I am being pulled towards wildlife esp birds
- Thread starter Tulipone
- Start date
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
OopsThe 200-600mm is the same weight as the Sigma 150-600mm
- Messages
- 6,063
- Edit My Images
- No
I would open the box and make sure you have the correct lens. The L mount is supposed to weigh in at 2kg on its own so 2.5kg of packaging would be madness (unless it's Amazon)
Edit: but then you have the box, case, paperwork, packaging, another box ... So maybe it does.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
I take it you tried one out at wex ..
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yup. Just left and crying into my coffee now. I knew it was going to be heavy but that was not workable. Several folk here may have hinted that it could be a little troublesome!
I will have a proper look at secondhand M4/3 options as a second set up - the 100-400 with a tc is a definite option. Decided not to spend too much time in WEX today as I’d possibly have bought the wrong thing (again) in haste.
I’m hoping to meeting up with a local forum member in the future and see how he is getting on with his kit.
I will have a proper look at secondhand M4/3 options as a second set up - the 100-400 with a tc is a definite option. Decided not to spend too much time in WEX today as I’d possibly have bought the wrong thing (again) in haste.
I’m hoping to meeting up with a local forum member in the future and see how he is getting on with his kit.
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you talking about 100-400mm on FF or on m4/3? I use 100-400mm on FF and find it’s good for wildlife a lot of the time, and have the 1.4x TC if I want the extra reach.
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
I may very well be selling my Olympus 100-400 shortly having just upgraded today . And mines a legendary sharp copy
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I prefer to think that I am just old!Wuss.
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If it goes to classified please give me a nudge so I don’t miss it.
- Messages
- 6,063
- Edit My Images
- No
There is one in there right now.
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Glynn
- Edit My Images
- No
Just bite the bullet and buy a Z9 with 800mm f6.3........you know you want to!
.
.
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you like your S5 you might find the G9 a good option.
They make a 100-400 which is lighter and smaller than the Olympus version.
My 200 with a t/c gives a FF equivalent of 560mm and is over a kg lighter than the S5 and Sigma.
I'll send you a PM later and explain the latest on my situation.
They make a 100-400 which is lighter and smaller than the Olympus version.
My 200 with a t/c gives a FF equivalent of 560mm and is over a kg lighter than the S5 and Sigma.
I'll send you a PM later and explain the latest on my situation.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’ve written a few times before - this is my main motivation to get to the gym as I love the results from the big primes so very keen to stay in shape to carry and use them without problems. I’m dreading the day when I’ll have to downsize.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If only money grew on trees! It would be a lovely option but....Just bite the bullet and buy a Z9 with 800mm f6.3........you know you want to!
I'd be interested in having a look when I next see you.
I think that the lens was heavier than it was supposed to feel like. 2.1kgs is a bag and a bit of sugar and very probably it wouldn't have been so bad if the sugar was closer to the camera body than the end furthest away, magnifying the effect. I suspect that with use and a better technique it would have been okay - but when that box arrived I had a sneaking suspicion it was a bigger problem than I had realised - even if this was the thing that everyone had been saying. I went to Norwich this morning with my wife and I said that I was expecting to return with the lens and use and enjoy it for a few months then sell or trade it towards a 2.8 24-70. Within a second of putting the lens on my camera I knew it was not workable for me.
Full marks to Wex and their returns policy.
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd love to be able to do weights/go to the gym, but alas my body has let me down. It is a 'pain' when your body restricts you doing the things you want, hopefully it doesn't happen to you for a very long time
- Messages
- 15,377
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
That’s why so many of us have changed to MFT either olympus or Panasonic . Putting a heavy lens on a light body is a no no
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Despite my woes I recently gave up m4/3 as for the most part my Sony setup isn’t much heavier than the Olympus setup I had comparing like for like lenses that I use, except telephotos. However, using the 100-400mm GM and cropping is working well for me.
I do still highly regard the Olympus stuff but I wanted to have just one system and one had to go
- Messages
- 140
- Name
- Steve Webb
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I use the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens with a Nikon D500 and it's a great lens, a lot cheaper than the Sport, and a hell of a lot lighter. Remember, when doing bird photography you could be doing a lot of walking, so the lighter the gear the better. Depending on how steady you are and what your handheld technique is like, you can hand hold it, I would say the Sport you'd more likely need a tripod with, again more weight. If you have a crop sensor camera the 600 becomes around 950mm depending on the crop factor, so you don't need to get as close to the birds. You can just about get away with a 1.4 converter, but to be honest, I bought one and hardly use it as the AF becomes a bit tricky, generally only working in good light. The only real downside with the C is it isn't weather sealed, but then you could just use a waterproof cover.
