodo dragons (those are really big) or you happen to be in the Galapagos (where you can get really close), in which case you shoot them with a macro lens!
The lenses you looked at wont do also because they have very dim apertures at the long end. ...
1
Talk to your safari tour operator. Ask for recommendations based on their past experience. Depending on the type of safari and the animals you want to capture, a 70-200 may be best. Or maybe you need an 800mm. Are you looking for the big animals (elephants, rhinos, etc) or are you mainly looking for smaller varmints and birds? How many people will be in ...
1
The 70-200mm F/4L lens is awesome, I own the unstabilized version a cropped-sensor body. That is an excellent lens for sports and action photography.
However, for an African safari, unless you are very lucky, you will need a longer reach. The 300mm will equate to a 460mm and that is very usable. It is a fixed lens, so you have to work harder and crop to get ...
1
If you're willing to spend a bit more (about $300-$400 in my neck of the woods), then you can get the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L. You get extra reach on the telephoto, you don't lose a lot on the wider end (and you still have the 18-135mm to cover you), and it's stabilized. You'll definitely want to ensure that you're stabilized for long lenses, it's ...
1
The Sigma 150-500mm is a good lens.
It's reasonably sharp. Probably your results would be better using this lens at 500mm than using a sharper 300mm and cropping to the same size. It's not razor sharp, but for the range you get, it's pretty good.
The image stabilization works well. I've taken hand held shots of the moon at 500mm and 1/250th or even ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
