Wildlife Photography, Part 1 - Equipment

[popeshawnpaul]

I thought I would write up a little guide or info for those interested in hunting with a camera.  I'll go over some equipment and if there is enough interest we might get into a few other aspects of wildlife photography

First of all, I'm not a professional photographer.  I have shot for a living before in my past life but I shoot for fun these days.  Why do I shoot wildlife pictures?  I do it because I love to be in the outdoors, I love to stalk animals, and I love to create art.  I use to be really into hunting and I still do enjoy hunting.  However, going out and shooting a deer really doesn't do much for me.  It fills the freezer and I do it, but it really doesn't get me excited much anymore.  I was able to harvest a nice WA buck, a 3x4 with my bow in the late season.  It was exciting.  However, when I got done I had to clean it and pack it out 1500 feet straight up, then I had to deal with it when I got home.  It was a great experience, but I would have had just as much fun taking a quality photo of that deer as I would have shooting it.  So that's a little about me and why I photograph wildlife.

Your intentions and goals regarding photography may be different.  That's ok.  The same principals will apply.  Do you ever get frustrated that you have a short mule deer season of 8 days and you don't spot or get a shot on a buck and now all you have to look forward to is next year?  You hope that the poor management practices and other influences will even give you an opportunity at a deer next year.  How about you WA elk hunters...  Do you get tired of all the spike only seasons with 10 guys on every ridge?  These are some of the reasons you might want to take on wildlife photography.

I get asked numerous questions about equipment every day.  Photography can be very technical to those just starting to learn.  Budget can also be important.  It does not take a lot of money to get into photography but it can also be very expensive.  So let's start with the first and cheapest option out there, the point and shoot camera.

Point and Shoot Cameras

The point and shoot (P&S) camera is small, compact, lightweight, and has the ability to take decent pictures in the right light.  The problems associated with a point and shoot involves their use of a small digital sensor.  The P&S uses a sensor the size of your pinky finger nail.  All those megapixels are stuffed into that tiny area.  They do this because it is cheaper for them to make small sensors.  However, these small sensors are noisy and don't record as fine of detail as larger sensors.  They will take good photos at the slowest settings, namely ISO 100 or so.  If you are shooting at dawn or dusk, these cameras are extremely noisy and don't produce good quality images.  So these types of cameras will get you in the game, but they won't satisfy your needs if you are looking to take your photography to the next level.  One caveat about P&S cameras is that many of the newer ones will shoot in RAW format.  This can be a big advantage for those willing to figure out the easy RAW converting software that comes with your camera.  More about RAW later...

Digital Single Lens Reflex Cameras

The DSLR is just a digital version of our old SLR film cameras.  There are some differences, however.  There are two types of DSLR cameras.  There are full frame cameras and crop sensor DSLR's.  Full frame DSLR's have sensors that are huge and are the size of a full size slide or film negative.  Because these sensors are so large they can shoot well in low light and have extremely good quality images.  The other type of DSLR is a crop sensor camera.  These cameras have a sensor that is somewhere in-between the full frame DSLR and the P&S camera.  These cameras have advantages for wildlife photography.

Full frame cameras are the very best quality, hands down.  However, there are drawbacks for those of you that want to strictly shoot wildlife.  These cameras shoot an image that is large and you don't get the focal range you can on a crop sensor camera.  These full frame sensor cameras are great for general photography and landscape images where you aren't worried about trying to get close to your subject.  Some of the full frame cameras include the canon 1Ds series, Canon 5d, Nikon D3, and the Nikon D700. 

