I wish for a bigger lens... :)

[Swampy]

Too bad Xmas is a year away again. haha. Was out hiking and these birds were flying between 2 trees about 100 yards apart, but I couldn't get any closer. Wish I had more than 200mm to work with, like 500mm!

[bjnicholls]

The real secret the great wildlife photographers don't want you to know is that they actually get close to their subjects. A photo blind will get you more frame filling shots than a 500mm or a 1000mm lens will. The big guns can help with magification, but they are also relatively slow and hard to use.

[Swampy]

How's this for close. About 7 feet away and no bites!

[Swampy]

Anyway, that last one I was more concerned about him (her?)turning on me or my wife, so bad pic. Try this one a few minutes earlier. LUNCH TIME!!!

[deluco]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
The real secret the great wildlife photographers don't want you to know is that they actually get close to their subjects. A photo blind will get you more frame filling shots than a 500mm or a 1000mm lens will. The big guns can help with magification, but they are also relatively slow and hard to use.
Absolutely...but it's really not a secret. The real cost of wildlife photography is TIME. You have to put in the time. Alot of wasted hours and sometimes days to get the shot. That's why there are so few of them...and even they don't make a great living at it unless they lead photo safari's. It's guelling and very hard work.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by deluco
Absolutely...but it's really not a secret. The real cost of wildlife photography is TIME. You have to put in the time. Alot of wasted hours and sometimes days to get the shot. That's why there are so few of them...and even they don't make a great living at it unless they lead photo safari's. It's guelling and very hard work.

I'll agree with you there Jim. I'll also have to say, along with time and being closer, selection of the area is important too.

Saturday, pretty much got nothing after being out for 6-7 hours in one location. Sunday I got all kinds of different stuff, animals (like the coyote above), landscapes, macro's and even a short story of a squirrel picking up a nut, haulin ass way up a tree, fumbling and dropping the nut, and looking way back down with a look of "awww maaaaaaan". I think I'll go size another great shot I got out there and post it.

[deluco]

Regarding the 500, 800 and 1000 mm lenses....unless you have image stablization, the 800+ lenses are extremely difficult to get sharp images with...even with the best of tripods. If you breath on the camera, the shake is imobilizing....even locked down on a huge tripod head.

I generally shoot with a 300mm and put a 1.4 on it for closer shots. 420 sounds like alot but it doesn't get you real close to small birds. 420mm at about 8.5 feet doesn't even fill the frame with a marsh wren.

I've seen and used a 500 with 1.4 (my dream lens) and that's I think on the edge of useable without image stablization. The people I know that use this config without image stablization use a camera stablizing bar AND a cable release.

This one is shot at 420mm about 9 feet using a 300mm f2.8 Tamron, with 1.4 teleconverter it's 420mm f4. It won Slide of the Year, New England Camera Club Council in Nature AA, back in '94.
You can see more in the Nature and Scenics Gallery at my web site.

[deluco]

By the way, Swampy, that blue bird is an excellent shot even though it's grainy. The position of the wings is great. Do you have Photoshop to sharpen it?

[Swampy]

Originally posted by deluco
By the way, Swampy, that blue bird is an excellent shot even though it's grainy. The position of the wings is great. Do you have Photoshop to sharpen it?

I'll take another look at it as I "sharpened" it in PS 7 before I posted it. I've learned quite a bit in PS since then and will take another stab at it and post again if it is a significant improvement. If I can't work it, maybe I'll put up the original and let you or others take a stab at it. :)

Bryan

[Swampy]

Don't know what I was doing in the first post, but still, wish I were closer or had a larger lens. :)

[memobug]

The Tokina ATX 400/5.6 were getting good reviews as handheld birding lenses. I think the VR-400 would be cool if you could afford that. There was a writeup on Moose Peterson's site. I don't know if it was going to be discontinued or was.

Here's a shot of the lens. I think I bought mine used for about $250-300. I'm ashamed to say I have never had it mounted on the S2, but I did use it with D1. Maybe if this weekend is clear? The problem would be at an effective field of view of a 600mm lens, you'd have to have some pretty fast shutter speeds to get a sharp picture. On a digital camera like S2, it may be too much focal length (400/600 effective) for its speed (5.6)

http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini/400.htm

Here is some discussion about the tokina from photo.net

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000dWy

Photoreview opinions

http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm+Primes/Tokina+AT-X+400AF+400mm+f-5.6/PRD_84302_3111crx.aspx



Regards,

Matt

[deluco]

I agree with Matt re the 400 5.6 Tokina or Sigma make ones that are highly recommended and I've seen some very sharp images from them. It's a great compromise if you either can't part with the $$$ for a 2.8 or prefer travelling lighter. The long 2.8's tend to be bulky and heavy...and VERY expensive.

There are many times when 5.6 will do just fine...but not sure if you would get tack sharp images handheld (without VR or IS).