Water Fowl / Wildlife Photography

[tevo]

It is 12/25/2012 2:18pm PST and I am currently sitting on a golf course with my camera hiding behind a palm tree with a bunch of ducks / mallards / geese / swimming birds of some sort behind me, and I am waiting for them to forget my presence and swim closer to me so that I can photograph them. What are some good tactics / techniques for wildlife photography, specifically duck photography? (")>

 

[SCraig]

Ducks and waterfowl are very smart where the survival is at stake and the notice everything; every thing that doesn't belong, every movement, everything. However their memory is rather short. Sit there pretty still for a few minutes and they will usually get accustomed to you and start to ignore you. Right up to the point that you raise your camera

 

[tevo]

Ducks and waterfowl are very smart where the survival is at stake and the notice everything; every thing that doesn't belong, every movement, everything. However their memory is rather short. Sit there pretty still for a few minutes and they will usually get accustomed to you and start to ignore you. Right up to the point that you raise your camera

I noticed that, one step into one of the group's vision and they collectively moved away. With an 80-200 on a DX, it is barely too short to be able to crop in nicely, this adds another reason to my mental "Why-I-Need-A-TC" list.

 

[tevo]

Naturally while packing for this trip I thought, "I think I'll leave the 70-300 home this time."

NEVER AGAIN

 

[SCraig]

Nope. 200 is nowhere near close enough for birds. I do normally leave my 70-300 in the car when shooting waterfowl but only because I have a 150-500.

I was out this morning at one of the local lakes and there is a paved road that runs along it. It was cold and windy with the wind blowing right along the road, and slightly into the road from the lake. There was a group of 3 Scaups close to the bank of the lake. They saw me about the same time I saw them and swam a little way out into the lake and stopped. So I moved up wind a little but to a spot with a few trees, set up my camera and tripod and waited. Sure enough, in about 5 minutes the wind blew them right to me and I got a few good shots before they noticed me again

Their survival depends on them being very afraid of everything on the shore, and they are pretty good at surviving. It's why duck hunters use blinds and decoys and it's why photographers have to be a little tricky to.

 

[tevo]

Nope. 200 is nowhere near close enough for birds. I do normally leave my 70-300 in the car when shooting waterfowl but only because I have a 150-500.

I was out this morning at one of the local lakes and there is a paved road that runs along it. It was cold and windy with the wind blowing right along the road, and slightly into the road from the lake. There was a group of 3 Scaups close to the bank of the lake. They saw me about the same time I saw them and swam a little way out into the lake and stopped. So I moved up wind a little but to a spot with a few trees, set up my camera and tripod and waited. Sure enough, in about 5 minutes the wind blew them right to me and I got a few good shots before they noticed me again

Their survival depends on them being very afraid of everything on the shore, and they are pretty good at surviving. It's why duck hunters use blinds and decoys and it's why photographers have to be a little tricky to.

Ah, how do you like that 150-500? I've eyed it many times before, besides the Tokina in my bag I try to buy only Nikon lenses, although I don't rule out Sigma.

 

[SCraig]

I like it very well when used within its limitations. Give it plenty of light to work with and it works great. It doesn't like cloudy days though. When there is a lack of contrast focus is sometimes soft, contrast is sometimes soft, and the images just don't look very good. Bright, sunny days it works great.

I'm sure the Nikon 80-400 works better but I didn't want a 400mm lens, I wanted a 500 and I'm very pleased with it.

 

[tevo]

I need to fill a bit of my range first before I buy a super telephoto like that, but I had looked at the 80-400 as well. I might just get a 2x TC as well as the 1.4x, and turn my 80-200 into a 160-400 f/4. It would be a beast!

I also have an off brand FD Canon 400mm with a 2x TC and an F Mount adapter I could use, but it's manual focus and color fringes like nobody's business.

 

[SCraig]

I need to fill a bit of my range first before I buy a super telephoto like that, but I had looked at the 80-400 as well. I might just get a 2x TC as well as the 1.4x, and turn my 80-200 into a 160-400 f/4. It would be a beast!

I also have an off brand FD Canon 400mm with a 2x TC and an F Mount adapter I could use, but it's manual focus and color fringes like nobody's business.

Actually a 2x TC costs 2 full stops so your 80-200 would in reality be a f/5.6 beast with a corresponding loss of IQ. I have a 1.4TC and have tried using it on my 150-500 with very little in the way of useful results. The loss in image quality just isn't worth it, I can crop the image and get better results.