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sorry to hear that Toby and thank you. Monopods or tripods and gimbals can all help but that means extra weight to transport to the location.I'd love to be able to do weights/go to the gym, but alas my body has let me down. It is a 'pain' when your body restricts you doing the things you want, hopefully it doesn't happen to you for a very long time
- Messages
- 4,344
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd love to be able to do weights/go to the gym, but alas my body has let me down. It is a 'pain' when your body restricts you doing the things you want, hopefully it doesn't happen to you for a very long time
Tell me about it, my D810 doesn't have a tilting screen so low-down shots are a thing of the past for me as I just can't get down on my knees anymore without using a stick or a chair or something. I can't lift weights because of the arthritis in my hands and I don't see too well in low light; don't you just love getting old. On the upside, I'm retired so I have the time to lug my camera gear around, I can still cycle on my ebike and, as far as I know, I don't have any major health problems; I just try to keep going. As they say. it's better to wear out than rust away.
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks, I’m just glad I can still do what I do and most of the time it’s not an issue as I’m just going out with one lens. However if I go out for proper landscapes requiring tripod, filters, maybe a couple of lenses or I’m doing landscapes carting a backpack with camera + 70-200mm + 100-400mm + 50mm prime + filters + some snap I know I’m going to suffer for a few days after. It’s worth it though and I’m not going to give into it, just need to know my limitations. There’s a lot of folk far worse off than me so I still count myself lucky
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to hear that, it’s good to keep going though. Mine’s not old age, I’m only 45 (46 next month), it’s a specific health condition
Well, it’s been a journey for you, but at least you have been able to try it - so you now cross that off the list and move on!
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Glynn
- Edit My Images
- No
Now qualifying as a 'septegenarian' and also having a 'failed' full knee replacement, I have to admit to using one of these:
icecat-img-11799017-jpg by Glynn Hobbs, on Flickr.
It takes my D500 with 500 prime attached (in a lowepro bag), a Tragopan hide, Gitzo Tripod and often a DSLR camera Trap system with flashes as well!
It helps that I have a 4 x 4 to get me off road, but I still regularly hike for a mile or so!
A 'compact system' would be easier, but would simply not give me the results that I require.
I can use it when I go to Tesco's as well!
icecat-img-11799017-jpg by Glynn Hobbs, on Flickr.It takes my D500 with 500 prime attached (in a lowepro bag), a Tragopan hide, Gitzo Tripod and often a DSLR camera Trap system with flashes as well!
It helps that I have a 4 x 4 to get me off road, but I still regularly hike for a mile or so!
A 'compact system' would be easier, but would simply not give me the results that I require.
I can use it when I go to Tesco's as well!
- Messages
- 4,344
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now qualifying as a 'septegenarian' and also having a 'failed' full knee replacement, I have to admit to using one of these:
It takes my D500 with 500 prime attached (in a lowepro bag), a Tragopan hide, Gitzo Tripod and often a DSLR camera Trap system with flashes as well!
It helps that I have a 4 x 4 to get me off road, but I still regularly hike for a mile or so!
A 'compact system' would be easier, but would simply not give me the results that I require.
I can use it when I go to Tesco's as well!
And it doubles as a seat too. Wouldn't be any good for me, I'd sit down in it and wouldn't be able to get up again
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Crossed off and onto the next stupid idea. It is all good experience and makes life interesting. I wish it worked out - I really wanted to want that lens - but it didn’t. When I see folk with a long heavy lens I’ll breathe a sigh of relief it isn’t me.
Now qualifying as a 'septegenarian' and also having a 'failed' full knee replacement, I have to admit to using one of these:
I can use it when I go to Tesco's as well!
And now I know what to buy instead of the 150-600!
- Messages
- 15,869
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 is quite light, around 1.2KG. basically around the same weight as most 100-400mm f6.3 lenses.
You can use 1.4x TC with it to get 560mm f6.3 which is still very usable in the UK, (imo) 1.4x on 100-400mm is too dark
Of course means buying with a nikon body....
You can use 1.4x TC with it to get 560mm f6.3 which is still very usable in the UK, (imo) 1.4x on 100-400mm is too dark
Of course means buying with a nikon body....
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Does look a great lens that, shame other brands haven’t released something similar.
A friend has one of those, with a Z9. He does a lot of rugby tournament shooting, often in s***ty light in the middle of winter. The shots from the combo look amazing!
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So unhappy that wildlife seems out of my grasp - thought that I'd ask as you have all been most helpful on this thread already - so you have a fresh start. Realistically you need a long reach, you have concerns over weight but accept that most of the time you'll be using hand held so need to figure that in. You live in UK so you need to think about low light. Birds in flight pictures would be nice to have. You don't have an unlimited budget. What system do I need to buy into? I have other interests so will need to balance that also but that can be flexible.
- Messages
- 15,869
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would help to know your budget.
But I do not think wildlife necessarily is out of anyone's grasp.
You can get some amazing picture even with a small sensor camera like RX10IV which can be had for ~£1K used. It'd give you 600mm reach at f4 aperture at the long end.
Of course bigger sensor and heavier lenses have their benefits but as you said not everyone can afford to have them around (by afford I don't mean just money - could be time, patience, logistics etc etc).
- Messages
- 23,628
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
You've got a couple of options imo.