Crop sensor cameras have a sensor smaller than the full frame.  Because the sensor is smaller, it essentially magnifies your lenses by a 1.5x or 1.6x factor depending on if you use Nikon or Canon respectively.  The best way to illustrate this is with a real world example.  I have a 200mm lens.  You can convert a focal length to real world binocular terms by dividing any focal length by 50mm.  A 50mm lens is the equivalent to your human eye.  It is 1x.  2x would be 100mm, 3x would be 150mm, and 4x would be 200mm.  200mm on a full frame sensor camera would look like a 4x binocular.  However, what would the crop sensor equivalent be?  If you are using a crop sensor camera (Canon Rebel or xxD series), it has a 1.6x crop factor.  With my 200mm lens the crop factor of the lens will make that 200mm lens look cropped or closer.  You take the 200mm and multiply it by 1.6x to get an effective focal length of 320mm.  So the same lens on two different cameras can look very different depending on whether you have a crop sensor camera or not.

The tradeoff for using a crop sensor camera is the same as that with a P&S.  The smaller sensor will not be as good of quality as a full frame sensor camera, but it is really a lot better than that of a P&S.  The benefit I get is the crop sensor, meaning my 200mm lens essentially becomes a 320mm lens giving me much more reach when I go and take a picture of that deer or sheep.  The 320mm lens is about the equivalent of a 6x binocular.  If you have a Nikon camera you multiply your lens focal length by 1.5x, not 1.6x like you do with Canons.  This is because the sensor on a Nikon is slightly different in size than that of a Canon.

So now you understand there are 3 types of cameras, the P&S, the full frame DSLR, and the crop sensor DSLR.  I prefer the crop sensor DSLR so I own a camera in what we call the xxD line (10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, and 50D).  I currently own a 40D and I'm sure I will upgrade it when they come out with a 60D some time in the future.  For now this camera is a really good deal.  I've seen them new and used for about 600-700 dollars.  It is 10 megapixel.  Nikon makes good crop sensor cameras like the D200 and D300.  For those on a budget you can get a used 20D for about $250 these days, a great value.

Lenses

So now you have selected a camera, what lens should you have?  Well, even if you are using a P&S you can select one that has a lens on it in the focal range you need.  Wildlife photography really demands lenses with a focal length starting at 200mm and going up to 800mm.  I personally like a 400mm lens as my personal choice.  P&S cameras will give you a film equivalent on their lenses.  Many of the P&S cameras go into 400mm plus range so they work nice for wildlife photography provided you have enough light.

How about DSLR lenses?  Well, you may have some laying around.  Many of your film camera lenses will work on the newer DSLR cameras.  I use to own an old 400mm film camera lens on my new DSLR.  There are 4 things you look for in a lens: focal length, quality optics, image stabilization, and aperture/speed.  Cameras are rated in focal length and speed.  That old 400mm lens I had was an f5.6 lens.  There are various F-stops and they range from f1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, etc...  F5.6 is the slowest you should ever go in a lens.  This is one thing that people just don't understand so I'll illustrate this point with a picture.  The lower the f-stop number the faster the lens is.  When I say fast that means it collects light better than a higher f-stop lens and can shoot in lower light.  I own an f1.2 lens, extremely fast.  I can shoot this lens in a dark room or at night and get useable images with it.  You could never so that with a f5.6 lens unless you wanted to use a flash, and who wants to do that? 

An f-stop does 2 things...it controls the speed of the lens and also the depth of field.  When I say depth of field I am talking out how much of the photo is in focus.  Faster lenses have a shorter depth of field.  My f1.2 lens has such a short depth of field that I can shoot someone's eyes and the end of their nose in out of focus.  I'll illustrate this with a photo...



Notice how the S in Swarovski is in focus but by the A it is blurred?  So why would you want a short depth of field?  Imagine that buck standing there and you are taking photos of him and he has distracting grass or branches behind him.  If they were sharp and in focus the deer wouldn't stand out.  If they were blurred but the buck was sharp he would pop out of the image.  This is the key that many pro photographers use to make images pop and stand out.  That is why they use those huge lenses that are fast with small f-stops.  So let's illustrate this with a few photos:

F4


F5.6


F8


F11


F16


F22


F32


Notice how the deer pops out on the first f4 photo?  There is even a noticeable difference bewteen f4 and f5.6.  They have cheap f11 mirror lenses available.  F11 has too much background clutter in focus to look top notch.  I personally don't like to use lenses that are slower than f4 for wildlife.  F5.6 lenses are affordable and can produce nice images so don't be too afraid to use them.  Obviously, buy the fastest lens you can afford.  Some of these lenses are expensive.  I justify this because I like to go and photograph wildlife all year round.  When you think of your hunting rifle that you spent 1k on, plus a good scope for $500, you'll see that it comes down to priorities and what you want to spend your money on.  It's like anything in life.

