lens/camera combo for wildlife photography

fallen_mathi

fallen_mathi

Messages
539
Edit My Images
No
for mostly birds - with the occasional larger animal, what do you guys think of:

olympus e-30
sigma 70-200 f2.8
sigma 1.4 tc

(ofcourse with a nice sturdy tripod)

it would give an equiv 400 f2.8, or 560 f4

& the pro for me is that the combo would need to be taken on a 6month trip, constantly carried on my back, and this combo seemed very light weight for the reach/apature given...but then i gues the drawback is the handeling of the oly at high iso?

thoughts?
alternatives?

looking for the perfect comprimise between weight/quality/reach:D

(oh budget would be about 1500 ish, maybe a tinsy bit more):)
 
My initial feelings are that an equivalent focal length of only 560mm is going to be quite limiting unless the birds are of larger species or you're able to get consistently close.

Bob
 
Consider instead a Sigma 100-300 F4 and the 1.4x
 
purpleclouds said:
I personally think you've got plenty of length there with those options!
Click to expand...

I would think that most serious birders are using 500 or 600mm on a 1.3x or 1.6x (or 1.5x) crop sensor and then using PP to get a little more....something that isn't going to be too reliable using a zoom and T/C for the initial capture.

I guess we can agree to disagree though.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
My initial feelings are that an equivalent focal length of only 560mm is going to be quite limiting unless the birds are of larger species or you're able to get consistently close.

Bob
Click to expand...

well another option would be to go with a siggy 100-300 f4, giving 600mm f4 on its own, and 840mm f5.6 with a tc,
longer, but looses an f stop, and gains weight...

over the past week i tried the combination of a sigma 120-300 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc on my 40d, a combination which worked great, but was very bluky to carry around for long periods of time, let alone 6 months....:p
 
fallen_mathi said:
well another option would be to go with a siggy 100-300 f4, giving 600mm f4 on its own, and 840mm f5.6 with a tc,
longer, but looses an f stop, and gains weight...
Click to expand...

That would be a much more viable equivalent FL IMHO.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I would think that most serious birders are using 500 or 600mm on a 1.3x or 1.6x (or 1.5x) crop sensor and then using PP to get a little more....something that isn't going to be too reliable using a zoom and T/C for the initial capture.

I guess we can agree to disagree though.

Bob
Click to expand...

But his budget of £1500 is not going to cover that is it? I didn't see any better suggestion from yourself.

It is entirely possible to shoot birds with sub 500mm ... just head on over to the Birds section and you'll notice that most posts are in the 200-500mm region. Very few are over this.

I don't want to get into a length war here, but I was shooting woodland birds with 300mm on a 1.3x crop, and Gazedd was shooting the exact same birds with 200mm on a 1.6x crop.

So yes, he has enough length - and considering he can't afford any extra, should concentrate getting closer. Fracster has some good camo gear for sale at the moment, a hide will help a great deal :)

300 f4 and a 1.4x would also be a good bet :) - It'll be slower though, and fast glass is everything - at this time of year especially!
 
If weight is a problems perhaps just a normal 70-300mm as there less than half the weight. Then do tend to be only f4-5.6 though so may not be up to what your after doing. I just know my Sigma 70-200mm I would hate hiking with it as it its so big it requires its own bag and is over 1.5kg all packed up.
 
Zilog said:
If weight is a problems perhaps just a normal 70-300mm as there less than half the weight. Then do tend to be only f4-5.6 though so may not be up to what your after doing. I just know my Sigma 70-200mm I would hate hiking with it as it its so big it requires its own bag and is over 1.5kg all packed up.
Click to expand...

weight wise:

sigma 120 - 300 f2.8 2600g
sigma 100 - 300 f4 1440g
sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 1345g
sigma 70- 300 f4-5.6 550g

so yes i can see what you mean... however my only problem is that i dont think i could live with f5.6 at the longest end, because as soon as i put a tc on it, it would no longer auto focus...:(
 
You would get to dump to TC with the 70-300mm as the 70-200mm with 1.4x TC only give you 280mm so your already past that. But it does all come down to the f. Its a shame your cant borrow one to try before buy one.
 
purpleclouds said:
But his budget of £1500 is not going to cover that is it? I didn't see any better suggestion from yourself.
Click to expand...
I needed to research Oly prices and hence wrote that it was my "initial" feeling

purpleclouds said:
It is entirely possible to shoot birds with sub 500mm
Click to expand...