1. Buy an Olympus EM1 Mark II/III or the OM1 and a 100-400mm, or if it's solely for wildlife far away then the 300mm f4.
2. Buy a higher megapixel full frame body and crop.
I've done both, I had the EM1 Mark II and Leica 100-400mm and was very happy with the results, I also used the 300mm f4 on occasion and that's a lovely lens. However I swapped it to a high megapixel Sony (A7R IV) with Sony 100-400mm GM (not much heavier than the Olympus setup, especially when paired with the 300mm f4) and was really happy with it in terms of IQ, and I felt that cropping with this gave me arguably better IQ than the Olympus setup (YMMV). I actually then swapped the A7R IV to the A9 II which 'only' has 24mp and I still found I could crop very heavily with very good results indeed. Now I have the best of both worlds.
Obviously others will have different experiences, I can only speak from my own
- Messages
- 804
- Edit My Images
- No
I think understanding the budget is the first thing.
Everything else will follow.
Everything else will follow.
- Messages
- 4,344
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you have summed things up very well. In the end, it's a question of doing the best you can with the equipment you can afford. Wildlife does what wildlife does and you have to work with what it gives you. Not all wildlife pictures are taken with kit that you could exchange for a small car. I have taken pictures by luring birds to a spot that I chose while leaving a camera running on interval shooting, I have birds no more than a foot from a 35mm lens. I just set the interval timer for a certain number of shots, fastened it to a tree and then go away for a cup of tea. When I come back: ta da, pictures of birds in rude detail and filling the frame.
I know you are looking for fancy pictures of, say, two hawks fighting over a mouse, but these sorts of pictures are often taken by professionals with professional gear and they do it to make a living. Some better-off amateurs do the same for their own enjoyment but again, they often have expensive gear. Just don't get put off, there are many ways of photographing wildlife and you may have to adjust your aspirations, doesn't mean you are missing out though; and the desire for more equipment gives rise to chronic GAS, an affliction that can cost a lot.
A quick example: Two pictures I've just pulled out taken on a Fuji X100V 23mm lens (35mm lens FF equivalent). I haven't done anything to these images except to crop them by about half.
Yes, I know this is not what you are looking for in your own wildlife photography but I took these in the space of about five minutes. With suitable lures in a better location and spending a bit of time who knows what could be achieved.
Greenfinch
Birds by Martin H, on FlickrRobin
Birds-2 by Martin H, on Flickr
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think I may be up to p/x my current setup if I can find an alternate that is acceptable for other projects so budget is somewhat flexible but not endless. I'll look into the Sony, thank you. An option I had not thought of.
Option 1 looks possible. After my last foray I am a little concerned with weight still and so likely will need a trip back to a place where I can actually try it. Option 2 is a non starter. I think that the only other viable option is Sony and the budget will not go that far.
I am of the opinion that budget is a variable that needs to be taken into consideration rather than the driver. There is always a sweet spot. If the only viable option is wildly expensive then we will just carry on with binos and leave the pictures to someone else but that is not the hoped outcome so worth the effort of asking those with far more experience than I have for advice. Going ahead last time was not successful.
We get out onto a friends farm and see loads of wildlife but my current lenses are just not up it - 85mm prime (my longest) is great for a number of projects but wildlife and birds is a huge ask. The thing that lighted this current fuse was watching a buzzard scratching for worms in a field, being bullied by two hares and being pushed on. Binoculars are great for looking but thought it was a good opportunity to fix sights. Just not with the 150-600.
OP
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A couple of great pictures there and something I'll possibly go a go to - but not really what I was thinking of when I started this thread.I think you have summed things up very well. In the end, it's a question of doing the best you can with the equipment you can afford. Wildlife does what wildlife does and you have to work with what it gives you. Not all wildlife pictures are taken with kit that you could exchange for a small car. I have taken pictures by luring birds to a spot that I chose while leaving a camera running on interval shooting, I have birds no more than a foot from a 35mm lens. I just set the interval timer for a certain number of shots, fastened it to a tree and then go away for a cup of tea. When I come back: ta da, pictures of birds in rude detail and filling the frame.
I know you are looking for fancy pictures of, say, two hawks fighting over a mouse, but these sorts of pictures are often taken by professionals with professional gear and they do it to make a living. Some better-off amateurs do the same for their own enjoyment but again, they often have expensive gear. Just don't get put off, there are many ways of photographing wildlife and you may have to adjust your aspirations, doesn't mean you are missing out though; and the desire for more equipment gives rise to chronic GAS, an affliction that can cost a lot.
A quick example: Two pictures I've just pulled out taken on a Fuji X100V 23mm lens (35mm lens FF equivalent). I haven't done anything to these images except to crop them by about half.
Yes, I know this is not what you are looking for in your own wildlife photography but I took these in the space of about five minutes. With suitable lures in a better location and spending a bit of time who knows what could be achieved.
Greenfinch
Robin
Don’t think we have too many greenfinches around here - don’t seem to be seeing too many small birds in our garden despite putting out seeds and water - probably due to the magpies and red kites. The last couple of years smaller birds have noticeably decreased, even starlings.