Wildlife photography on a budget

[OllyB]

I am looking for some advice and know this is the place to go for level headed responses.....

I am trying to spend as much time as possible concentrating on wildlife photography but am finding it difficult to get results on anything other than common garden birds and captive animals. This is mainly due to me being 'larger than the average bear' (height wise although the trousers do seem to be getting tighter lately!) and therefore not overly blessed with stealth. In my mind the alternative is to go for longer range lenses (I'm currently using a Sigma 70-300 telephoto on a Nikon F80) but the credit card shrunk at the sight of the price tags.

I've done the usual trawling through Ebay but still cannot find anything that falls into a reasonable range. Has anyone got any tips or tricks for overcoming this ?? I've looked at hides but most of the photography is to be done on common land so poses the obvious threat of removal by our light fingered friends. What are peoples thoughts on teleconvertors ??

Thanks in advance for your help.

Olly

 

[Dave Parker]

Hi Olly,

I do a lot of Wildlife work, and it takes big glass! That said, I use teleconvertors, one thing you want to make sure, is get the best quality convertor you can, you want APO glass and one thing to take into account on most AF camera systems, you will most likly have to manual focus due to the light loss, I use a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x Kenko pro convertor for most of my work, but also have a 600mm f/4 that sees it share of time on the tripod, a great many use 300mm f/4 lenses for their work, they are still small enough to hand hold, and not quite as expensive as the really big glass, I guess the most important thing is technique and patience, and lots of practice. But again, if you want bigger glass on a budget about the only way to do it is with a teleconvertor, and of couse anytime you introduce extra glass surfaces, you run the risk of lower quality images, but a great many of us, that do wildlife use them. A great place to practice technique is a local zoo, that way your shooting the subject matter and can develop what works for you, birds in the backyard are always good for practice..

Dave

 

[Troy Hamon]

Are there specific animals you are trying to photograph? For birds, a 300 mm lens is considered pretty short, but you still need to be fairly close even with a 600 or 800 mm.

You state that you are not blessed with stealth. Often the only stealth required is the time and patience to sit and wait a long time. Sneaking up on animals for photography is often not very feasible (and for many species not particularly safe...but hopefully you've considered that already).

I wouldn't recommend teleconverters unless you're starting with a fast lens. A maximum aperture of 5.6 is pretty difficult to use with a teleconverter as the viewfinder gets very dark and the exposure is very constrained by the additional loss of effective aperture. Better to make use of the lens as is, or concentrate on getting a used manual focus 300 f2.8 (not as expensive as the latest AF versions...) to start out. A teleconverter on that will be more useable. But I wouldn't do any shopping until you get some real sense for whether your technique is going to be successful and you are interested in this type of photography for the long haul. Fast lenses are heavy and make exorbitantly expensive paperweights if you don't plan to use them...

My two cents.

 

[Travis Nunn]

The most important thing to do is research your subject. Find out when and where they are most likely to be seen. If the subject is not birds, learn tracking methods. Learn how to call game. Most public lands that I know of do not allow game callers, but with practice, you can call some animals in using your own voice (Barred Owls, for instance are pretty easy). If the places you go do allow game callers, use them, but remember your ethics, using game callers too much causes undue stress on some animals. You can learn a lot about getting closer to wildlife from hunting guides. The more you do to improve your chances of getting closer to the wildlife you wish to photograph, the better the chances are you’ll get better pictures.

Longer lenses are ideal, but if you can’t afford one, a tele-converter can help, but you’ll lose a stop or two. I’m not familiar with Nikon’s gear, but check to see if they have a converter that allows the older manual focus lenses on the newer bodies. Older lenses are still good and usually a lot cheaper. KEH has some BGN 400 f5.6 lenses for around $400. Use a good, sturdy tripod all the time. Especially with a tele-converter, chances are you won’t be using a shutter speed slow enough to hand-hold and get sharp pictures. Spend lots of time outdoors shooting. It’s difficult to get great shots just by chance.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'll echo Travis' thoughts here. The first things are patience and knowing your subject.

Older manual focus lenses are the way to go. For birds it's better to have a 600/4 manual focus lens than the latest 300/5.6 with image stabilization and autofocus, which will still cost more than the manual 600/4.

1.4x converters are usually more tolerable than 2x converters.

The tripod will be more important to sharpness than the lens in most cases. Most complaints one hears about someone's new super-tele have more to do with not having an adequate tripod and head and technique to use them than with the optical limitations of the lens.