Wildlife lens choices are numerous.  I'll run throgh a few here.  First of all, Canon and Nikon are just making cameras and lenses better and have more selection than any other brand.  Maybe the others will catch up, but for now it is really between these two.  I currently shoot Canon but have shot Nikon over the years as well.  Canon choices for wildlife include the following:
200 f2.8 ($550)
300 f4 ($500)
300 f4 IS ($850)
400 f5.6 ($900)
300 f2.8 IS ($3500)
400 f4 IS ($4500)
500 f4 IS (5000)
400 f2.8 IS ($6000)
100-400 f5.6 IS ($1100)

Canon has very similar choices to those of Canon.  Each lens has good and bad things about it.  The lens I prefer over all others is the 400 f4 IS.  It is small, portable, and lightweight with decent focal length at 400mm and speed at f4 plus it has the all important IS or image stabilization I prefer.  For a more detailed look at all the lenses out there, their strengths and weaknesses, I encourage you to visit http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ and read the reviews about each lens.  The ratings given to these lenses are usually spot on and a higher rated lens will provide better quality and tell you a lot about the value you are getting. 

A couple last tidbits.  A fixed focal length lens is usually produces better image quality than a zoom.  This is the reason I prefer to use prime or fixed focal length lenses.  Additionally, there are 3rd party manufacturers that make lenses.  While I don't prefer 3rd party lenses, sometimes they can be a good choice for those that simply don't have the funds to drop on a name brand lens.  For example, the Tokina 400mm f5.6 lens for a Canon camera can be found used for about $100 used.  You don't have to break the bank to start photographing wildlife.  Sometimes the autofocus on these older lenses doesn't work or is not fast, but it's ok to manually focus a lens.  We didn't use to have autofocus and somehow we took good photos in the old days. 

Teleconverters

A teleconverter is a small device that connects between your camera and lens.  They are used to increase your focal length.  They have tradeoffs and generally degrade your image quality.  There are two kinds, a 1.4x and a 2x.  What do those numbers mean?  A 1.4x will multiply your focal length by 1.4.  For example, if you are using a 400mm f4 lens and put on a 1.4x converter, you are now shooting a 560mm lens. (400x1.4=560)  With a 1.4x you lose one stop of light and with a 2x you lose 2 stops.  So your 400mm f4 lens with a converter on it becomes a 560mm f5.6 lens.  If you put a 2x on that lens it becomes an 800mm f8 lens.  I don't ever use 2x converters as the quality is bad with a 2x converter on about any lens.  I'll use a 1.4x sometimes when there is enough light to compensate for me losing that extra stop of light.

Tripod/Monopod

I use to always use a tripod, period.  It was the only way to get tack sharp images.  Nowadays the new lenses have IS or VR on them or image stabilization.  There are many types of IS and VR.  The older IS lenses in the canon lens lineup are 2 stop and the newest lenses help you by up to 5 stops.  What this means is that the IS will take out vibrations from hand holding a lens up to the equivalent of 2-5 stops from what you should traditionally shoot.  I could go into this in detail but just know that not all IS/VR is the same.  Some works better than others.  With the advent of IS, I personally will rarely shoot with a tripod for wildlife much anymore.  A lot of times I can get away with just usuing a monopod or hand hold the lens.  The only reason I use a monopod is that my hands and arms get tired of holding my camera up all day so it helps to support it. 

