Taking pictures of wildlife....300mm a must?

[Village Idiot]

Ahem.

Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 for Nikon - $879
Sigma | 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens | 737306

Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 for Nikon - $1029
Sigma | 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens | 737306

 

[Overread]

I knew I was forgetting something!
here a comparison of the sigma zooms - the canon 100-400mm is thrown in a well
Juza Nature Photography

 

[Xander]

WOW! Thanks for all of the responses. I think we've really got our eyes set on the Sigma 150-500mm. Its a great price for the zoom and I've read nothing but positive review on it.

 

[table1349]

You can use a 50mm if you are vewwwwwwwy vewwwwwwwwy quiet...huhuhuhuhuh...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've heard a lot of nature boys say that a 400mm is pretty much critical in nature shots, and I believe it. Animals go way out of their way to avoid people crashing through the woods (though generally avoiding crashing through the woods would be good... see earlier Elmer Fudd reference)

If you have time and patience setting up as a hunter would is pretty much going to be your best way to get shots. Basically camoflaging you and your scent, sitting in an area where animals are likely to roam by, and waiting.

Watch out for red

With some of the stuff that I do, it's not only critical but absolutely required for survival. If a bear fills you viewfinder with anything less than 400mm on the front of you camera you are no longer a photographer, you are dinner.

When I am shooting up in bear country I am usually using the 400mm with the 1.4TC attached. Knowing your subject, their habits and how to avoid meeting that subject is critical.

 

[Xander]

If we were to get the Sigma....would a monopod be a must?

 

[davebmck]

A tripod is probably a must, if you want good sharp shots.