Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Photo & Video => Topic started by: yajsab on January 13, 2009, 03:04:03 PM

Title: another camera/lens question
Post by: yajsab on January 13, 2009, 03:04:03 PM: Need suggestion from the photographers (yeah, you know who you are :chuckle:).

I would like to get more range for wildlife, mainly deer/elks. I have the 70-200/f4 and the 300/f4 had great reviews. I could add the 300mm, but need to know from the experienced here to see if I get a 1.4x on top of the 70-200 will give me good range without spending 1k for the 300mm.
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 13, 2009, 04:51:09 PM: It will work and give you about 280mm. Unfortunately, 280mm and 300mm just isn't enough for most wildlife situations. Some of my recent sheep shots have been with the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 1.4x like the photo of the month for january picture. I had to get within about 30 yards for the group shot though. With the 300mm f4 you would use it with the 1.4x to make it a 420mm f5.6 most of the time. This is the combination Slider has and I don't think he shoots without his 1.4x very often...
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2009, 05:09:02 PM: I agree with Pope, most of the time I find 400mm is not enough and would like just a little bit more. The 400mm f/4 DO is my next big purchase, along with the 1.4x I should be okay for 90% of my shooting and if not I will rent the 600mm.
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: boneaddict on January 13, 2009, 05:26:52 PM: Did you mean 300 isn't enough or 400 Rob? I think 400 is about the best overall. Obvious there are advantages to 500 etc., but 300 is almost not enough gun for average wildlife shots that aren't park animals.
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: yajsab on January 13, 2009, 06:15:02 PM: Thanks. Sounds like I would need the 300 along with the 1.4x.
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2009, 06:23:38 PM: Quote from: boneaddict on January 13, 2009, 05:26:52 PM
Did you mean 300 isn't enough or 400 Rob? I think 400 is about the best overall. Obvious there are advantages to 500 etc., but 300 is almost not enough gun for average wildlife shots that aren't park animals.

I have found 400mm to be not quite enough for the pic I want Bone. I haven't tried it with the 1.4x yet so don't know if that would be the difference or not :dunno:. Right now I have to crop the full body pics I get with the 400mm to get the shot I was looking for in the first place. I think the 400/1.4x combo would be just about right for most of the shots I am looking for. That being said, the 600mm was a joy to use especially when we added the 1.4x to it, I was getting clear shots at 840mm :tup: I really dont want to spend $9,000.00 on a lens right now though that why the 400mm DO is on my list.
Title: Re: another camera/lens question
Post by: robodad on January 13, 2009, 06:46:43 PM: Quote
Need suggestion from the photographers (yeah, you know who you are :chuckle: ).

OK you can't include me in that statement yet but I did find a great site to look up all sorts of camera/lens information !!!

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#zoomprime (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#zoomprime)