# Is it perfect for WildLife?



## aq_mishu (May 22, 2009)

I just got a Sony G Lense 70-300. Now can I go for wild Life?? Actually I need a good zooming since I cant go too close of the subject. 

Also please advice me, how long it can zoom (say i want to keep a tiger's head only)?? I mean the distance between me and subject at this situation??

Mishu~


----------



## NateS (May 22, 2009)

aq_mishu said:


> I just got a Sony G Lense 70-300. Now can I go for wild Life?? Actually I need a good zooming since I cant go too close of the subject.
> 
> Also please advice me, how long it can zoom (say i want to keep a tiger's head only)?? I mean the distance between me and subject at this situation??
> 
> Mishu~



If you want to fill the frame with a tiger's head in the wild....a 300mm will probably get you eaten.  If you are talking about zoo type pictures....300 will be as long as you need for 90% of the stuff and you'll find yourself on the 70mm end a lot too.  As to how far to fill a tiger head with a 300mm.....I'd venture to say roughly 20 feet...maybe 25 tops.

If you are shooting out in the actual wild, you'll quickly find that while you can get a lot of nice shots with a 300mm.....you'll wish it was longer often too.

Oh, and if you have the lens....then why are you asking us?  Put the lens on your camera, go outside and find an object about the size of a tiger head, and see how far away you can be and still fill the object in the viewfinder.


----------



## aq_mishu (May 22, 2009)

well, for a guidance, actually for such venture... i mean to take a tiger's action from a safe distance,(Not in zoo) what whould be my focal length/zoom??

In this lense, i saw a guidance number saying in ft and meter. there before infinity, it is 50ft. means what??

Mishu~


----------



## NateS (May 22, 2009)

aq_mishu said:


> well, for a guidance, actually for such venture... i mean to take a tiger's action from a safe distance,(Not in zoo) what whould be my focal length/zoom??
> 
> In this lense, i saw a guidance number saying in ft and meter. there before infinity, it is 50ft. means what??
> 
> Mishu~



I'd be shocked to find anybody trying to photograph a tiger from a safe distance with anything less than 500-600mm possibly with teleconverters as well.  I know that you wouldn't catch me trying to photograph them with a 300mm lens.  I would say as a minimum you need to be looking closer to the range of a 300mm f2.8 with 1.7-2.0tc for that kind of shooting.


----------



## farmerj (May 22, 2009)

I'd GLADLY take a picture of a tiger with a 300 mm lens.  Even my f/4.5 Nikkor.
















Just so long as there were bars between us, or it's stuffed.

I definitely want some serious long glass.  A 500mm f/4 with at least a 1.4X converter.

Most times I can get within about 60-70 feet of most wildlife.  A lot of the times I am crawling on the ground in full camo just to get a picture though.  It can take up 2 hours to get into position to get a picture though.  And that's IF the animal is not taking off on you.


----------



## aq_mishu (May 22, 2009)

so for safe shooting on WILD, i need 500 fixed from Sony or compatible other say 300-800 or more (not 35mm format, digital format...) right??

And what about that guidance number??? on my lens's near to the focal ring stating 50ft...

actually using this 300, i can start... but finally i will need extreem wild actions... thus i have to prepare from today (budget and equipment sourcing)... thus the advice... 

well, just let me know.. should i consider 300-800?? or just the reflex 500?? or yup... the more... the better....


----------



## farmerj (May 22, 2009)

It really depends what you are willing to do.

For dangerous game like a tiger or bear, For me, it had best be in a zoo or stuffed.

Otherwise, I want an ubber long glass and someone watching my back with a big cannon like a .460 Weatherby Magnum.


For wildlife like deer, squirrel, turkey and other small game that is truly in the wild.  It's about stalking skills and how you can get to them.

I happen to spend a lot of time in full camo from head to toe belly crawling to get some of the wild life pictures I get.  50 feet from a truly wild wood duck is pretty good.  30-50 feet from a wild deer in farm country is also a heart stopper.

Think of it as Archery season year round, but with a camera instead of a bow.


----------



## aq_mishu (May 22, 2009)

everything is ok... i can manage all camo and others... all my trouble is with exact lense for distance coverage... i'm gonna start with 300... let's see... if i fail, then i have to go for more... but then again i will prefer variable... instead of fixed... in bangladesh, i have plenty of scope still... just the proper cam+lens for distance cover... and camo is okey for me here... so for 35mm equivalant, for NOT the head only... but action... say a sitting duck, a deer running, a tiger's movement, etc... what should be... i mean the mm??? upto 800??? or 800+

Anyway... let's check a bit... using the 300, let's make so try... then i'll post here again... in this same thread...


----------



## aq_mishu (May 25, 2009)

guys, it's strange to me... my cousine is using a Sony DSC Handy Cam with 60x optical zoom. I found his lens saying f1.8, 1.8-108mm. Well, 108/1.8 = 60x. Fine... but max focal length is 108mm right??? Now today i tried with his and my SLR. both on tripod, same place, same distance, and same target. but at 108mm (i mean full optical zoom, i.e. 60x), the picture was much more near than my SLR's full zoom (means 300mm). So i need an explanation plz....

Yup, my one is not VDO cam, but still SLR. but i need the explanation on 108mm's zoom and 300mm's zoom. it was supposed to be at least half of mine... but how it could catch longer distance than my one???

guys, please... need explanation...

Guys... Need the reply.... plz...


