Has anyone here been to McNeil? I know that I am going to have quite a few questions prior to my trip, and there's at least one other NPN member going this year too. I'd be happy to keep this thread going with questions, or private mail if you prefer.
I guess to start things off, what focal lengths did you use most? I just read a review somewhere online that stated that the most used lens was a 300mm with and without a 1.4TC on a 35mm film camera.
I've been looking at glass options, and it goes without saying that a 500mm f4 is worlds apart from a from a 300mm 2.8 in terms of cost and/or rental. Then, on top of that, put a fast 300mm on a dSLR and you're talking about a 450mm f2.8 vs. a 750mm f4.
Sure would be nice to have 750mm of reach, but wondering if it is overkill to shoot something as large as a bears. Honestly I will probably try to work something out on the long glass, perhaps for intimate shots, portraits, etc.
Any feedback would be great...
Posted by Richard Wong on March 26, 2006 at 7:46 PM
Hey Christian, I don't have much experience shooting big game but I do shoot birds from time to time and from that experience I'd say I shoot wide open very little because DOF still matters in many situations. I don't know anythinga bout your 50-500 but I'd guess it goes down to 4-5.6?
Just somethign to think about, not that it's of any accuracy.
You are correct... however, I have some misgivings about the 50-500 in some circumstances such as low light, and some experience w/ darkened corners on the long end. Before I jump into anything I wouldn't mind understanding what equipment is most used. FYI @ 500 the widest aperature is f5.6.
I totally agree about DOF, etc. I would ideally want to stop down into the sweet spot of the lens, not shoot at f2.8. But what's nice is that the sweet spot would be faster :) so either better performance in low light, or being able to shoot at a lower ISO, better image quality, etc.
Posted by Richard Wong on March 26, 2006 at 10:08 PM
I hear you man, I'm sure the AF would also be faster on better glass. My Tamron 70-300 sucks but I just live with it because it's cheap. The next lens I want to get is the Sigma 80-400 OS lens. From what I've read, it's reviewed more favorably than the 50-500. I haven't tried either yet though.
If all else fails, you could always just say your prayers and make a mad dash for the grizzlies.
Discussion
3 repliesI guess to start things off, what focal lengths did you use most? I just read a review somewhere online that stated that the most used lens was a 300mm with and without a 1.4TC on a 35mm film camera.
I've been looking at glass options, and it goes without saying that a 500mm f4 is worlds apart from a from a 300mm 2.8 in terms of cost and/or rental. Then, on top of that, put a fast 300mm on a dSLR and you're talking about a 450mm f2.8 vs. a 750mm f4.
Sure would be nice to have 750mm of reach, but wondering if it is overkill to shoot something as large as a bears. Honestly I will probably try to work something out on the long glass, perhaps for intimate shots, portraits, etc.
Any feedback would be great...
Just somethign to think about, not that it's of any accuracy.
You are correct... however, I have some misgivings about the 50-500 in some circumstances such as low light, and some experience w/ darkened corners on the long end. Before I jump into anything I wouldn't mind understanding what equipment is most used. FYI @ 500 the widest aperature is f5.6.
I totally agree about DOF, etc. I would ideally want to stop down into the sweet spot of the lens, not shoot at f2.8. But what's nice is that the sweet spot would be faster :) so either better performance in low light, or being able to shoot at a lower ISO, better image quality, etc.
If all else fails, you could always just say your prayers and make a mad dash for the grizzlies.