Newbie in need of some guidance.

[blueron85]

Wow, thanks for all the advice guys. I'm so glad I have signed up to a photography forum. You guys are so helpful. I may have to sign up to a wildlife forum and maybe I'll get some tips on getting the most out of my shots.

Please don't waste my time posting about taking beef, being fast etc etc, for those of you that can't read I have already stated that we will be staying in a secure hyde.

Thanks to the few that actually gave advice on my gear.

 

[Derrel]

Nah beef is heavy, just make sure you're not the slowest runner in the pack!

A friend of mine used to be a salmon fishing boat guide in Alaska, where there were a LOT of hungry,feeding bears. He was required by the lodge he worked for to have, at ALL times while afield, a 12-gauge pump shotgun with an extended under-barrel magazine, loaded with specialty ammunition. typically they loaded the barrel with a premium magnum load of 00 hard-copper-coated buckshot, followed by a heavy, deadly Brenneke style slug as the first round in the magazine, then a buckshot round, then slug,slug,slug,slug, slug. Eight total rounds. Plus noisemakers for each angler, whistles, air horn, and bear spray. Perhaps the tour people or lodge/guides on your trip will be similarly equipped.

Yeah...anyway, that was Alaska, where big bears, and small streams, and salmon and fishermen all mixed and mingled. At CLOSE distances. The danger is mostly from surprising a bear as you walk through tall grasses and willows and such...THAT is apparently when bears get pretty nasty--when surprised by quiet-walking people...so...each angler was given a whistle and some noise-maker dealies (jar lid bands worn on a necklace) for when he moved from spot-to-spot along the streamside. In open areas, it was not such a big deal apparently.

Anyway....yeah...that 50-500 Sigma is slooooow. I would much rather have a "fast" lens, like say a 200mm f/2.8 Canon prime. Or even a slower, but very sharp small prime, like the 135mm f/2.8 Canon Soft Focus. or the 300mm f/4 IS prime. if you've never hunted or stalked big game, you 'might' very well be afflicted with what is called buck fever...you can get a huge,huge shot of adrenaline, and elevated heart rate, jittery muscles, and short, shallow breathing, and that can make it difficult to be steady. I hope you have a good trip.

 

[blueron85]

Nah beef is heavy, just make sure you're not the slowest runner in the pack!

A friend of mine used to be a salmon fishing boat guide in Alaska, where there were a LOT of hungry,feeding bears. He was required by the lodge he worked for to have, at ALL times while afield, a 12-gauge pump shotgun with an extended under-barrel magazine, loaded with specialty ammunition. typically they loaded the barrel with a premium magnum load of 00 hard-copper-coated buckshot, followed by a heavy, deadly Brenneke style slug as the first round in the magazine, then a buckshot round, then slug,slug,slug,slug, slug. Eight total rounds. Plus noisemakers for each angler, whistles, air horn, and bear spray. Perhaps the tour people or lodge/guides on your trip will be similarly equipped.

Yeah...anyway, that was Alaska, where big bears, and small streams, and salmon and fishermen all mixed and mingled. At CLOSE distances. The danger is mostly from surprising a bear as you walk through tall grasses and willows and such...THAT is apparently when bears get pretty nasty--when surprised by quiet-walking people...so...each angler was given a whistle and some noise-maker dealies (jar lid bands worn on a necklace) for when he moved from spot-to-spot along the streamside. In open areas, it was not such a big deal apparently.

Anyway....yeah...that 50-500 Sigma is slooooow. I would much rather have a "fast" lens, like say a 200mm f/2.8 Canon prime. Or even a slower, but very sharp small prime, like the 135mm f/2.8 Canon Soft Focus. or the 300mm f/4 IS prime. if you've never hunted or stalked big game, you 'might' very well be afflicted with what is called buck fever...you can get a huge,huge shot of adrenaline, and elevated heart rate, jittery muscles, and short, shallow breathing, and that can make it difficult to be steady. I hope you have a good trip.

Thanks for the reply.

Would you say the lenses you have recommended will be sufficient enough even when shooting at a possible 35m away?

 

[Derrel]

Well...in low-light situations the first priority is to be able to create a good, well-focused, and well-exposed image, and that's where the Canon 200mm f/2.8 prime, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens, is a big,big help. FAST focusing, good light-collecting ability from the f/2.8 aperture, and easy to carry. At 35 meters, a bear is not going to fill the frame, but it is also not going to be a pin-head-sized little dot in the image either. The 300mm f/4 lens is 50% longer in focal length, but is also less-capable in poor lighting conditions.

