 |
|
 |
  |
 |
      |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 By John Shaw 
Long lens choice is definitely not easy. There are a number of factors to weigh before purchasing a long focal length. Cost, weight, bulk, size, speed, reliability and ease of handling all need to be considered. Do you really want a lens recommendation for one specific trip, or are you trying to decide on your one-and-only long lens? Do you already own several lenses, and are just adding another focal length to your equipment, or is this your first and only "big gun?" Before purchasing any long lens I think you should decide as specifically as possible what subjects you want to photograph with this lens, and how often you're really going to use it. Subject size and approachability dictate focal length to a great degree. There is a vast difference between photographing small song birds and working elk in Yellowstone. There is also a big difference in shooting landscapes versus taking the occasional mammal photo trip. You need to determine just where your major interest lies, and then look at the other factors. Cost is an obvious one, and long lenses range from a low of about $300 to a high of over $10,000. Only you can decide what you want to spend, but for a once-in-a-lifetime trip you should know that almost every lens made can be found for rent. Several hundred dollars spent on a rental fee for a great lens might be small compared to the cost of purchasing one and rarely using it again. Let's look at long lenses by focal length, starting with 300mm. Shorter focal lengths are readily available, and most photographers own quality 80-200mm zooms already. Three hundred millimeter lenses can be divided into the long end of telephoto zooms, the normal speed 300mm f4 lenses, and the fast f2.8 versions. What are the pros and cons of each? Telephoto zooms include Nikon's new 70-300mm ED, and Canon's 75-300mm and 100-300mm lenses. There are also a whole slew of off-brand lenses of roughly the same focal length range. All of these lenses share some common traits: they are quite compact, very light weight and reasonably priced. Compact size is a blessing today if you're traveling by air — read Joe Van Os' column on airline travel hassles. Light weight is a mixed point as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the lens is easier to carry, but its light weight and its small mass means it's susceptible to wind problems. I've seen many photographers with these small lenses mount them on the lightest Gitzo carbon-fiber Mountaineer tripod. The slightest breeze makes the combination tremble, resulting in unsharp photos. This brings up another question to consider: where do you plan on photographing? Wild places or city parks? Rough conditions or mild locations? I would suggest that if you're planning on photographing primarily landscapes and not working in really rough conditions, then you will be happy with one of these zooms. Why? These lenses are optically best when closed down several stops to around f11 or so, just where you would be for a lot of scenic photography. None of these lenses has a revolving tripod collar, which I think is an absolute necessity for critter photography, but is not needed for scenics. However, the big drawback for non-landscape use is that most of them are already quite slow wide open; almost every one has a maximum aperture of f5.6 at the 300mm 
end. If the lenses were absolutely sharp wide open, and you
were working nearby animals in bright sun, then all would be
fine. But — and this is a major "but" — how many birds and
mammals can you photograph with the 300mm focal length?
The answer is larger mammals in Africa, where you can drive right up
to them, and game farm animals under controlled conditions.
Otherwise you'll need a longer focal length lens. Adding a
teleconverter is not an option with most of these telephoto
zooms. The optical quality goes to pieces, plus you lose
features such as autofocus.Obviously the other major problem is lens speed with the converter. Add a 1.4X to an f5.6 lens and you're at f8 wide open. Birds and animals are active early and late in the day, not midday when there is lots of light. An f8 lens means you're restricted to the times of day you photograph or you must always use faster films in order to stop motion. For animal work these lenses simply are not the best answer. What of the 300mm f4 lenses? These are one step up in price, size, weight and bulk. However, both the Canon and Nikon versions are made of special glass, hence sharp wide open. While larger than the telephoto zooms, they are still easy to carry and use. Their f4 wide open apertures mean you can add a 1.4X teleconverter to get a usable 420mm f5.6 lens. Add a 2X converter, and you'll most likely end up with marginal results, partially from the lack of shooting speed. In terms of price these lenses are about three times what a tele-zoom costs. Here's the quick question: how often will you use a 300mm? A fair amount on all sorts of subjects, both landscapes and critters? If so, I would recommend purchasing one of these lenses. But I think you still need something longer if you're going to do much bird and mammal work. Then there are the 300mm f2.8 "boys." Now we're in another world of weight, around 6-7 pounds, and priced at about $4000-$5000. Yes, they are extremely sharp but for that price they should be. If you want to use AF on mammals, these are some of the quickest responding lenses around. However, you're still at 300mm with all the restrictions of that focal length. You can add converters to these lenses with extremely good results, but not just any converter will do. You need the ones made by Canon or Nikon for best results, so factor in another $750-$1000 expense. If