Of course it is...I've shot with an 85L on a 5D

purpleclouds said:
just head on over to the Birds section and you'll notice that most posts are in the 200-500mm region. Very few are over this.
Click to expand...
I think that many of those shots are up there towards 400-500mm and then there's the crop to factor in...something the OP has already done in the figure he arrived at.

purpleclouds said:
a hide will help a great deal :)
Click to expand...
But can be a burden as the OP seems to have weight constraints

Sorry if my assessment is different to yours.

Bob
 
I'd look at the Bigma (sigma 50-500) myself for that budget, plenty of decent used examples around for not huge cash
 
purpleclouds said:
But his budget of £1500 is not going to cover that is it? I didn't see any better suggestion from yourself.

It is entirely possible to shoot birds with sub 500mm ... just head on over to the Birds section and you'll notice that most posts are in the 200-500mm region. Very few are over this.

I don't want to get into a length war here, but I was shooting woodland birds with 300mm on a 1.3x crop, and Gazedd was shooting the exact same birds with 200mm on a 1.6x crop.

So yes, he has enough length - and considering he can't afford any extra, should concentrate getting closer. Fracster has some good camo gear for sale at the moment, a hide will help a great deal :)

300 f4 and a 1.4x would also be a good bet :) - It'll be slower though, and fast glass is everything - at this time of year especially!
Click to expand...


I agree with you that sometimes 200/300or 400 is enough,especially if one has a good hide.......;)

But sometimes there is no substitute for length,so the Mrs says anyway...........:shrug:.....because sometimes you just cannot get close enough to ones subject(The Peregrines that i get for example).But long lenses are expensive,very expensive.iF YOU ARE SHOOTING IN WOODLAND,IN FAIRLY POOR LIGHT,i WOULD SCOURCE A SECONDHAND sIGMA 120-330 f2.8, i DID AND LOVE IT....Sorry,excuse caps....Get a 1.4 TC and away you go..........:thumbs:

Then the bug bites and you start buying more gear.
 
fracster said:
I agree with you that sometimes 200/300or 400 is enough,especially if one has a good hide.......;)

But sometimes there is no substitute for length,so the Mrs says anyway...........:shrug:.....because sometimes you just cannot get close enough to ones subject(The Peregrines that i get for example).But long lenses are expensive,very expensive.iF YOU ARE SHOOTING IN WOODLAND,IN FAIRLY POOR LIGHT,i WOULD SCOURCE A SECONDHAND sIGMA 120-330 f2.8, i DID AND LOVE IT....Sorry,excuse caps....Get a 1.4 TC and away you go..........:thumbs:

Then the bug bites and you start buying more gear.
Click to expand...

Indeed you are right, sometimes there is no substitute! But we are limited by his budget here.. so the 'big lenses' shouldn't even have been mentioned really as they don't come in to the equation.. and getting big reach may be a problem as described below..

We need to know more about the 6 month trip (something I originally missed - my bad) and what it will entail to give a more accurate answer. If it's going to be spent in Africa with no light issues, then f5.6 won't pose much of a practical problem.. if it's spending 6 months in the arctic circle where light might be at a premium then it'll have to be f2.8!
 
Ah, six month trip.

I`d still go 120-300 F2.8 plus 1.4TC purely for flexibility, sod the weight, no pain no gain............:lol:
 
fracster said:
Ah, six month trip.

I`d still go 120-300 F2.8 plus 1.4TC purely for flexibility, sod the weight, no pain no gain............:lol:
Click to expand...

So would I... but I'm used to hauling weight round! But if it doesn't fit the bill... it doesn't fit the bill :shrug:
 
Fair comment, though one can`t always have ones cake and eat it. A compromise may have to be reached,perhaps the Bigma would be best all round.........:shrug:
 
ok a bit more background to my trip :) - it will be spent in south america, working with a range of conservation groups for part of the time, and going out on my own back for the rest... the scenery will range from open terrian with an abundance of light, to the rainforrest, where ofcourse light can be scarce... as far as subjects, they will range from very little birds/reptiles to larger species such as wild cats,

so theres abit of background as to what im doing :)

il add into the equasion that i currently own a 40d body, so for my price range a 120-300 could be an option, however the weight and size is an issue, i have carried this lens round for days, walking many miles, but im not sure 6 months of that would be practical :shake:

hence why i was thinking of going with an olympus solution, such as the 100-300 which compares like this:

40d + 120-300: total length with 1.4tc(inc. crop factor) = 680mm f4, weighs: 3420g

e30 + 100-300: total length with 1.4tc(inc. crop factor) = 840 f5.6(or 600mm, if f.4), weighs 2170g
 
You will be a little undergunned for bird photography but having said that it really depends on what your local patch is like. I need every bit of my 600 and 1.4tc at minsmere but when i go for a walk around Alton water i can get many of the same species with a 70-200 so really it depends. Just remember to smell the hops along the way and enjoy yourself, That's more important than any lens pulling power :)
 
Silly question, do sigma make a 100-300mm f4 for the 4/3rd's system, because I don't think they do, sigma's largest lens for the 4/3rd's system is the 70-200mm f2.8 and Olympus's largest lens is the 300mm f2.8 at a whopping £4500. You might also have to thing about the conditions the camera's going to operate in, rain forests are pretty wet and the e30 isn't weather sealed.