RAW

They say RAW is like a digital negative.  I'm not sure about this because I couldn't ever do much with my negatives in the old days like you can with a RAW shot.  RAW can fix serious exposure problems, color issues, etc.  The nice thing is that when you buy a camera with RAW it comes with software to convert that RAW image into something you are more adept at viewing like a jpg or a tif.  If you have a camera that shoots RAW, there is very little reason why I could think of that you wouldn't use it.  Here is a great example of why you use RAW:





When I shot these two photos I had the grizzly coming at me.  The griz got close so I turned and ran back to the car.  In my haste, the camera got turned to manual mode and the exposure was off by about 4 stops.  The griz came walking by giving me a once in a lifetime opportunity but to my horror all the photos were white and washed out.  With RAW I was able to pull down the exposure and get a perfectly exposed photo.  It's really amazing what technology and RAW can do.  Exposure is one one of many things you can do to help out your photography.  I can't understand why anyone would not shoot raw for 99% of what you shoot on a daily basis.

Software

Software to use is a hot topic.  Many types are free like Picasa.  Others can cost lots of money like Adobe Photoshop ($700).  I really like Adobe Lightroom as it is better suited to photographers and really provides a nice interface to save your photos and rate them and keep them organized.  It costs about $300 I think.  Also, your camera should come with RAW software as well as a lighter version of Photoshop like Elements or another type of program.  Try the free ones that come with your camera and decide what you need beyond that. 

Getting the Shot

I hear too often (in fact, this morning in a PM), I saw a big deer and took some photos and the deer looks small and if I blow it up it looks bad.  There are many things going on here.  First of all, was it taken with a low quality P&S?  Was it taken with a high quality lens?  What was the focal length?  Beyond equipment, you need to get close.  You are hunting with a camera.  I shoot most of my shots between 30 and 80 yards.  Beyond 100 yards, no lens is going to get you a great shot.  You need to get out and stalk that animal.  Get close, hopefully undetected, and get some shots.  This is part of the fun.  Just yesterday I spotted a big sheep way high up on a ridge.  It was 500 yards from where I was so I came up with a plan.  I circled around to the ridge and moved in on the sheep.  I got within 30 yards or so from them and was able to get a few shots before he took off.  If I wanted more shots I would have to go after him and sneak close again.  If I had just taken out my camera when I first saw him at 500 yards he would look small in the photo and I would have nothing to show for my efforts.  I must stress that wildlife photography is like bowhunting with a camera.  You have an effective range no matter what lens you use.  Even animals in parks can be afraid and not like you close.  I get shots in protected areas like parks and in hunted areas.  It can be done in either place with some time and effort. 

So do you want to extend your season?  Do you like to get outdoors more than a few days a year?  Do you want to try and capture those moments you experience out there?  I look back at some of my shots from 15-20 years ago and relive the moments like you would if you had a stuffed deer on the wall.  So I'm going hunting this weekend even though there is no season.  No I didn't pull a coveted sheep tag but I'll go stalk them like I did.  Or you could stay home and cry you didn't pull a special tag this year and work on your honey do list...  It's up to you.

I'll leave you with a photo of me taking wildlife shots 15 years ago.  I had some $50 binoculars, a $100 camera, and a $100 lens.  I had the time of my life and I still have photos of that 190" ram in this shot to remember it by. 

[Timber]

Great post Shawn. Lots of good information, keep them coming!

[boneaddict]

AGREED.  I'll sticky it.  That should answer alot of questions that I frequently get.

[Slider]

Great Job!!! Thanks for taking the time to do the write up. It's greatly appreciated!!! 

[stumprat]

Thank you for taking the time. Very helpful. Could we save this as an article?

[Timber]

Here is a lens question for you pope. Thanks to boneaddict I am now looking to upgrade my wildlife lens. I currently have a Canon 100-400 f5.6 IS. It's a good lens but as I found out on my photo safari with boneaddict, it can't compare to the big primes. I'm trying to decide between the 400 f2.8 and the 500 f4. When out shooting animals the two obstacles I have to deal with the most are getting close enough for a good shot and not having enough light, with poor light usually being the bigger problem. Right now I am leaning more towards the 500 f4 because it's a bit cheaper and lighter. The 500 f4 has more focal length than the 400 f2.8 but also gathers less light and if used with a 1.4 tc it would drop down to an f5.6. So would it make more sense to go with the faster 400 f2.8? I know it's up to me to decide but I value your opinion and thought you might have some insight.

