UKC

I'd appreciate any help or advice to take a crack at wildlife photography.

At the moment I have a camera with a maximum focal length of 70mm, when compared to a full frame camera.

In reply to The Lemming:

What wildlife are you trying to snap? There's a good hide in Strathspey where you can get great shots of pine martens and badgers. Your camera would be more than adequate.

In terms of other wildlife, maybe join a local wildlife trust, or see if there's forums for local birding.

I think the general rule is whatever camera you have, get as close as possible (without disturbing it obvs).

The Canon EF 100-400 (think that's what it's called) seems pretty well used for wildlife stuff, could probably pick up one second hand.

In reply to The Lemming:

Unless the wildlife in question is rather domesticated, a longer tele is something to start with... Aim to be at least over 200mm on FF, preferably more.

And a good lens is worth gettin', with a small aperture and also optical stabilization. That is, if you wish to get sharp pics.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I am umming and ahhing on a Pammy 100-400.

I'm hoping this should cover most situations. As for wildlife, then anything I can find close to home.

In reply to The Lemming:

be very very quiet

In reply to Mikkel:

Why?

We hunting wabbits?

In reply to The Lemming:

It works with most wildlife, unless you want pictures of horny stags

In reply to Mikkel:


Not sure that counts as wildlife?

https://media.lastnightoffreedom.co.uk/images/articles/gallery/166/166-Mone...

In reply to The Lemming:

Not sure what camera you have (unless it's the GH4 as per your gallery in which case I don't have a clue what's available)

But the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is great value and relatively lightweight.
Both Sigma and Tamrom do 150-600mm lenses which get well reviewed.

Budget is quite a major factor though. Sadly the light in the UK is usually less than fantastic, so a fast lens can be a real bonus. But fast + long is never cheap.
Good high-ISO can mitigate this to an extent, but then you lose lovely shallow DOF.

I used to have a 300mm on a crop body and often found this too short for nervous wildlife or small birds. Bushcraft/fieldskills can improve this, but I'd say you really need 300mm as a minimum.
I rented a 200mm lens for my full-frame A7R2 when I went to Canada as there aren't many longer options, and really struggled to fill the frame, even with really tame/nonchalant elk (Fortunately 42mp offers a lot of crop potential!).

In reply to Durbs:
Yep, gotta go long if you want frame-filling photos for the wall. If you'd like snaps of things you've seen, 200-300 might do it but even with a 600 and teleconverter, you've got to work to get the frame full. Field skills are essential if you're going to be serious about it : tracking, knowledge of the animals and the area, plus stalking etc to close the gap all help. Taking the photo is the easy bit. I tend to think that the photography bit of wildlife photography is not screwing it up when the shot finally arrives. Which reminds me - patience is probably the only cheep part of wildlife photography...

In reply to london_huddy:


Birdsong is cheep too.

In reply to The Lemming:

Mike Atkinsons site has some great tips for wildlife photography, from kit to field craft http://mikeatkinson.net/index.htm it also has a comprehensive section on camera set up for both nikon and canon dslrs. Definitely worth a read.

After much thought I went down the canon route and bought a second hand EF400 5.6 from Wex for £650. If you do more general pics then a zoom may work better for you but my brief experience is that for wildlife you will always be at the end of a zoom lense!

There are quite a few wildlife reserves locally, ie RSPB, natural England, and this is where I walk and take pics.

HTH Davey

In reply to The Lemming:

A few years ago I bought a Sigma 150-500mm for my PENTAX K5. What a heavy lump to carry around! Its huge. I found its actually quite sharp at 500mm provided it was stopped down to about f8. Of course that means its not very good in low light, and it becomes quite a struggle to keep shutter speed high enough. That's your big concern. for photographing something like wild birds, you need a high shutter speed otherwise the constant movement blurs the picture. Something like 1/500 or faster, and that's often a problem at f8. Also I found 500mm still requires you to get quite close, like 10foot or so. Bigger wildlife is a lot easier. Don't get me wrong I've had good results from the combo but its big heavy and difficult to use. Now I've gone down the micro4/3 route and hardly ever use the DSLR. I presume your looking to do this with your m43 GH4? Longest lens I've got at the moment for m43 is the Panasonic 45-150. Nice lens but too short for birds or other small wildlife, but ok for something like deer. Ive looked at the Panasonic 100-300 ( fairly cheap variable reviews) and Pana 100-400 (good reviews very expensive). There's also the Olympus 300 f4 which gets very good reviews but even more expensive. I think the advantage of m43 is that you don't need such a long lens and so a lot lighter but the good lenses are expensive, although no more so than other formats. Another possibility with m43 is an adaptor for non native lenses. Ive tried a PENTAX to m43 adaptor and had some reasonable results but its all manual focus an aperture setting. Most wildlife photographers tend to use Canon or Nikon because of the range of available lenses, but they will be expensive and big. Still think m43 might have some advantages here but haven't figured out the best way to do it yet. Main problem is it's going to cost money, and I keep blowing that on climbing gear and travel.

Lee

In reply to thlcr1:

i've also downsized to m43 for the while (e-m5) and happy with results from my latest lens -the oly 40-150mm (£85) and the well reviewed 75-300 can be had for <£300 new, which is pretty cheep?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/75-300mm-f4.8-6.7-ii-ed-m.zu...

In reply to The Lemming:
this is what you want for your GH4: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/05/02/the-mighty-panasonic-leica-100-400...

In reply to malk:
That's the lens on my "Wish List".


I've seen a few youtubes saying that there will be a revised 100-400 this year but I can't find anything on the Panasonic sites.

In reply to The Lemming:

the 100-300 at~1/3 of the price would be good enough for now?
you could get the excellent sigma 60mm to fill in your focal length gap..

In reply to malk:


I have reviewed that lens but the reviews are not that favourable compared to the Panny or Olympus. Also it does rain and drizzle a bit and I'm quite liking the idea of weatherproof kit.

In reply to The Lemming:

I had the Canon 400mm f5.6 and can honestly say it was never too long. I'd get another tomorrow, if I had the spare cash! A lot depends on what you're planning to shoot. You can get away with shorter focal lengths on Safari, as Lions etc aren't bothered about people, but most wildlife in this country prefers to avoid people.

In reply to The Lemming: The thing with long tell lenses is they do really need to be fast as you have got to have control over d of f, otherwise you can get a really distracting background.

In reply to The Lemming:

Just a thought, the photography part of watching wildlife and/or birding is great, but absolutely distracting to the point where you can miss the things flying by etc and the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying your time there. Be careful what you wish for! However, I do sometimes lug a 300 F4 and 1.4 multiplier around!

In reply to SouthernSteve:

The joy of micro four thirds.

Smaller lighter kit.

In reply to malk:



Yesterday I mailed Panasonic asking if the rumours were true about an update to the 100-400mm lens. The reply was no update planned.

However.

Panasonic did say that, in February, they were updating the 100-300mm and, more importantly, watersealing the lens.

That sounds interesting.