Shoot a lot of film. Even if you think you got it, there are all kinds of chance and random factors that can get in the way--subject movement, camera movement, wind, etc. Don't be afraid to toss half of your slides for technical reasons, and half of the ones remaining for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not to quarrel with any of the good advice you've received, but I still remember a Joe MacDonald (spelling? With or without "a"?) workshop in which he made the point that long lenses were a mixed blessing and that it was usually better to get closer than to get a longer lens. This is somewhat cold comfort when my 700 is too short and there are obstacles that prevent a closer approach.

But there are non-photographic gadgets, especially portable blinds, that are supposed to help solve the problem of getting closer. They seem to work for hunters.

All kidding aside, there are books on wildlife photography. I have Joe's, haven't looked at it for quite a while or compared it with the competition so hesitate to recommend it or any other. But you'll learn more from a leisurely read than you will from semi-random comments on a bulletin board. Get a good book and read it.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

 

[Travis Nunn]

Dan is correct, you don't need big glass to get good shots. A friend of mine has a blind in her back yard and she regularly sets up a dead tree/log not too far away from it and slathers peanut butter and bird seed in some of the holes of the tree and she can fill the frame with the woodpeckers that visit it using only a 200mm lens. Strategically fixing limbs onto or near birdfeeders are great in that they give the birds a place to perch before and after hitting the feeder which is a big plus in that you have a good idea of where to focus so that only small adjustments need to be made and you have a natural looking scene as opposed to a bird feeder in your shot, unless that is what you are going for.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Blinds are certainly useful. I don't own my own portable blind, but I've often used permanent blinds at parks and wildlife reserves. Look at the L.L. Rue website for some portable blinds that usually get good reviews.

For birds though, even with a blind and good technique, a long lens will give you more chances to get good photographs, because many birds are not approachable even with a blind (unless you are also building a scaffold for birds that avoid the ground or are willing to make floating blinds for water birds that avoid the shore, presuming that such things are permitted and possible in the location where you are shooting). Another reason to use a long lens is to prevent wildlife from becoming too accustomed to human presence.

 

[Travis Nunn]

..Another reason to use a long lens is to prevent wildlife from becoming too accustomed to human presence...

That's probably the best point made. Getting close is important, but getting too close can be not such a good thing. Of course its rare that I'm too close to my subjects.

Leonard Lee Rue is a great place to look for equipment. I can vouch for the Groofwin Pod, its really nice for when you can shoot from your car.

 

[Dave Parker]

A good book to pick up about wildlife, mainly birds, but can be used esentually for all wildlife species is Arthur Morris "The Art of Bird Photography" he is mainly a bird photographer, but as I said, the techniques and information in this book can be used for all wildlife shooting.

Dave

 

[gr82bart]

I hardly shoot wildlife, but I've bookmarked Moose Peterson's Website for FAQs on wildlife photography. As Dave says, he too shoots with a fast 400f2.8 and a 600f4 with teleconverters. Plus he says a fast motor drive is necessary. And he looks like a BIG guy.

On the other extreme is is this nut case Timothy Treadwell who shot grizzlies with like a 50 mm lens! He got eaten for his efforts and was imortalized in the indie movie
Grizzly Man.

Regards, Art.

 

[donbga]

I am looking for some advice and know this is the place to go for level headed responses.....

I am trying to spend as much time as possible concentrating on wildlife photography but am finding it difficult to get results on anything other than common garden birds and captive animals. This is mainly due to me being 'larger than the average bear' (height wise although the trousers do seem to be getting tighter lately!) and therefore not overly blessed with stealth. In my mind the alternative is to go for longer range lenses (I'm currently using a Sigma 70-300 telephoto on a Nikon F80) but the credit card shrunk at the sight of the price tags.

I've done the usual trawling through Ebay but still cannot find anything that falls into a reasonable range. Has anyone got any tips or tricks for overcoming this ?? I've looked at hides but most of the photography is to be done on common land so poses the obvious threat of removal by our light fingered friends. What are peoples thoughts on teleconvertors ??

Thanks in advance for your help.

Olly

Look for a Tamron f 2.8 300mm with a tele converter. This is a manual focus lens that is tack sharp and fast.

 

[Dave Parker]

Look for a Tamron f 2.8 300mm with a tele converter. This is a manual focus lens that is tack sharp and fast.

I agree Don,

I just sold my MF 300 f/2.8 a month ago, in favor of the AF focus model, but I can tell you what, if you want a good lens, that is tack sharp and cheap, they are a fantastic lens, I bought mine new and never once had a problem with it in the 15 years I owned it and the person that bought it from me is thrilled with it as well, on ebay, the darn things are dirt cheap right now and adaptable to just about any camera out there, you can get the lens for around $300 to $400 and the converters to match it normally go for less than $50 each, one of the best values in big glass now a days.