[bucklucky]

I need to make more money 

[ICEMAN]

Pope Says: "First of all, I'm not a professional photographer."

Well, maybe you are not a paid professional photographer.....

Great article. Thanks.

[popeshawnpaul]

Here is a lens question for you pope. Thanks to boneaddict I am now looking to upgrade my wildlife lens. I currently have a Canon 100-400 f5.6 IS. It's a good lens but as I found out on my photo safari with boneaddict, it can't compare to the big primes. I'm trying to decide between the 400 f2.8 and the 500 f4. When out shooting animals the two obstacles I have to deal with the most are getting close enough for a good shot and not having enough light, with poor light usually being the bigger problem. Right now I am leaning more towards the 500 f4 because it's a bit cheaper and lighter. The 500 f4 has more focal length than the 400 f2.8 but also gathers less light and if used with a 1.4 tc it would drop down to an f5.6. So would it make more sense to go with the faster 400 f2.8? I know it's up to me to decide but I value your opinion and thought you might have some insight.

This is a great question Timber.  That 100-400 is a good place for most people to start getting serious and is a decent lens for $1100.  That being said, I've shot with at least 8 copies of that lens and none of them are tack sharp.  You give up a lot for the variability in that lens.  I have heard of newer UW copies of that lens that are sharper.  I've never used one though.  Also, the IS on that lens is old 2 stop variety and doesn't work real well.  A lot of people go the way you did and get this lens and there is nothing wrong with that.  It's just at some point they will get to where you are at and be wanting more.  I would say there is another option for those that want to get into the position you are in.  That would be to go with the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x.  It costs about the same as the 100-400 but you have f4.  The IS is also old so it doens't work real great but it's better than nothing.  Also, the quality at 300mm is much better and at 400 it is slightly better than the 100-400 lens at 400mm.

That being said, the 500mm f4 IS is the quinticental wildlife lens.  It is the perfect balance bewteen focal length, speed, and size/weight.  Bone is a big guy and can handle a 400mm f2.8.  I don't know many wildlife photographers that use that lens because of the size/weight restrictions it has.  Don't get me wrong, if I had a shirpa that is probably the lens I would go with.  In college I had a Nikon 400mm f2.8 and I use to lug it up the mountains and on long packs so I know what Bone deals with.  The 500mm f4 is about 9 lbs and is manageable.  Bone's 400 f2.8 is about 13 lbs.  The 400 f4 is about 4 lbs and can be thrown in a pack.  Yeah, it is expensive but you pay for light weight.  If you don't hike much with your lenses or you shoot out the car or on the boardwalk go with the 500 f4.  It is cheaper and gives you more reach.  You can shoot with the good 4 stop IS on that lens, at ISO 400 from dawn to dusk.  A little Noise Ninja noise removal software and you are good to go with iso up to 800 so speed isn't the issue.  I think 9/10 wildlife pros would tell you to get the 500mm so I won't differ from that opinion.  That lens also works really well with a 1.4x.

All this being said, buying a lens on specifications is risky.  You could rent both and decide?  They are much different when you are out in front of a buck and holding and using that lens.  Ask Huntnphool, he was out today using a 600mm f4 that is as big as he is...

[gramps]

I agree with the Iceman !!  Great write-up...Thanks

[Timber]

Thanks pope for the great advice. You gave me a lot to think about there. I will take some time and digest that info and at the same time think of how to come up with the money for one of those beasts.

[popeshawnpaul]

Well, Huntnphool is thinking about selling his Porsche...     Thanks guys.  I hope this helps and saves Bone and I a lot of PM's.