----------



## aq_mishu (Jun 24, 2009)

guys, i now have a a200. I am planning to get a A700 or A900. I have a SAL70300G and no way to buy new lens but i can buy a new camera. I cannot loose the zoom coverage that i am getting now. like from a certain distance, i can fill the frame with a human head. but from same distance, can i have the same result if i use A900. My problem is, i can't loose the zoom i am getting. so A700/A900???

Mishu~


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

The Sony a900 is a full-frame CCD ... so you will lose the apparent focal length you would get from all other Sony models.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

The captured image size will vary according to the size of the sensor.

Video cameras have a smaller sensor ... same with a number of P&S cameras.


----------



## icassell (Jun 28, 2009)

I just got back from a couple of weeks in Alaska.  I was about 300 yards away from these wild grizzly bear cubs (mom was just to the right of this image) and I certainly wouldn't want to be this close to a wild tiger.  This is with my Sigma 100-300mm f4 and a 1.4X telextender fully extended on my Canon 30D.  Note how noisy it is ... I had to blow it up significantly.  The ISO was at 200. For that kind of game, I'd want a much longer lens. (I want one anyway  )







Ian


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

Shooting dangerous wildlife ... I would say to have at least 600mm of focal length.

Your 300mm will be aprox 450mm on the a200.
On the a900 it will be 300mm.

A 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter ... would be better.


----------



## icassell (Jun 28, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> A 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter ... would be better.



The  problem is that a 400mm f/2.8 is a damn big lens to run with when the tiger starts chasing you :lmao:


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2009)

... yeah but if you drop it the Tiger cannot resist the urge to take a couple of shots with such a awesome lens.

Realistically ... most photographers cannot afford such a lens.

A good quality Teleconverter is the solution.


----------



## icassell (Jun 28, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> ... yeah but if you drop it the Tiger cannot resist the urge to take a couple of shots with such a awesome lens.



Drop a 400mm f2.8? Are you crazy? I'd rather be eaten.

Ian


----------



## lostprophet (Jun 28, 2009)

Get a 500mm F4 lens
Get a Wimberley II tripod head
Get a Gitzo series 3 or 5 set of legs
And do what ALL pro wildlife photographers do...
Sit in a LandRover and shoot out the window, that way you can get as close as you want and the animals won't see you as a human and not think of you as a threat

Just ask Andy Rouse, Simon King, Jonathan & Angela Scott


----------



## aq_mishu (Jun 29, 2009)

guys... thanks for all the info... I have decided to stay with A200 and if i need to change, then A700.

Well, for beautiful portraits, landscape, what should i use?? 50mm prime?? or 35mm prime??? Camera is still A200. And ohhh... if i use a 200mm macro, then what will be the effect in case of portrait?? For landscape, i can use my normal 18-70 then... And right at this moment, i am trying my best to work with sal70300G. Later on, i'll try to get a longer lense from sigma... say a 300-800mm. But currently, i need a macro... but also i wish to work on landscape/portrait...

Mishu~

PS.  About the chasing of tiger, I'll get my cam, try to climb up a tree... because here in bangladesh, tigers cannot climb tree... if i fail, i'll sve the camera... and ready to surrender to the tiger... :lmao:


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 29, 2009)

70 - 135mm (or 50 - 90mm APS-C) is considered the focal range for a portrait lens.

Using a Macro for other than macro should be OK. A Macro it tuned to have it's best focus at it's minimum ... as opposed to most lenses where the optimum focus is at infinity.

I use my 50mm Macro for anything.


----------



## Big (Jun 29, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> A 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter ... would be better.




Are those 2x teleconverters any good? I was wondering if anyone has used them and if they work well without loosing image quality. Thanks


----------



## lostprophet (Jun 29, 2009)

Big said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > A 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter ... would be better.
> ...




yep they are the worst thing you can buy :er:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y-bad-quality-photos-i-used-2x-converter.html


----------



## Big (Jun 29, 2009)

lostprophet said:


> yep they are the worst thing you can buy :er:
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y-bad-quality-photos-i-used-2x-converter.html






Haha, so I think what your trying to tell me is that they suck...


----------



## icassell (Jun 29, 2009)

I have a 1.4X and a 2X sigma EX series teleconverter.  I really like the 1.4x.  The 2x is OK, but it slows your lens down 2 stops and softens things up a bit.  As with any lens, the quality of the teleconverter is critical.  If they are good glass and are well matched to your lens, they do a good job.  I  have stacked my 1.4 and my 2 together with my Sigma 100-300mm f4 occasionally ... makes for a really slow 840mm lens, but it does work.

Ian


----------



## Big (Jun 29, 2009)

icassell said:


> I have a 1.4X and a 2X sigma EX series teleconverter.  I really like the 1.4x.  The 2x is OK, but it slows your lens down 2 stops and softens things up a bit.  As with any lens, the quality of the teleconverter is critical.  If they are good glass and are well matched to your lens, they do a good job.  I  have stacked my 1.4 and my 2 together with my Sigma 100-300mm f4 occasionally ... makes for a really slow 840mm lens, but it does work.
> 
> Ian


Wow thanks a lot, I'll look into a good one when I get my DSLR sometime...


----------



## aq_mishu (Jun 30, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> 70 - 135mm (or 50 - 90mm APS-C) is considered the focal range for a portrait lens.
> 
> Using a Macro for other than macro should be OK. A Macro it tuned to have it's best focus at it's minimum ... as opposed to most lenses where the optimum focus is at infinity.
> 
> I use my 50mm Macro for anything.


 well, if i intend to use a 200mm macro for the same??? or i should get 50mm macro???


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 30, 2009)

You could get a 50mm, or 70mm Macro to use for both portraits and macro.
I think 200mm or 180mm would be too long for portraits.


----------