you're primarily a landscape photographer, a 300mm f2.8 is overkill as you'll never use it wide open. Why pay for, and carry, all that speed and bulk if you're always working stopped down to f11 or f16? That brings me to the 400mm focal length. Nikon and Canon both currently offer only one prime lens in this length, a 400mm f2.8. Would I buy one? No, not for field work. These are great lenses, optically superb, but try to carry one. The Nikon version weighs in at close to 11 pounds — and that's without a camera body or the tripod you would need to support this "puppy." Is 400mm long enough for animal work? If it were, I would strongly suggest getting a 300mm f2.8 and a 1.4X, since then you would effectively have two lenses which altogether would cost less than the 400mm f2.8 alone. These 400s are great if you're working from a vehicle, don't have long walks through airports, and are big enough to carry such bulk. One of my questions about such long fast lenses is how often you will actually shoot them wide open. Photograph a deer head-on with a 400mm wide open at f2.8 and the eyes will be sharp while everything else is out of focus. Normally you'll stop down some no matter what. So why pay for the speed? Actually I can think of one reason: viewing light. I notice that the older I become, the dimmer the world seems to be. The 400mm focal length is where I would consider an off-brand lens if price were my biggest concern. Both Sigma and Tokina make good quality 400mm f5.6 lenses. Don't expect these to be as rugged as a Nikon or Canon, but they yield good results if treated carefully. This brings me to 500mm lenses and now we're getting up to really big focal lengths. In fact, if I could only have one really long lens, this focal length would be my choice, particularly since I'm a Nikon shooter. The Nikon 500mm AF-S is f4 wide open, and plenty fast enough for most animal work. Five hundred millimeters is long enough for larger birds, and you can add a 1.4X teleconverter to get a 700mm f5.6 for smaller subjects. Canon's 500mm is an f4.5, which means you lose AF compatibility when you add a converter, but I would 
still go with this focal length. After all, it's not that
often you need an AF 700mm lens. As an all-around long lens
for birds, mammals and the occasional scenic, I think a
500mm is the best compromise between size, weight, and focal
length.Why not a 600mm f4? These are incredible lenses once you get them there. Their sheer size and weight are their main drawbacks, besides their cost, that is. If you plan on working birds exclusively, then I would consider one, especially if you live someplace like Florida where you'll do a lot of shooting. For most of us this is almost too specialized a focal length. In the Eastern US, 600mm can at times be too long a focal length, due to the fact that it's not open country. Imagine photographing a small mammal such as a woodchuck. You're so far from the subject that all too often there's a shrub or bush between you and the woodchuck. Use a slightly shorter focal length, add converters if needed, and spend the difference in cost on a sturdier tripod or another Joseph Van Os Photo Safari. In truth, a better tripod will make almost any long lens into a better optic. If you insist on using the lightest tripod made, or on handholding that big lens, then I would urge you to buy the cheapest lens around. After all, if you will not be able to see the quality results on film, then why pay for the glass? If you're going to spring for the best Nikon and Canon equipment, do yourself a favor and get that sturdy tripod and solid ball head. And use them religiously. Can't afford a new Nikon or Canon? One advantage of both of these brands is their popularity. There are a lot of good used lenses floating around on the used market. For Nikon shooters who don't mind manual focusing I would look at two bargains: the 400mm f3.5 ED, which is one of the sharpest long lenses ever made, and the ED 500mm f4 P. The 400mm is quite fast for its focal length, and works great with the non-E Nikon teleconverters. Add a 1.4X and you have a 560mm f5, while a 2X gives an 800mm f7. The 500mm P Nikon lens is a real "sleeper." There are lots and lots of them around, as it was one of the most popular long lenses Nikon offered. Many have been traded in for the newer autofocus models, so they're pretty easy to find used. The lens is very sharp wide open, and works great with a 1.4X converter for an effective 700mm f5.6 lens. Now that's a lot of focal length! By the way, I've owned both of these lenses and recommend them from personal experience. Canon owners will need to do a bit more searching as long focal length EOS lenses are not that common, but still you can find the 300mm f4 and 500mm f4.5 lenses given a little time. The perfect lens? Well, it's yet to be made. Of course we all want a 20- 600mm f2.8 that also labels slides. Just don't hold your breath waiting for this one. 
Special NoteStarting in our November Photo Safaris magazine, John Shaw will answer readers' questions in his bi-monthly column regarding equipment and photography techniques in the field. He can be contacted via e-mail at this address: johnshaw@photosafaris.com. Due to the anticipated volume of inquiries John cannot answer questions individually, but he will cover a wide range of topics within each column. The new columns will come on-line November 1, 1999, January 1, 2000, followed by March 1, May 1, July 1 and September 1. We look forward to hearing from you. |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
Joseph Van Os Photo Safaris, Inc. P.O. Box 655, Vashon Island, Washington USA 98070 Phone: (206) 463-5383 Fax: (206) 463-5484 Email: info@photosafaris.com Copyright © 2008, Joseph Van Os Photo Safaris, Inc. |