As for a lens, you definitely need 300-500mm for wildlife, and no the budget sigma range of lenses won't cope especially in the rain forest, slow auto focus, f5.6 or 6.3 not even worth considering. The 120-300mm f2.8 is good, but 2.5kg, an alternative is the 100-300mm f4 and there's also the canon primes like the 400mm f5.6 or 300mm f4 if weight is a real issue.

Have you also thought about a bridge camera instead as another avenue to try?
 
I find that the 1.4TC impacts quality quite significantly with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 although I may have a poor copy (the lens on its own is fine). For this reason if bought a 300mm Canon L f/4 to give me more reach and really sharp results.

Note though that I like to photograph larger wildlife than birds (namely bears) so I suspect the 400mm f/5.6 Canon would suit you better.
 
pete.rush said:
Silly question, do sigma make a 100-300mm f4 for the 4/3rd's system, because I don't think they do, sigma's largest lens for the 4/3rd's system is the 70-200mm f2.8 and Olympus's largest lens is the 300mm f2.8 at a whopping £4500. You might also have to thing about the conditions the camera's going to operate in, rain forests are pretty wet and the e30 isn't weather sealed.

As for a lens, you definitely need 300-500mm for wildlife, and no the budget sigma range of lenses won't cope especially in the rain forest, slow auto focus, f5.6 or 6.3 not even worth considering. The 120-300mm f2.8 is good, but 2.5kg, an alternative is the 100-300mm f4 and there's also the canon primes like the 400mm f5.6 or 300mm f4 if weight is a real issue.

Have you also thought about a bridge camera instead as another avenue to try?
Click to expand...

very very good point... i had checked availibility for the 70-200 but not for any other... thats pretty much settled it for me, il go with the 120-300 f2.8 & a tc, on my current body, and just have to put up with the weight :)
as for the comment about weather sealing, im fairly confident in my 40d, as its been in a rainforrest befor, so that should be ok... its one thing id have to look at if i did switch to olympus, - as the e3 is ment to be proffesionally sealled, but ofcourse more money than the e30 (which is supposed to have the better image quality)
 
As already suggested, you will be slightly underpowered!

Sooner or later you will desire serious (and expensive) glass for birding. 500 or even 600 mm lenses (often with converters). A good but relatively cheap alternative to get you started is a 300/4.0 with a converter 1.4x or 1.7x.

Forget the Olympus! Get a Nikon or Canon which have decent viewfinders and offer a large selection of good original lenses or third-party offerings!
 
fallen_mathi said:
as for the comment about weather sealing, im fairly confident in my 40d, as its been in a rainforrest befor, so that should be ok... its one thing id have to look at if i did switch to olympus, - as the e3 is ment to be proffesionally sealled, but ofcourse more money than the e30 (which is supposed to have the better image quality)
Click to expand...

We sell good lens cover at a reasonable price, they take up no room hardly and are very light.

Lens covers
 
fallen_mathi said:
very very good point... i had checked availibility for the 70-200 but not for any other... thats pretty much settled it for me, il go with the 120-300 f2.8 & a tc, on my current body, and just have to put up with the weight :)
as for the comment about weather sealing, im fairly confident in my 40d, as its been in a rainforrest befor, so that should be ok... its one thing id have to look at if i did switch to olympus, - as the e3 is ment to be proffesionally sealled, but ofcourse more money than the e30 (which is supposed to have the better image quality)
Click to expand...
What about Sigma 150-500mm? or 170-500mm? Tamron 200-500mm you really need 500mm + for wildlife unless you can get real close (not ideal for Jaguars eek) to even get a decent close up of Bluetit on a bird table at 10ft you need 500mm unless your going to crop alot and then the noise creeps in. i had the Sigma 300-800mm and still wanted more range! best practice field craft and creep up closer
 
The 120-300 2.8 is a fine lens and takes a 1.4 tc well, on a 40D there will be ample reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top