Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 11 posts | 
by Professional on Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:37 pm
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
Hi all,

For shooting birds [not in flight] or some wildlife animals what is the most common or used lens? i know it can be done from 200mm up to 800mm or more somehow, but i won't have all kind of big lenses or all focal lengths in that range, but what will be almost the safe focal length that will give me good details without doing too much heavy crop???

Also, if shooting during day time with enough light or in shadows, what is the aperture value you mostly stay within in your shooting?
Tareq Alhamrani
 

by DChan on Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:26 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Re focal length, I'd say 400mm is the minimum.

Re aperture, I rarely shoot smaller than f8. You probably know that aperture affects the look of your photo, too.
 

by Karl Egressy on Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:03 pm
User avatar
Karl Egressy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 39512
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Member #:00988
The most popular lens among professional or semi-professional shooters is the 600 mm F 4.0 lens.
The second most popular would be the 500 4.0 lens. When it comes to zoom lenses 100-400, 80-400, 150-600 and 200-600 are the most commonly
used lenses.
 

by Professional on Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:32 am
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
DChan wrote:Re focal length, I'd say 400mm is the minimum.

Re aperture, I rarely shoot smaller than f8. You probably know that aperture affects the look of your photo, too.

As i said, many lenses can be used in that regard, i even saw some used 70-200 for that, and i want to see what is the best focal length to stay with, sounds 400mm is the least or minimum as you said, wider than that we have, but the problem is that i have 300mm as my maximum prime and i have 100-400 mk1 as maximum zoom, so it means i should be at longer FL such as 500 or 600, i can use 2x with my 300mm to have 600mm, but i think using the lens without any TC will be better, but i see more and more wildlife or birders here using big lenses means they still want to have that long reach with or without TC.
Tareq Alhamrani
 

by Professional on Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:35 am
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
Karl Egressy wrote:The most popular lens among professional or semi-professional shooters is the 600 mm F 4.0 lens.
The second most popular would be the 500 4.0 lens. When it comes to zoom lenses 100-400, 80-400, 150-600 and 200-600 are the most commonly
used lenses.

This is what i am seeing here, majority of serious bird/wildlife went with BIG white primes, that tells a lot, i just wanted to see which one is more common lens, or maybe i should ask about, which lens do you recommend if i should, i can't buy 400mm and 500mm and 600mm all, and although the lenses these days are becoming nice and zoom is also performing well, i still think i prefer a prime, didn't do wildlife or birding since very long time ago as i am not into it, but i feel i should get into it and thus i should have better lens to keep me busy rather than zooms or small primes and i give up quick.
Tareq Alhamrani
 

by chan on Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:02 am
chan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2
Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Professional wrote:
DChan wrote:Re focal length, I'd say 400mm is the minimum.

Re aperture, I rarely shoot smaller than f8. You probably know that aperture affects the look of your photo, too.

As i said, many lenses can be used in that regard, i even saw some used 70-200 for that, and i want to see what is the best focal length to stay with, sounds 400mm is the least or minimum as you said, wider than that we have, but the problem is that i have 300mm as my maximum prime and i have 100-400 mk1 as maximum zoom, so it means i should be at longer FL such as 500 or 600, i can use 2x with my 300mm to have 600mm, but i think using the lens without any TC will be better, but i see more and more wildlife or birders here using big lenses means they still want to have that long reach with or without TC.
You said: "... but i won't have all kind of big lenses or all focal lengths in that range, but what will be almost the safe focal length that will give me good details without doing too much heavy crop???"

Sorry, I thought you wanted to know our opinions on if one could only afford to have one focal length that didn't require one to crop too much in post to get the image one wanted , which one it would be and hence I suggested 400mm at the minimum. You can use a lens with exactly that focal length or you can get there with a combo of lens and TC it's all up to you as many people as well as myself have done it especially when they first started taking up bird photography with limited budget. Of course you can should birds with any focal length as long as you're close to them. I had shoot bird in flight with a 50mm myself, no crop necessary. And a couple of times my 200-400 was found to be too long for the birds even though that lens could focus down to 6 ft. It all depends on how close you are from the birds. And I thought it was obvious that people wanted to have longer and longer lens because, among other things: 1) the birds are far away and you cannot get close for one reason or another 2) longer focal length gives shallow depth of field giving you that empty-space look as the background in the photo 3) longer focal length means narrower perspective and so could cut out some of the distracting elements from the photo helping the viewer to focus of the subject matter.better.

In wildlife/bird photography, I'd say it's pretty much a consensus that one cannot have enough focal length. :-)
 

by Professional on Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:25 am
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
chan wrote:
Professional wrote:
DChan wrote:Re focal length, I'd say 400mm is the minimum.

Re aperture, I rarely shoot smaller than f8. You probably know that aperture affects the look of your photo, too.

As i said, many lenses can be used in that regard, i even saw some used 70-200 for that, and i want to see what is the best focal length to stay with, sounds 400mm is the least or minimum as you said, wider than that we have, but the problem is that i have 300mm as my maximum prime and i have 100-400 mk1 as maximum zoom, so it means i should be at longer FL such as 500 or 600, i can use 2x with my 300mm to have 600mm, but i think using the lens without any TC will be better, but i see more and more wildlife or birders here using big lenses means they still want to have that long reach with or without TC.
You said: "... but i won't have all kind of big lenses or all focal lengths in that range, but what will be almost the safe focal length that will give me good details without doing too much heavy crop???"