Dave

 

[donbga]

On the other extreme is is this nut case Timothy Treadwell who shot grizzlies with like a 50 mm lens! He got eaten for his efforts and was imortalized in the indie movie
Grizzly Man.

Regards, Art.

This will sound harsh, but it serves him right. Grizzlies need to be respected. They will chew your ass up in a heart beat. He was on their turf and violated their protocol.

 

[Dave Parker]

This will sound harsh, but it serves him right. Grizzlies need to be respected. They will chew your ass up in a heart beat. He was on their turf and violated their protocol.

Tim was a bi-polar fool, that refused to take his meds and thought he could commune with the bears, he was a very foolish man, that through his warped world, got himself another person and two bears killed.

I say this and I knew him personally, he was the best example of what not to do, and those of us in the industry of teaching living with wildlife safely will be trying to undo what he did for years to come.

Dave

 

[jonnyboy]

I've done the usual trawling through Ebay but still cannot find anything that falls into a reasonable range. Has anyone got any tips or tricks for overcoming this ?? I've looked at hides but most of the photography is to be done on common land so poses the obvious threat of removal by our light fingered friends. What are peoples thoughts on teleconvertors ??


Olly,
Two ideas come to mind immediately. Firstly, super-long lenses are not strictly needed even by "big boys", but, if one is really needed, and cash is short, try a good mirror 500mm, or, if you're feeling adventurous, one of those pre-set long-focus lenses of the same focal length. The mirror has the advantage of focussing much closer (usually around 3 meters or so) and faster. Before the flames begin, yes, there are those pesky "doughnuts" in the image if it contains brightly highlighted bits in the background. However, in most cases, this is not a real handicap when used in a forested area. The pre-set has the advantage of a real, honest-to-goodness aperture as well as generally being contrastier than a mirror. I use both types as well as 100-300mm and 85-210mm zooms, which leads to the next thought:
Instead of a blind, use one of those netting types of hides. Folded, they take up little space and can be used anywhere. The trick is to find a spot, preferably next to a tree, set up your tripod and cameras and throw the netting over yourself and the set-up, leaving the area in front of your lens/lenses clear. Sitting is suggested as this will break up your profile so you don't look like a human. Best place is near a small pool of water with forest around it. The birds and other animals, naturally, will, sooner or later, come down for a drink. I don't know the situation in your neck of the woods, but around here there are a lot of snakes, some quite dangerous (cane-brake rattlers, coral, and copperheads are a few) that tend to hang around water a lot. The best advice I can give is to simply let it slide on by without undue commotion.
As to shorter zooms like a 100-300mm, these are most useful for accessing areas higher or lower than yourself or hanging over water or bog. Also, many times, even when just standing still out in the open, animals can be contrary and land or walk almost right on top of you. The zooms come in handy for such tight quarters. I once had an osprey (fish-hawk to some) land on a snag less than ten feet in front of me. Unfortunately, I had next to no time to get over the shock before it realized that there was a human presence and it took off (with its back to me, naturally). I learned to be more aware of such opportunities from that day and prepare for it as a matter of course.

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia

 

[Dave Parker]

As a person that has taken wildlife photography for a number of years, I would never recommend a beginner start out with a mirror, they, because they are so light, lead to very bad technique, besides lacking in the quality department, if I were to ever use another mirror it would be a version of them that is called the "Solid Cat" mirror lens, then you get away with out the problems associated with a normal mirror lens, but that said, the 500mm f/8 presets are a far better choice, and often times I see the old 800mm f/8 lenses on ebay that go for very reasonable prices, I picked one up for $250 and it is actually very good quality, but you have to use stop down metering and if you don't have a good tripod, forget it, just won't work.

Dave

 

[OllyB]

Many thanks for all the great advice.

I agree with the reading suggestion and have already worked my way through all of the Andy Rouse collection, will make Moose my next stop.

I guess that whilst whittling down any new equipment options I shall use the opportunity to look more at my technique than whats in the camera bag.

Thanks again and hopefully there will be some images to follow.

Olly

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Yeah, I think to sum up . . .
2x tele. Moderate zoom or FFL lens. Tripod. Blind. And above all, know your subject's habits. Place yourself where you know they will be and they will be more comfortable coming to you than seeing you lumbering their way. Good luck with the critters.

