Long Lens - Part 2 - Which BIG one?

In the first part, I talked about a progression path through a number of the smaller lenses that many people find themselves on. In Part 2, I am going to explore some of the thinking that you might have gone through if you already are an owner of one of the big 'uns, or some of the things you need to think about before you part with a lot of money.

I will talk about the Canon primes today essentially, although the same basic logic will also apply to the Nikon offerings too, as I am sure Dave will agree.

The first issue most amateurs go through is the justification of such a significant amount of money - but before you get your mind set on your dream lens at a particular price, you need to think about how you are going to carry this prized bit glass around and how you are going to support it. Your tripod and head that you have been happy supporting anything below something like the 300f2.8 will probably not be anything like sufficient for your 500 f4 or 600f4!!. Dave's article here sets out some of the main things you need to think about. As a guide, I spent almost a further £1000 on tripod, head and Wimberley Sidekick to support my 500f4 before anything else.

But nevertheless, you understand that and you NEED a long lens. So what are your choices?

From the most practical point of view in terms of cost, weight, support, carry-ability and size, the 500f4 offering is probably the most popular choice for wildlife. They are substantially lighter than both the 600f4 and 400f2.8 models from either range. They can be used hand held for short periods of time, and their cost is relative more affordable than the others.

As we have said before, reach is everything in wildlife, and to that end the 600f4 will give that extra reach, meaning less cropping of images for distant subjects. I would like one of these but the majority of people I have spoken to who use them, never carry them that far. So if you believe you will never need to venture far from your car, then the 600 f4 would be the kiddie for you.

When I took the pictures of the Short Eared Owls here, I could have taken all these with a 600 if I had one, as I was never more than 10 metres from the car.

All of these primes lenses work exceptionally well with the Canon 1.4EFTC, and it is possible to get some images with the 2X, but more of that in another part at a later date.

One great offering that Nikon have in their range is the 200-400f4VR zoom, something that would do quite well in the Canon range if only they would make it. Dave will do a more detailed review of this lens at a later date no doubt, but I do know he is enjoying using the flexibility and quality that gives him.

In terms of portability, the Canon 500f4 IS L weighs in at 3.87Kg whereas the 600f4IS L comes in at a hefty 5.36Kg, which is substantial. I have no problems carrying my 500, plus body plus a few other bits in my bag all day and hiking up mountains with it.

The other consideration is the bag you use, particularly if you wish to travel overseas by air. Again the 500 is easily manageable with carry-on bag allowance, both in terms of weight and size. Although, make sure you check specifically with your individual carrier, and Do NOT rely upon them adopting universal carry on allowances particularly here in the UK

So, you pay your money and you take your choice. The 500 is generally the best compromise for wildlife photographers, certainly judging by the numbers that I see out in the field being used, and numbers of images posted on forums.

Martin

Long Lenses - Part 1 - What lens?

As wildlife photographers, lets face it we always need more length. Focal length that is and with that comes the cost/focal length/portability dilemma.

This series will cover a range of of topics dealing with the essential elements of long lenses, from supporting, techniques of use, primes v zooms through to how we carry and travel with our cherished glass and what we use to protect them while in use.

We will start off today with just a brief introduction covering some of the early thoughts that we go through as wildlife photographers when choosing a lens before we part with hard earned money and try to justify it to ourselves or others in our lives who think we should be spending money on the unnecessary luxuries like food, clothes or shoes.

One of the first dilemmas that you will face is how much you are prepared to spend. You can get a 75-300 f5.6 zoom for as little as £150 that will give you a reasonable reach on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop body, and for many this is the starting point in their wildlife photography. Early results seem promising which encourages the desire for further improvements.

Then you get fed up with the slow auto focus or lack of critical sharpness, so you start justifying bigger and longer lenses, and maybe better bodies with better AF in your ever growing quest for photo perfection. How do I know? - Well I have been there and seen many do the same thing.

Most improvements will usually come from investment in glass. One mantra that is pretty much true in the field of lenses and optics is that you get what you pay for.

You can get started with a lens for wildlife for reasonable prices. Many start with a zoom in the belief that the flexibility of the varied focal length will be what they need - and in some senses this view has much merit. However, remember that zooms will always be a compromise in terms of optimal performance at any given focal length, usually, but not always, at the long end.

Which takes me back to my opening line on this post. That is the last place we need compromise.

Good starting places are the Sigma 50 -500 or the more recent 150-500 in terms of giving you budget focal length for those more distant subjects as well as the Canon 100-400L IS. Nikon do not currently offer anything in ti's more budget price range and it is a mighty price hike for the 200-400. Additionally, the Tamron 200-500 is well liked by it's followers too. Most of these lenses will perform reasonably well when stopped down a stop or two, around f8 to f11. The respective weights make them easily portable and without any particular need for special bag requirements. If your budget is confined to these lenses, then DO NOT try out any of the bigger primes, unless you are prepared to find substantially more money, because you will end up finding a way to fund one, and I do not want to be held responsible for any domestics!!

If you are brave enough, you will start looking at the primes at the outset, and by this I am thinking about respective Canon and Nikon 300f4 offerings or the Canon 400f5.6. Why brave? - well it does take some thoughts to fix your yourself to a particular focal length, rather than zoom flexibility that you may feel you need for other forms of photography.

But let me tell you of an experience in our household. My partner Sue had the Sigma 50 -500 and got some very good images with it, I was using the Canon 100-400 at the time. I subsequently added the 500f4 and the 300f4 primes. When we were out photographing together, I was always using the 500f4 as you would expect. Sue had the two zooms available to her, but she always blagged the 300f4 prime out of my bag, with the Canon 1.4EF extender - Why? - image quality pure and simple that you get with primes. This is still true today, although she has recently taken to blagging my 300f2.8, now she owns the f4 version

But at the end of the day, the most important thing is to actually use what you have or can afford, and not spend all your time crawling over gear specs - So get out there, study your subjects, understand what they are doing and get some photos.

In part 2 this time next week, we will cover some of the thinking you go through when you make that big financial step of buying one of the big primes, and share some of the other cost impact's that you will need to think about to, such as bags, tripods and heads.

Martin