I have the Nikon 70-300 that I absolutely love and I debated long and hard about getting the Nikon 80-400 or the Sigma 150-500. I wasn't real concerned about the difference in price but I was concerned about the difference in quality and the difference in focal length. In the end that extra 100mm won out and I may still go back someday and add a Sigma TC to it and see how that works out. The TC I have now is a Kenko Pro 1.4 and works quite well with my other lenses, but not with my big Sigma.

 

[tevo]

I need to fill a bit of my range first before I buy a super telephoto like that, but I had looked at the 80-400 as well. I might just get a 2x TC as well as the 1.4x, and turn my 80-200 into a 160-400 f/4. It would be a beast!

I also have an off brand FD Canon 400mm with a 2x TC and an F Mount adapter I could use, but it's manual focus and color fringes like nobody's business.

Actually a 2x TC costs 2 full stops so your 80-200 would in reality be a f/5.6 beast with a corresponding loss of IQ. I have a 1.4TC and have tried using it on my 150-500 with very little in the way of useful results. The loss in image quality just isn't worth it, I can crop the image and get better results.

I have the Nikon 70-300 that I absolutely love and I debated long and hard about getting the Nikon 80-400 or the Sigma 150-500. I wasn't real concerned about the difference in price but I was concerned about the difference in quality and the difference in focal length. In the end that extra 100mm won out and I may still go back someday and add a Sigma TC to it and see how that works out. The TC I have now is a Kenko Pro 1.4 and works quite well with my other lenses, but not with my big Sigma.

Yes, the main reason why I haven't purchased the 1.4x TC is because of the supposed reduction of IQ. Is it really that noticeable? The only lens I would use it on would be my 80-200, for use with daytime sports only.

 

[SCraig]

Yes, the main reason why I haven't purchased the 1.4x TC is because of the supposed reduction of IQ. Is it really that noticeable? The only lens I would use it on would be my 80-200, for use with daytime sports only.

I thought I had TC's all figured out until I tried my 1.4 on my Sigma 150-500 and found out how wrong I was. I thought the key was getting a good quality TC and you were in good shape.

I started with a non-Pro version Kenko 2x and it was absolutely horrible on everything I used it on. At any focal length on any lens in any light conditions it was just plain horrible. Nothing whatsoever that I would even consider showing anyone.

So I did some research and the PRO version Kenko had very good reviews across the board so I backed up from the 2x to the 1.4x and got a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4X DGX and was thrilled with it. On my Nikon 70-300 it worked great with hardly any difference whatsoever difference in IQ. However, on my Sigma it was pretty poor.

So, I'm once again a bit confused. I don't know if the relationship between a specific lens and specifc TC is that critical or if it's the relationship between a TC and a focal length or what. Which is why I'm a bit gun shy about getting a Sigma TC to try with the big Sigma lens. I don't know whether it would be just throwing money away or not.

 

[Overread]

(I'm sure I replied to this but it seems I didn't? Maybe I left it somewhere else by accident ;P)



Sigma can stand well with their superzooms against Canon's own 100-400mm and the only other combo that I know which gets close to that performance over such a zoom range is a 70-200mm f2.8 VR/IS II (basically the newest from canon or nikon) + 2*Teleconverter. Even then the combo is heavier and most costly than the superzoom lenses.

Having the range though is greatly important, and even though the sigma 500mm superzooms (eg 50-500mm and 150-500mm) are often closer to 450mm in most practical working distances its still a very good long reach (focal length is measured at infinity and its not uncommon for many lenses, even primes, to shift their focal length through their focusing range).

when it comes to waterfowl you can often get much closer if you are out upon the water with them; where upon the birds are often far more confident in their own abilities and thus will let you get closer or will in turn move closer. On land they are much slower and thus far more weary against unknown elements in the environment. Indeed with many birds its not so much a case of not being seen, but rather being seen enough that you're no seen specifically as a threat (that is, of course, provided that you continue to provide no threat and that there are not heavily active human hunters in the region).

 

[hvyequipmentman]

If you are really into the waterfowl thing why not go with what works to get close. Hunters must get close so they use a boat,blind,and decoys. You could set up like a hunter does and shoot them with a camera instead.

 

[cgipson1]

Ghillie suit!

 

[Mully]

^^^^^ LOL or a big duck suit ....Patience is key ...wait then wait some more and the longest lens you have. A como tarp with a hole for the lens to stick out of ...on a tripod of course and you will have to sit still