 

[jonnyboy]

As a person that has taken wildlife photography for a number of years, I would never recommend a beginner start out with a mirror, they, because they are so light, lead to very bad technique, besides lacking in the quality department, if I were to ever use another mirror it would be a version of them that is called the "Solid Cat" mirror lens, then you get away with out the problems associated with a normal mirror lens, but that said, the 500mm f/8 presets are a far better choice, and often times I see the old 800mm f/8 lenses on ebay that go for very reasonable prices, I picked one up for $250 and it is actually very good quality, but you have to use stop down metering and if you don't have a good tripod, forget it, just won't work.

Dave

Yeah, Dave, I see your point vis-a-vis a newbie with a mirror. However, one must learn sometime and somehow and a mirror lens *can* be easier for a newbie if only because it doesn't require much thought beyond focussing. A pre-set presents different operating problems and can be distracting, especially to folks who are generally used to auto-aperture lenses. As well, compact size and light weight are conducive to actually *using* a long lens. A lot of people give up on long tele-photography simply because the long-focus and true tele lenses are a PITA and bulky. One other, less considered, point is the mirror's close-focus ability compared to comparable refractors. I consider the 10 to 30 ft. range rather critical, particularly in bird photography and a mirror allows the use of a relatively powerful tele in such close quarters. The contrast problem is alleviated considerably at such close range if only because there is less atmosphere to get in the way. All that said, I personally prefer a long-focus lens for the majority of my wildlife stuff. I don't consider using extension tubes on a true long lens a viable alternative to closer focussing except in instances where I know I won't need the longer reach for subjects farther away, which is almost never. That's the job for the zooms.
As to stop-down metering, it is often far more accurate, in my opinion. And don't get me started on tripods, please! If I had a nickel for every time I stressed the use of a decent tripod to someone, I'd have Bill Gates for lunch. And, yes, you can pretty much forget about getting anything worthwhile without one when shooting with long lenses, that's for sure.

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia

 

[Dan Fromm]

As a person that has taken wildlife photography for a number of years, I would never recommend a beginner start out with a mirror, they, because they are so light, lead to very bad technique, besides lacking in the quality department, if I were to ever use another mirror it would be a version of them that is called the "Solid Cat" mirror lens, then you get away with out the problems associated with a normal mirror lens, but that said, the 500mm f/8 presets are a far better choice, and often times I see the old 800mm f/8 lenses on ebay that go for very reasonable prices, I picked one up for $250 and it is actually very good quality, but you have to use stop down metering and if you don't have a good tripod, forget it, just won't work.

Dave

Dave, don't forget the Questar 700/8. Four (4) pounds, large, sharp, focuses to 1:4, unfortunately not cheap. And like all long lenses it punishes the least unsteadiness severely.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've owned a couple of mirror lenses, which I sold when I could afford the FD 600/4.5. The biggest problems they had were low contrast relative to a refracting lens and double-line bokeh in situations that are pretty common in bird photography--water bird wading in reeds, bird in a tree surrounded by branches. A light 500mm lens is attractive for flight shots against a blue sky (bad bokeh not being an issue), but f:8 is on the slow side for that purpose.

 

[Dan Fromm]

David, t/11, which is what the Q700 really does, is slower still.

 

[donbga]

I've owned a couple of mirror lenses, which I sold when I could afford the FD 600/4.5. The biggest problems they had were low contrast relative to a refracting lens and double-line bokeh in situations that are pretty common in bird photography--water bird wading in reeds, bird in a tree surrounded by branches. A light 500mm lens is attractive for flight shots against a blue sky (bad bokeh not being an issue), but f:8 is on the slow side for that purpose.

I'll add my 2 cents about the Cats. The two that I've used seemed to meter slightly slower than the nominal maximum f stop. Not to mention that shooting wide open allows almost no depth of field. Kodachrome 200 pushed to 400 usually resulted in lower contrast images with these lenses as well as other 400 speed films. Modern emulsions are much better than those I used at the time but you will still be shooting on the razors edge if you want supper fine grained images.

As I said before (actually Dave said it), the Tamron 300 mm maual focus f 2.8 with a high quality 1.4 or 2x tele converter will give you the most bang for your buck if you are working on a tight budget.

Also FWIW, the bar is set so high now (and has been for decades) for nature/wild life imagery that the weekend photographer will be hard pressed to produce or make photographs that rival the best professional work.

But it's still fun trying. Just be mindful of the subject and their environment. I've seen some very obnoxious photohraphers in the field, especially at places like Sanibel Is., FL.

 

[3Dfan]

If you already have a good spotting scope, it may be possible to use it as a lens. There are many models that can use a T-mount.