As a slight diversion from the wildlife, I finally got round to photographing my camera gear.
L-R: Canon EOS 400D Body / Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG macro / Canon EF 24-105 F4L IS USM / Canon EOS 400D EF70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO IS / Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS.
As you can see the 100-400 lens (far right) is a mighty beast compared with the others, and it weighs about 1.4kg. Like the other Canon lenses it has image stablisation which is certainly helpful when it's extended to it maximum or when shooting in low light. The minimum focusing distance is about 6 feet. The zoom is a 'pump' action (ie you literally pull the lens in and out). It's my lens of choice for birds.
The Sigma macro (far left) is mainly used for insects, but of late I've taken a number of fox portraits with it. It's the only prime lens (fixed focal length). It can focus down to a few inches. It doesn't have image stabilisation so decent light (or flash) is necessary for hand-held shots. Minimum focusing distance is 1 foot. The lens extends when focusing (unlike the other lenses which extend to zoom but focus internally).
The 24-105 (centre left) is a decent lens for landscapes as it gives the widest angle of any of my current lenses, but it's main use is for photographing foxes at night as it allows me to be close and still able to keep the whole fox in the frame. Minimum focusing distance is about 18 inches.
The 70-300 lens (centre right) is the most interesting lens in a technical sense. It's one of only two DO (diffractive optics) lenses Canon have produced, and is much shorter than a conventional 300mm zoom. It's not light, but certainly is much easier to carry around than the 100-400. If I'm restricted to single lens, this is probably the one of choice as it is so versatile. Minimum focusing distance is about 4.5 feet.
Fully extended
Fully extended with hoods
Dudley
30 Sep 2007:up:
gdare
30 Sep 2007No wonder why you make such good photos :up:
SittingFox
30 Sep 2007You're certainly building up a fine collection! :up:
That white lens is pretty large; according to the official specs my Tamron actually weighs slightly less! But I've put my neck out on a couple of occasions while taking it for long hikes, even so.
Minimum focussing distances can get a little awkward. My worst problems have been when I've been out with only my big lens and find a track that I want to photograph! Very difficult to get 2m away from it and keep the perspective…
Words
30 Sep 2007Adele, the white beast or 'pump' took a bit of getting used to, not least the weight. It can get tiring after a while unless there's something handy to lean on or against. Plus it's not exactly discreet, so attracts a lot of attention if I'm out with it. The plus side of that is that people tell you what to photograph, which is how I got the shots of the water vole. I doubt I'd have noticed it if a couple who were watching it hadn't called me over. It's also allowed me to get some of the more flightly butterflies as I don't need to get too close.
The minimum focus distances can be a pain though. That's where the 24-105 is so useful for the foxes.
Words
30 Sep 2007Darko, the equipment certainly helps, but with the wrong lens on the camera you have to get used to missing plenty. I throw away between a third and half of the shots I take, and probably only fully process between 5%-10% of them.
Words
30 Sep 2007I should just add that you don't need all this gear to take good photos. My profile picture was taken on a cheapo 3.2 megapixel point and shoot camera (Olympus C370):
chthoniid
3 Oct 2007It's a nice setup 🙂 I like the look of the 100-400 :drool:
Interesting that you have a preference for zooms over primes…
Have you invested in a backpack yet to carry it all? 🙂
chthoniid
3 Oct 2007I agree completely. Although I'm pondering getting another camera body to lessen the risk of the 'wrong lens' syndrome…(somebody stop me). I had to take a kereru (wood-pigeon) shot in the weekend with the macro lens on (no time to switch lenses).
And I'd also reiterate Word's comment on the point-and-shoot. There are some very good cameras made of this type, and are often a more cost-effective deal than getting an entry-level DSLR kit.
A lot of nature photography depends mostly on understanding the habits of the animals you want to photograph. If you can't find the animals, you'll never take decent pictures of them. The advantage of the DSLR setup is you can attempt some shots a p&s can't. But even then animals aren't very cooperative subjects. Taking a lot of pictures helps!
SittingFox
3 Oct 2007I hear there are some 25 – 500mm lenses available. Unfortunately, I think they cost about twice as much as a trip to Antarctica 😉
chthoniid
3 Oct 2007Sigma do a 50-500mm lens for many camera bodies, affectionately known as the 'bigma' (1.8kg). It's been known to take some nice pictures. Comes in at around $US1000. It sounds like an good lens if you just one piece of glass to do all your wildlife pictures.
There are however, some basic trade-offs in lens design. A lens that tries to do too much, often doesn't do anything very well at all. A 500mm lens can have a narrow DOF, meaning that a lot of photos just won't be properly focused. (I'm not sure how people handle some of the pro-2000mm lenses!!).
chthoniid
3 Oct 2007I'd prefer the 'pump' also. It's a good weight and size to just qualify as portable. I know that after carrying 5-6 lenses with me in China, I'd begrudge any unnecessary weight!
Fwiw, (and advance apologies to any Sigma fans also), I tend to find that the Sigma telephotos have poorer colour reproduction than original manufacturer lenses. Just a bit washed out…(IMHO).
Also, I think you as the photographer really know what lens focal length you need. There's no point getting a lens that is the 'wrong tool' (e.g. focal length you don't use)- they're expensive enough as it is!
I think the reality is that for wildlife, you need zooms. Animals are usually too unpredictable to pose for you at the right distance…
It's good to have the option of a good prime (or 2) though. Especially if you can attach a nice teleconverter…
Words
3 Oct 2007Brendan, I thought about the 'Bigma' but the reports I've read suggested the 'pump' would be easier for hand-held shots. But plenty swear by it. Good lens.
As for why zoom lenses? When I got the DSLR I only bought one lens (the 70-300), mainly to give a fairly wide range of opportunities. I found that a bit long for the foxes (at some parts of the garden I only get about 6 feet to work in, so needed a shorter lens. Hence the 24-105. I also got the macro then. I have thought about long primes, but apart from cost (with image stabilsation they come in at around £4,000 for the Canon and I don't want to cart a tripod around as well) I quite often don't need that much reach. But one day…. maybe… it'll happen.
Words
3 Oct 2007Now a teleconverter is on the cards at some stage. And yes (i forgot to mention it earlier) I do have a backpack for the gear (a Lowepro MicroTrekker 200 – it takes the 100-400 mounted, plus 3 lenses at a squeeze – and a Novo 2 AW which takes a mounted short lens and a spare).
chthoniid
3 Oct 2007Sounds like you need to do a followup post that shows off the 'gadgets' as well 🙂