Wildlife Photography

[GarthTruscott]

I want to do photograph wildlife predominantly. Can anyone advise me on the basics, and the equipment I shall require. (I'm assuming, tripod, telephoto lens)?

Thanks folks.


Garth

[dvtldav]

Look at birdphotographers.net. They have sections for all types of wildlife not just birds and see what they use. It is a forum like DPS.

Dave

[inkista]

Second that board recommendation. Great folks.

Basics: knowledge of the critter you're stalking, good field craft, lots of patience, the ability to move slowly and quietly, and being able to read body language. Looking up ethical guidelines to follow isn't a bad idea either. Getting a shot can mean a great deal, but it's not worth endangering yourself or the wildlife you're snapping.

Yes, a long lens is pretty typical. Some folks use tripods (with some of the monster supertelephotos, there's no other way), others use a monopod or handhold. It depends on the gear, and the subject matter.

I shoot birds in flight with a 400mm prime lens, handheld. I sometimes use a monopod if I'm going after perched birds, but as my 400/5.6L is relatively light and small as superteles go, I haven't sprung for a gimbal head and tripod.

Be aware that superteles are not a cheap proposition. My tiny little 400mm cost about $1k, and it's cheap as these types of lenses go. Get used to the sticker shock, now.

You can probably start out with a less expensive 70-300, but chances are good if this grabs you by the throat, you're going to want to head on up to the big boys at some point.

[GarthTruscott]

Thanks guys, and double thanks Inkista, I didn't anticipate any thorough replies.

I think as I'm a begginner it would be foolish to jump straight in and spend a bollock load of money on a supertele but maybe invest in a telephoto lens? What one should I be after, 400mm or would a lesser one still suffice?

[SwissJon]

On a cropped sensor, a 300mm Lens give you the equivalent of a 450mm on a full frame. You can pick up the 70-300 second hand at a reasonable price.

You can pick up a 500mm mirrored f/8 lens for almost peanuts, but they're cheap for a reason.. The image quality (especially the Bokeh) is pretty poor, you won't get image stablisation (a good reason to buy Sony with the internal stablisation for a change!) and you will definitely need a tripod.. But for a beginner it's really a good place to start, you'll get the chance to practice and see what you like doing and see if it suits you without shelling out a truck full of cash..

However, be aware.. Photography is SERIOUSLY addictive and SERIOUSLY expensive.. If you aren't really prepared to get into this and bleed money, you might be better off getting a decent pair of image stablised binoculars, a Point and Shoot camera with a decent zoom and a subscription of National Geographic.. At least then you'll have the pictures you love, and a wad in your pocket to go on the holiday that will put you close to the animals you want to shoot..

Seriously, I looked at the amount of cash I have spent on gear this year, and it would have been cheaper to get a mistress!!

[sk66]

The most expensive subject to get into is wildlife/ birds IMO....

I would second Jon's advice and try to minimize investment until you know you are really going to pursue it further. It's mostly about technique and time/location and you don't really need expensive gear to explore that.

[Dodge]

Man, I came so close to grabbing this 70-400g yesterday for the very purposes you mention. eBay - The UK's Online Marketplace

In the end though, as I already have and primarily use the 70-300g, I just couldn't justify forking out a grand for an extra 100mm reach . I suppose that there's always going to be something just too far away no matter how far you can zoom. I think if I were going to splash the cash, I'd sooner go for a faster 300mm as once the light starts to go I'd see more benefit. One day though Of course, you don't need a G quality lens to start, the standard lenses do a fine job for a fraction of the cost.

For birding I'd suggest at least a 300mm zoom though and a quality tripod with a ball head. (You can get by without the tripod, moreso with a 300mm than a 400mm lens i'd say, but for around a hundred quid investment second hand it's nice to have, esp if you're in a hide.)

Also if you're interested in bugs/flowers as well, a 100mm 1:1 macro or similar can be picked up quite cheeply by comparison, for the purpose. I like the sony gear, as SJ mentioned, you can use quite a variety of lenses for various aspects of wildlife and the image stabilization is in the camera body with their system as opposed to the lenses. This is handy as I find with wildlife, more often than not I'm shooting hand held as the critters move somewhat so it means you won't have to worry about buying lenses with IS built in. I've collected some nice Minolta lenses this way which fit the Sony bodies, relatively cheeply too ..... (well, by comparison to what I could have spent).

[RichardTaylor]

I shoot birds, mostly in urban environments, with a 100-400 on a 1.6 crop body..

You may get away with 200mm for larger ones and 300mm for larger ones in parks.
However 400mm is is really only good starting point and is sometimes much too short.
I prefer to use a mono pod as it takes the weight off your arms during long shoots and does offer a little more stability.

Keep in mind that a good long lens, especially a zoom, can also be a very versatile lens for when ever you need some reach, and not just for wildlife.

[sk66]

If I were suggesting a "starting point" for a lens that is a good investment all around.... I would suggest a 70-200 f/2.8 w/ the 2x TCIII. While the 70-200 is generally going to be too short for birds/wildlife sometimes it is the "right choice" (i.e. birds that are not people shy/ zoos etc) and is an excellent lens for other purposes as well. I find that you don't loose much in performance/ image quality by adding the new 2x, but you obviously do loose some light.

Otherwise, I'd jump right to a 500mm f/4 prime with a crop body. I was rather happy with the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 on a D300.

[GarthTruscott]

Aup guys,

Yeah I appreciate its a very expensive hobby, but at the mo I have a lot of disposable income that I'm wasting on nothing in particular so now seems a good a time as any to get cracking properly with this. It is something I've wanted to do for a long time but never really had financial means to do so.

My photographic knowledge / vocabularly is literally non existant, apart from the extreme basics, like, I know what a camera is..... (badum chh)

So this help is all appreciated. I think I may go for the 300mm or the 400m certainly not the 500. until I know what i'm doing at least.

Ultimately I want to be able to shoot clear stunning nature pictures getting really unique shots (dont we all) so thats my goal, and thats what I'm going to work towards.

Cheers guys