Sorry, I thought you wanted to know our opinions on if one could only afford to have one focal length that didn't require one to crop too much in post to get the image one wanted , which one it would be and hence I suggested 400mm at the minimum. You can use a lens with exactly that focal length or you can get there with a combo of lens and TC it's all up to you as many people as well as myself have done it especially when they first started taking up bird photography with limited budget. Of course you can should birds with any focal length as long as you're close to them. I had shoot bird in flight with a 50mm myself, no crop necessary. And a couple of times my 200-400 was found to be too long for the birds even though that lens could focus down to 6 ft. It all depends on how close you are from the birds. And I thought it was obvious that people wanted to have longer and longer lens because, among other things: 1) the birds are far away and you cannot get close for one reason or another 2) longer focal length gives shallow depth of field giving you that empty-space look as the background in the photo 3) longer focal length means narrower perspective and so could cut out some of the distracting elements from the photo helping the viewer to focus of the subject matter.better.

In wildlife/bird photography, I'd say it's pretty much a consensus that one cannot have enough focal length. :-)

Point or reason number you pointed out is called "Working Distance", i think this alone is a big factor or reason, i mean i can't be sure how much closer i can be to birds, and in my country waiting or standing still in heat or humidity or no nature environment it means we always have to be so far away from the birds, and also some birds are small in size, and i already said bird and no flight ones.

Preparing or staging for bird is an art itself, i don't know if i should think about the lens first before i do staging or should i do preparation first then i can decide which lens according to that, some people here are skilled to get closer to birds or know what to do, and others just can't get enough even if they have 800 prime lens, and because i am using a full frame camera it sounds even 400mm in most cases won't help, i mean the keepers i can get with 400mm or 300m will be too less than what i can achieve with lenses like 600mm or longer, and your last two points are great example for the background isolation and making the target which is the bird to stand out much clearly.

I will see what lens i should get if i am getting deeper into it and watching the environment, but for now it is only my small garden which has lots of distraction and i barely can shoot any bird, but i think if i have longer lens so i can do better separation of background and also i am staying away further from birds so i can shoot them more without scaring them much.

I asked about aperture value too, because most likely if i stop down more it will be underexposed more mainly if the birds are in shadows even with very bright sun, and i have to increase ISO or lower shutter speed, but sounds i first have to fix something, and that i asked which aperture so i can start with that then i can change settings according to it.
Tareq Alhamrani
 

by Wildflower-nut on Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:11 am
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 825
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
As a rule of thumb, IMO the 500 f4 makes a good general purpose nature lens say for Yellowstone and similar mixed subject environments. If you emphasis is on birds then the 600 f4. Use both extensively with 1.4x and on rare occasion 2x. I've not personally found focal lengths beyond 800 that helpful. A 400 f2.8 can be used with 1.4 and 2x to get roughly the same focal lengths 640 and 800 but I don't think many use that approach. In general, I find the 400 short but cover that with the 100-400 zoom. Canon's new 100-500 may have an impact on the need for the 500 f4. Time will tell.
 

by Professional on Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:43 am
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
To be honest, i asked about it because i am thinking about trying to use telescopes instead of lenses, i know telescopes are more designed for astro, but i heard or read some said that the scopes are superior to lenses, and i am sure they talk about the optics quality, not the performance or speed, and i know AF is what most photographers are using, but i was trying to take my time and do it slowly so i practice with manual focus, and that is why i mentioned no flights birding, and also with wildlife as some animals are either very slow or not moving around much.

I was looking for longer focal length so it gives me reach and can separate background more, i ordered a scope that giving me 540mm natively, and i can increase that to 1080mm according to magnifier [or called focal extender or Barlow in astro terms] but then it will be f/12, if i go with less power Barlow then i could be around 700-800mm f/8-f/10, i don't know if that will be too much if focus at longer reach could be more difficult maybe.

I wish if i can sell my 100-400 mk1 then i can try to save for MKII, sounds this lens is very nice and many are happy with, and my 300mm L IS mk1 is outdated and i feel it is almost holding its performance, it is doing nicer on newer cameras but not old cameras such 1Ds2 or 1D2n[sold] or 1D3 i have, but 1DX showing it nice, and with A7r also very nice, but if i use TC it degrade somehow, and with heavy crop a bit then it is no much good i like.
Tareq Alhamrani
 

by Wildflower-nut on Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:45 pm
Wildflower-nut
Forum Contributor
Posts: 825
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
The farther you are away from your subject, the more heat waves and other atmospherics you encounter. If you are close, then more magnification helps with small targets provided you are withing the minimum focusing distance of the lens. If you are using magnification to compensate for distance, the atmospherics can quickly make it a lost cause.
 

by Professional on Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:35 am
User avatar
Professional
Lifetime Member
Posts: 956
Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Location: Ajman - United Arab Emirates
Member #:01430
Wildflower-nut wrote:The farther you are away from your subject, the more heat waves and other atmospherics you encounter.  If you are close, then more magnification helps with small targets provided you are withing the minimum focusing distance of the lens.   If you are using magnification to compensate for distance, the atmospherics can quickly make it a lost cause.
I see, that needs more of experimenting to see, didn't know about heat waves in photography, but i know about it in astrophotography, called sometimes as turbulence or shooting quality conditions.
Tareq Alhamrani
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
11 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group