[huntingnut]

Thanks for the great write-up. I have really been wanting to get a DSLR. I have seen a lot of them in the adds on Sunday, one thing I have noticed is some are available with only 6 or 8.2 megapixel. My P&S is 8.2 and I can't see getting anything smaller than 10 on a DSLR. What is the smallest megapixel you would recomend?

[popeshawnpaul]

I'd say a 6 megapixel is fine.  They are quality pixels in a DSLR.  The canon 20D DSLR is only 6 megapixels but it takes better photos than the g10 P&S which is 15 megapixels...  It depends on what you want to do with it really.  I make 30" prints from my 10 megapixel and I'm sure you could make quality prints up to 24" or so with a 6 megapixel DSLR.  Don't get stuck on megapixels, they aren't all created equal...

[huntnphool]

Awsome write up Shawn, that answers enough questions to give even the most novice enough info to get started

[boneaddict]

Two things....first one is for Timber or anyone listening.  Take account where you do a majority of your shooting.  One thing "bad" about the 500 compared to the 400 is that you can actually have too much magnicifaction.  If you are shooting alot in NE washington and or Idaho, you might be too close to the animal to get them all in the frame.  That happened to me several times this fall.  ALot of my shots aren't cropped.
That brings us to the other thought I had about megapixels.  Unless you are selling posters, there is no need for all those megas.  In fact when reducing the pics and putting them on here, there is often distortion involved.  I call it compression syndrome have no idea what the real phenomenon is called. 

[huntnphool]

Thought I would give you guys a photo for comparison. This is the 600mm f/4, try hiking up snow covered rocks and slopes with this thing while chasing rams. One slip and its $8,000.00 in the toilet.

[PacificNWhunter]

Can't believe you guys haul those things around. Glad you do though! I like the pic's.

[boneaddict]

That was the exact thought I had after going after one of those damn sheep.  I turned around and looked at the truck below and thought hmmmm.   Kind of hard to see holes and boulders with a foot of wind blown snow over them.

[boneaddict]

How'd you  like the 600 Rob?

[popeshawnpaul]

Now you know why the 4lb 400mm f4 DO is worth every extra penny. 

[boneaddict]

I just started drinking again so I could get in shape to carry it.  I'll be working my way up to 40 oz bombs here pretty soon.

[huntnphool]

How'd you  like the 600 Rob?

Its awsome Bone, and with the 1.4 Extender you don't have to push the critters at all. My last couple posted pics were shot at 150 yards.

Theres a pretty funny story to go along with the pics Pope and I got of him, maybe some day after several drinks we will spill it. Imagine looking at a 80* snow covered slope and having no choice but to go down it while packing that thing and I do mean NO CHOICE

[boneaddict]

Looking forward to it.

[Skinner]

Great post!  It helps out with a lot of unknowns for a new camera guy.

[Timber]

Two things....first one is for Timber or anyone listening.  Take account where you do a majority of your shooting.  One thing "bad" about the 500 compared to the 400 is that you can actually have too much magnicifaction.  If you are shooting alot in NE washington and or Idaho, you might be too close to the animal to get them all in the frame.  That happened to me several times this fall.  ALot of my shots aren't cropped.

That is an excellent point bone. My plan is to carry my 100-400 f5.6 or maybe a 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 tc to fill in the gap. That brings me to another question for pope. How much better of a lens is the 70-200 f2.8 than the 100-400 f5.6?  Besides being faster, is it a lot sharper? What about with a 1.4 tc on it?

[Huntbear]

Awesome articles, keep them coming.

I have a question regarding camera bodies.  I know it is like asking what your favorite gun maker is!! 

How do the Nikon D60 and the Canon Rebel XSI compare?  I am doing my homework, so later in the spring, I can get the most bang for my buck.  I get that I may be talking apples and oranges, but those two seem to be in the price range I am looking at right now. Are used camera bodies worth looking at?  How do you know if they have been abused or used up?

Also, is one of the "kits" a way to go, so you get 2 or more lenses?  It seems most offer like an 18-55 and a 75-250 or 300 zoom.  I know what you said about the non prime lenses, but those are expensive, I am looking for something to grow into as I sharpen my skills, and then add a better lense or two at a later date.

