Should I be bummed . . .

[Michael Phillippe]

John,

How far were you from the moose? I’m starting to research a telephoto for an Alaska trip this summer and.

Thanks,

Michael

[John Bennett]

That shot maybe 30 feet. I had gone into the back country camping on a Moose photography workshop type thing. I borrowed a friends 70-200 f4 IS and I had my 400mm with me. Most of my Moose images were taken with the 400mm. I got within 20 feet a couple times when the wind would blow me and I was shooting. So while its possible to get close to them, it’s not recomended for safety reasons. I would generalise most of the Moose images I took were taken at 50 feet +

For Alaska, Id want atleast 300mm. Bottom line is most wildlife its tough to get close, nor is it usually wise. Myself I’d bring my 500mm but if I had nothing I might look at the 100-400 L, simply for it’s versatility.

[Michael Phillippe]

John,

I think 30 feet may be too close for a grizzly portrait. I was thinking 300 mm minimum with a real desire for something bigger. However the cost of 400 mm+ in good quality is difficult to rationalize for an amateur like me.

[John Bennett]

If budget is a concern and you have a trip coming to Alaska have a look at Sigma’s 50-500mm or Tamrons 200-500mm. The Tammy in particular is quite nice. They might be “slow” but offer great reach, at reasonable prices for someone desiring a long lens but not the budget for a Nikon or Canon big top quality lens.

Ive seen the Tamron offered for $800-900ish used. Failing that Sigma has a few options that can get you to 300+ at realistic levels.

edit add.
Both Nikons and Canons 300mm f4 prime are popular and great lenses. Used, they to can be had for a great price. Add a TC and your over 400mm

[Michael Phillippe]

Thanks, John. I will check out the Tamron. I had been leaning toward the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS or the Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer USM and adding a 2x converter. Since I’m shooting a small format Digital Rebel it’s probably sufficient. What do you think? I already have great EF 17-85 for most scenery and grip-and-grin shots.

[john michael white]

John/David,

After still mulling this over, and reading the other post about zooms that Mike started, *at this moment* I think I am leaning towards a 70-200 L USM coupled with 1.4 TC combo.  Seems that it would give me the most versatility and bang for the buck (and cover me from 70-280mm range and in low light).  

Today, I am really leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8 L version (found a smokin deal on it), but above you both talked about the f4 versions being sharper and lighter.  How much difference in sharpness are you talking about here??

I am really tempted to go with the 2.8, because coupled with the TC I would still be at f/4.  With the 70-200 f/4 and a TC, I would be at f/5.6 –  I really want it to be faster than that for low light.  But, I don’t want to invest all this money if the 2.8 won’t give me tack sharp images… 😛

[John Bennett]

John everyone defines sharp/tack sharp diferently.

It’s one *problem* if you will I personally have with many sites/posters. Not sure how to best word this, so grant me some lattitude.

What I find as “soft”, may be sharp to someone else. Then again, I’m submitting and selling to magazines. Barely perceptible “softness” wont cut it. There are many people who are far less forgiving than me, meaning an image I deem sharp and acceptable..they may not (when viewed at 100%). So sometimes I cringe when people describe lenses as “soft”. They may be forgetting other people may be absolutely perfectly happy with the lens and instead are “scaring” off it. In a similiar way, my 24-70 f2.8 L is sometimes referred to as “soft” when wide open. Many lenses do “suffer” from that. I can tell you as far as Im concerened it’s not. In the same vein many people will say the 24-70 f2.8 is sharper than the 24-105 f4..Maybe, but its so small a difference that you really need to be anal about such things.So when people say the 70-200 f2.8 is softer than the f4 versions. Yes there *is* truth to it. But a) afaik it’s only when the lens is opened wide and b) relative.

Take some of those shots generated by the f2.8 that people say are “soft”..To some people those images will be a bit soft, to others they will be the cats meow. Whose to say who’s  right and who’s wrong.

My honest advice is if your concerened ( I dont blame you its alot of coin) hold off until you can get into a store and test shoot one wide open and then review the files at home…Only you can really answer if the output is satisfactory for you considering the money.

One last note about TCs.
They *always* degrade IQ a bit. The better your lenses optics the less the hit. There are people who say the hit to IQ is too much no matter what lens. I say BS, again its “relative”.

This was taken with the 500 and 1.4 TC.

I personally will not use a TC on a zoom of any stripe, I find the hit to IQ to be too much. Tried it, found I was deleting every image. So while I do not hesitate to use a 1.4 TC with my primes, I wont use them with zooms.

if your concerned about “IQ”and if your “picky”, be careful about TCs and zooms.

[john michael white]

Thanks John.

[Steve K.]

Concerning Alaska…and my experience traveling with camera gear…

I have a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR and it worked well on my last trip to AK. I chose the 70-200 VR because I could not afford (literally and figuratively) to carry a heavy tripod and gimbal for my 400mm lens….in addition to fishing gear. I plan to add a 1.7 TC for the trip this summer. Note-I am not steady enough to handhold my 400mm (non VR), even with the ISO bumped up. Weight is a huge issue when hiking in the bush and using floatplanes to get around.

With that said….I miss my 400mm when in AK but just can’t bring myself to deal with the hassle of getting all that gear on commercial aircraft and float planes. If I were going just to photograph, I’d definitely take the big stuff.

I was extremely lucky to get close enough to the action at 200mm.

[Author]

Posts