Sootchucker
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,824
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Just a quick question I've been pondering.
My longest prime is currently a Nikon 300mm F4 AFS (which is a very good lens), and my longest Zoom would be the 70-200 F2.8 VR II combined with the TC-20E III converter (to give a 140-400mm F5.6 VR effective).
I've always felt that whilst these lenses give decent service, that a large aperture prime would be better (eg. 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, 500 F4, 600 F4), however as some of these cost the price of a small car, as a purely amateur wildlife photographer, I just can't justify (or afford) the costs.
I was wondering therefore how many of the togs that regularly post in the Birds and Wildlife section of the forum actually own these lenses, and if so, did they actually make you a better photographer (i.e better photos) to justify the cost ? Also, how much is to do with fieldcraft and just getter closer with your "consumer or prosumer" lenses (be they primes or zooms) rather than the actual glass itself. I know there are situations and subjects where a safe distance needs to be kept and therefore there is no substiture for magnification.
The reason I ask, is that I was at a wildlife reserve last week shooting kingfishers (not literally), however with them being about 25-30 metres away, even with my 300mm and 2x converter on my full frame camera, they were still effectively dots in the viewfinder. There were a couple of other togs in the hide with me as well. One had a D300 with a 200-400 VR - no converter (so 600mm effective max), and one had a very impressive white 500mm F4 IS on his full frame Canon EOS IDs MK II. So although the "quality" of the lenses would have been much better than my povey setup, the actual magnification would have been no better, (i.e. still dots in the viewfinder). So in those instances it got me thinking if trying to get closer to your subject (within reason and where allowed) is better than super long lenses ?
I also noticed a few weeks ago, someone had posted some sublime photos in the Bird forum of a Kingfisher and these were taken with no more than a 70-200 F2.8 ??
Any thoughts (sorry for the rambling post) ?
My longest prime is currently a Nikon 300mm F4 AFS (which is a very good lens), and my longest Zoom would be the 70-200 F2.8 VR II combined with the TC-20E III converter (to give a 140-400mm F5.6 VR effective).
I've always felt that whilst these lenses give decent service, that a large aperture prime would be better (eg. 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, 500 F4, 600 F4), however as some of these cost the price of a small car, as a purely amateur wildlife photographer, I just can't justify (or afford) the costs.
I was wondering therefore how many of the togs that regularly post in the Birds and Wildlife section of the forum actually own these lenses, and if so, did they actually make you a better photographer (i.e better photos) to justify the cost ? Also, how much is to do with fieldcraft and just getter closer with your "consumer or prosumer" lenses (be they primes or zooms) rather than the actual glass itself. I know there are situations and subjects where a safe distance needs to be kept and therefore there is no substiture for magnification.
The reason I ask, is that I was at a wildlife reserve last week shooting kingfishers (not literally), however with them being about 25-30 metres away, even with my 300mm and 2x converter on my full frame camera, they were still effectively dots in the viewfinder. There were a couple of other togs in the hide with me as well. One had a D300 with a 200-400 VR - no converter (so 600mm effective max), and one had a very impressive white 500mm F4 IS on his full frame Canon EOS IDs MK II. So although the "quality" of the lenses would have been much better than my povey setup, the actual magnification would have been no better, (i.e. still dots in the viewfinder). So in those instances it got me thinking if trying to get closer to your subject (within reason and where allowed) is better than super long lenses ?
I also noticed a few weeks ago, someone had posted some sublime photos in the Bird forum of a Kingfisher and these were taken with no more than a 70-200 F2.8 ??
Any thoughts (sorry for the rambling post) ?
Last edited:
. It's brought me more happiness than anything else i can think of that i could have spent the money on instead and i don't remotely regret any of it at all.