Sorry for all the questions, if the are redundant,  they just kind of hit me, and it is late.

[popeshawnpaul]

Both those cameras are simple DSLR cameras.  They both do a good job.  Don't pick Nikon or Canon because of the camera.  Go find the lenses you want and then pick a lens to suit.  Or just go to a Best Buy and feel each one out.  The kits are cheap quality lenses.  You will outgrow the lenses quick and then you will have a couple cheap lenses collecting dust eventually.  I guess the 18-55 is a cheap way to get in the game, so go for it.  I would rather see someone shoot a 50mm f1.8 prime for the same money as you can get the 18-55 kit lens for.  (75 dollars)  It's better quality and faster.  Less zoom though.  Prime lenses aren't expensive.  Zoom lenses are more expensive than prime lenses. 

Used cameras are great deals.  You can buy a used 40D or a new Rebel XSI for the same money...  That's an easy choice for me as I'll go for the 40D.  The Rebel cameras have a way of telling how many actuations there are on the camera.  If you do a search online there are various ways to tell how many actuations your camera has and you can do this before you buy or find a reputable seller.  The people that sell used at fredmiranda.com seem to be very honest people.  Don't buy from ebay.  There are a few cameras like mine where there is no way to tell how many actuations there are. 

[robb92]

Very good info thanks for posting it!!!!

[boneaddict]

I have never liked the extenders or 1.4 on variable zoom lens.  They are a useful tool on good prime lens, but don't think they work worth beans on the others.  Just my opinion though.

[Huntbear]

Thank you for the answers. I will keep looking and doing my research.

[elksnout]

Very well done. Thank you. I saved it to my favorites for reference. 

[Tom Reichner]

Here is a lens question for you pope. Thanks to boneaddict I am now looking to upgrade my wildlife lens. I currently have a Canon 100-400 f5.6 IS. It's a good lens but as I found out on my photo safari with boneaddict, it can't compare to the big primes. I'm trying to decide between the 400 f2.8 and the 500 f4. When out shooting animals the two obstacles I have to deal with the most are getting close enough for a good shot and not having enough light, with poor light usually being the bigger problem. Right now I am leaning more towards the 500 f4 because it's a bit cheaper and lighter. The 500 f4 has more focal length than the 400 f2.8 but also gathers less light and if used with a 1.4 tc it would drop down to an f5.6. So would it make more sense to go with the faster 400 f2.8? I know it's up to me to decide but I value your opinion and thought you might have some insight.

Hello, Timber!

I use the 400 f2.8 extensively.  I use it naked, with the 1.4 extender, and with the 2x extender.  I know what you're thinking - that the 2x extender is just a cheap way to get to 800mm and image quality sufffers.  Well, I also was very surprised at what a great job this lens can do with the 2x - provided there's sufficient light.  If you're still debating between the 400 f2.8 and the 500 f4, one thing to consider is that with the 400 2.8, you can add the 2x and have an effective focal length of 800mm at f5.6.  With a crop body it's even higher effective focal length.  I can only afford one big lens, and the 400 2.8 along with the option of adding two different extenders gives me more flexibility.

-Tom

[whacker1]

Tom,

Welcome - looking forward to seeing some of your pics!

[Timber]

Thanks for the advice Tom. Lately, I've been leaning towards the 400 anyway. Your input will make the decision even easier. Now if I can just come up with the money!

[popeshawnpaul]

I use to shoot with a 400mm f2.8 for football and sports.  You aren't going to get me hiking 8-12 miles with one...lol.  Maybe I'm just a pansy?   

[huntnphool]

step up and get the DO you pansy, I'm going to

[popeshawnpaul]

Now that my wife has a job I might be able to here in the future...   

[boneaddict]

Its a big son of a biotch in deer and sheep country but dang I like it.

[Tom Reichner]

Anyone going to make this a sticky again?  It is certainly worthy of "Sticky Status"!