The low-light type levels mean that there's a premium on just making a good "exposure"; the picture you can create is secondary...and if the exposure is not sufficient, then the image is going to be, shall we say, impressionistic, or blurry...so...this kind of a scenario is one where relly EXPENSIVE "big-glass" lenses are what the pro's would use....things like 300mm f/2.8 lenses, and stuff like that. They want clear, close, and super-high-quality images at the lowest ISO values possible.

I think you're going to have to decide how much money you wish to throw at the issue; renting a quality lens for this might be 500 pounds sterling for a 10- to 14-day rental, estimated. (total estimate). Renting something like a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM- Mark II would be a viable option, I think. it will allow you to shoot later in the day than many other lenses. I am going to say, go outside your house about 30 minutes BEFORE sunset, and try photographing then, as a rough preview of the Midnight Sun lands...see how tough it is just to get an image.

I think any longer, "fast" lens, like 85mm 1.8, or 100mm f/2.0, or 135mm f/2.8 or f/2.0, or 200mm f/2.8, or 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM is going to be the desired type of lens. again....the lighting level is not going to be all that high, and you will probably be shooting at 1,000 or 1,250 ISO.

 

[grafxman]

For wildlife photography nothing beats a zoom with that focuses close and has wide zoom factor. Sigma's 50-500mm has those features. Technique and practise at shooting with slow shutter speeds and a wide open lens will easily compensate for a slow lens in my experience. If you're shooting from a tripod with a remote release then camera shake is a non-issue.

Going after any wildlife outdoors or even zoo animals with a fixed length lens regardless of power will result in the subject falling in one of two categories: too close or too far. In those situations lens speed is completely irrelevant. You will either photograph a tiny distant dot or a nose, ear or eyeball. I'm unsure how many animal photos I've taken but I have over 12,000 photos on my flickr pages. Most are of wildlife and zoo animals.

BTW, before anyone here starts sneering a zoo animal photography I can assure you it's a LOT harder than wildlife photography. I've "evolved" over the years to come to where I'm at today with my equipment so that I can get a decent photograph if I can see the subject regardless of distance or light. I'm not a professional and the needs of professionals are not your needs or mine either for that matter.

You need to be able to get a photo of an animal that fills your viewfinder, is in focus and is close enough to being properly exposed so that it can be corrected in software if it isn't. In my experience the Sigma 50-500mm OS meets that criteria. The Sigma 150-500mm runs a close second.

 

[blueron85]

Thanks for the advice Derrel. It's much appreciated. I think as this trip is a one off and I won't be doing much twilight shooting from such a far distance I may just rent one for the trip. I'd rather spend £350 hiring a top end lens rather than spending £500 on a bottom end lens.

On another note, what sort of lens should I be looking at if I'm shooting general garden birds from roughly 40-50ft away if I want to get nice close images. I'll look around the £1500 mark, give or take a bit.

Thanks again.

Ronnie.

 

[blueron85]

Hi grafxman,

just been checking out your shots and that is exactly what I am after for the majority of my shooting. .

Thanks for such a helpful post.

 

[tirediron]

Wow, thanks for all the advice guys. I'm so glad I have signed up to a photography forum. You guys are so helpful. I may have to sign up to a wildlife forum and maybe I'll get some tips on getting the most out of my shots.

Please don't waste my time posting about taking beef, being fast etc etc, for those of you that can't read I have already stated that we will be staying in a secure hyde.

Thanks to the few that actually gave advice on my gear.

This is an Internet forum. As you're aware, pretty much anyone can join and post. Some of the responses you get will be relevant, others not so much, and still others utterly pointless (in your opinion). Bear in mind (Pun fully intended) that many of the respondants are skilled and experienced photographers. You may not yet know why there advice is valuable, and regardless of whether you feel it is or not, if someone makes a post that you do not like, you may either choose to simply pass over it, or, use the 'Ignore' feature. Lashing out at people whose advice you do not understand or feel is not relevant is hardly likely to ensure a solid response to your next question.

TPF is, for the most part a fairly relaxed community, and many of us like to interject the odd joke, or humorous response. May I suggest relaxing and enjoying it? Life becomes much easier.

 

[blueron85]

My life would be easier if people just answered the questions that were asked. I understand the odd joke, but why not just follow it up with a worthwhile comment. If you read the last few posts the guys have been extremely helpful to which we have conversed in a good nature.