Steve Kaufman
(K=2748) - Comment Date 2/4/2003
|
Jerry, if you've spent $100's on books, then you should already know the answer to your question. If you want to be serious about photographing animals in the wild, you need to invest thousands on good, fast lenses, hundreds on a good stable tripod, and countless hours working in the field.
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 2/4/2003
|
The most affordable way in without changing systems is probably with a lens in the 400/5.6 range. Since there have been a lot of innovations in the Canon EF line, you can often find good deals shopping second hand and finding lenses traded by people who just have to have the latest thing.
I'm content with manual focus equipment, but if you want to go that route, you'll need to switch to Nikon if you want a new body, or an older system like the Canon FD system, which I use. Also look at Douglas Herr's work on this site--he gets great results with older Leitz SLR lenses and outstanding technique. Given the cost of the "big glass," it's not unreasonable to consider dedicating a body to a particular lens from another system if you can get a good deal on the lens.
|
|
|
|
Werner van den Oudenhoven
(K=207) - Comment Date 2/8/2003
|
There is no miracle telephoto lens! The art of wildlife photography is to get close enough! It is very time consuming and a lot of luck is needed. Knowledge of the animal's behavior is needed to know how to get close to it. A hunter can tell you all about it. Luckily you hunt the animal not to kill it!
As for lenses I use mostly a modified Russian Photosniper from Zenit (300mm/4.5) on a Pentax body. It is in fact not a telephoto lens but a real long focus lens (4 lens triplet), which makes it sharper. With its butt it is possible to take sharp pics at around 1/125th sec. Place it on a sand bag for longer exposures if needed.
|
|
|
|
Alessandro Berselli
(K=2920) - Comment Date 3/6/2003
|
Lenses for wildlife are necessary much expansive, but if you realy want shot wildlife is important that you organize your expedition in the natural enviroment.
Stable tripod is a big help, to know the ground charateristics is very important, to have a good information about the species that you want shot is also uselful. In natural enviroment you must became a reporter and a naturalist. Your equipment is not the best and my camera and lenses are like your but in several natural parks i obtained good picturs of wolves and eagles. Try, try, try, you will see that your engagement will be recompensed. Good images may be shoted with not expanive camera and lens ( my srl: Minolta 9000, lens 100-300 4,5 5,6.
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5663) - Comment Date 3/7/2003
|
I also sugest the expenditure of more time instead of money.
Film needs to be paid for in oreder to learn.
Pay for more film and gas and go get the picture.
My Best Nature shot was taken with a 50mm and a closeup +3 lens !
Sometimes the subject will come to you if you know what it is you want especially if small bribes are used..
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5663) - Comment Date 3/7/2003
|
Also I forgot to mention ,
Do yourself a favour and cease using the teleconverter.
The design always denotes some quality loss.
|
|
|
|
Jimmy Ho
(K=82) - Comment Date 3/7/2003
|
I understand you ! Before I was using my Canon 7E with the little cheap 28-90mm lens . I took many picture in short range . As someone said spend money then you should learn from that ! It's true . But I feel very terrible when I spend 20 roll of Kodak film , money to develope those rolls, a lot of notes on my paper (speed, light...). The picture I got out only a few are good !! When my money not like Bill Gate ! I might be a homeless later on !!!
From the day the digital came out, I switched ! Then I learn alot how's to setup the expose, shutter, and etc ; from basioc to advantge .
If you don't want to waste your money you should try to get the digital camera ! In long run that's help !
btw,you could get the 75-300mm Canon IS USM for 350 , or regular no IS, USM only 120 buck at AAACamera.com
Good luck
|
|
|
|
Steve Bailey
(K=757) - Comment Date 3/14/2003
|
Good question, For somebody that spends a fair time chasing that photograph in the wilds of Africa that is going to make me famous???? Can only comment as follows,
I have three bodies ready at all time when out in my vehicle, Canon EOS 300, Canon EOS 500 and Canon EOS 500 N ( Waiting for the new Canon D10 to arrive if I can afford it), have a wide angle Canon 70mm, Sigma 300 zoom and a 500 zoom, of the three cameras the 300 is always on my lap, find I can use it for the very quick "around the corner" surprise photographs. This lens I try to use with a bean bag to steady the camera, the 500 I use when I have the time to mount it on my window mount and always use a cable release. I think the Sigma range is a cheap option for getting started, find their results very good.
But wildlife is more about being there at the right time, at the right time of day, good luck after spending thousands I am still learning
|
|
|
|
john lochnell
(K=28) - Comment Date 4/16/2003
|
Jerry,
I have been shooting wildlife seriously for more years than I want to remember, in all this time I have found that I tend to use four lenses, all very different, but for what I use them for, all indespensible.
First, the 17-35mm handy for very curious animals (see attachment) and for landscapes.......The wide end is usefull for me now that I've gone digital with a 1D
Next, the 70-200f4L. A lens that is so sharp and so cheap that it would be a crime not to buy one. The 2.8 version is handy if you want an extra stop of light, but with the digital I just bump up the ISO setting by a stop for the same effect, and by using the f4 version I save a packet on weight.
300 f4L......Same arguement as for the 70-200
500 f4.5, My most used lens for songbirds and waterfowl. A beast of a thing to carry and a beast to hold steady, but for a super tele it is the buisiness. I do not care if it is looking rather battered, I do not care if the newest version has IS this lens cost me as much as a small car, but it has paid for it's self many times over, and for as long as I take wildlife photographs I will never part with it.
|
|
|
|
Ross Mckinnon
(K=1172) - Comment Date 4/23/2003
|
The bigger the lens the better the result, generally. Go for as fast as possible, f2/f2.8 lens. Now that's out the way, you must become a hunter. Don't worry it's built into us all, from millios of years ago. Make a hide upwind near a favourite watering hole or feeding ground, sit still for many hours & above all...BE PATIENT!!!
|
|
|
|
Glen Gaffney
(K=71) - Comment Date 5/5/2003
|
A 300mm F2.8 is the best really as shooting small birds at minumim focus. You have just enough minumin space to make the image attractive. How about using a blind this way you can get closer with possibly a 80-200mm. I am using a 300mm plus 1.6 teleconvertor. But only go out when there is good light.
|
|
|
|
Ross Mckinnon
(K=1172) - Comment Date 5/16/2003
|
I used to be a airgun hunter & had to get within 30yards of my intended pray, this day & age I shoot with a camera. So what you need is very smooth/quiet clothing & a very stealthy approach to your subjects, prefferably down wind of them. Place every foot as though your life depends on your silence & you will surprise yourself as to how close you can get...far cheaper & more rewarding than a zoom lense.
|
|
|
|
