Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slimngrizzly

Waterfowl photography?

8 posts in this topic

This has maybe been asked a hundred times, but for those of you who photograph ducks and birds a lot, what size lenses are you using most often? Do most of you use auto or manual focus? Thanks for any tips!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I'll jump in here,, I am new to bird photography, but have the gear (or so I'm told) for bird photography,, I use a 100-400 L series lens,, I'm told it's a dandy lens for birds. I have taken a few with it, and was pleased, when I get home, I'll try to post what I've managed thus far.

Sue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a 300mm F/2.8 with a 1.4x TC... Its not always the reach, but more about ones ability to adapt to the surroundings and have knowledge of the species you are photographing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slimn, a minimum of 400mm is generally considered necessary for good avian photography, but as buzz said, developing excellent woodscraft skills and patience can be an effective substitute for very expensive long lenses.

Also, many of those who photograph birds and want longer and longer lenses are focused on portraits of the birds in which the bird fills a large part of the frame. Those can be very nice, and take a bit of time to learn how to capture effectively. More attractive to most regular folks, however, are images with the bird/animal not so large in the frame, pictures that show a lot of the creature's environment. We call those environmental portraits, and they are most effective when the environment is attractive in its own right and bathed in wonderful light.

The zoom Sue mentioned is a dandy for tight portraits and environmental compositions alike, and is tremendously adaptable. Many have been the times I've been able to zoom out and widen the view at a moment's notice and get a prettier picture than I could have if I'd stayed at 400mm. There are lots of good zooms out there by several different manufacturers.

What's your price range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigma 150-500mm, about 99% of time at 500mm. Always on auto focus, manual focus - at least for me - is way to slow to get birds in flight in focus.

I'd love to have the Nikon 200-400, but since it costs about twice what I paid for my truck it's going to have to wait a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using a 100-400 and happy with it and depending on what I'm shooting will determine manual or auto focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the pointers! I have a Canon with a 75-300mm. I was out taking pics of cans and ringbills over the weekend and I was using a cheaper 2x teleconverter. My auto focus didnt work with it... and all the shots I got were JUST out of a sharp focus. It was very disappointing! Anyway Im guessing thats what I get for trying to get "closer" with a cheap add-on! I would have had some beauties with the regular lens on auto focus im guessing. Live and learn I guess.

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Slimn,

Where in West Central MN are you? I do a good deal of waterfowl photography (when I get the chance). I'd be happy to compare notes with you.

My guess is that you are probably dealing with a combination of issues that are leading to sharpness degradation that you're reporting. One is the lens/converter combo, extenders tend to magnify any imperfections in the lens and degrade sharpness. Most reports I've heard on 2x extenders is that they degrade image quality fairly significantly. I shoot with a 100-400L and sometimes use a 1.4x adapter and notice some degradation in image quality. Also, it can be difficult to achieve and maintain focus on moving birds, especially when you are focusing manually. As though these two factors weren't enough, it can also be difficult to maintain the type of stability necessary to obtain crisp images at the longer focal lengths you are describing. Were you using a tripod for the shots? If not, this would be my first suggestion...if you have one available.

Like I said, I'd by happy to trade notes sometime. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • let me know what ya think. we also use this process with turtle!!!!!!!! but somehow moms turtle is always just a bit better!!!!
    •   Those folks in the Middle East got rich, starting in the 70's with the oil embargo and the take over of the oil companies in the Mid East.   The disintegration of Lebanon and the Iran revolution were steps in the progression of Radical Islam in the Middle East which, through modern media, has begun to spread world wide.     The middle east strain of radical Islam has evolved their tactics and adopted terrorism as a main line tactic in that period.    It is aggravated by the great division and conflict between Shia with Iran as their leader, and Sunni with the Saudis.     Throughout history Islam has gone expansionist and violent, either as a cause or an excuse.  Christianity did the same thing back in history, but it has been quite a while.    That's what happened.   At least that is the way I see it.      
    • He was confused. "Last night in Sweden" was probably a chickpea film he watched the other night at Mara Lago with the boys. 
    • And yet through the 60's,70's and 80's there was a broad wave of conversion to Islam because it was a religion of peace.  You didn't see Lou Alcindor, Cassius Clay, Mike Tyson (save the ear thing) Reggie Rutland and a host of other prominent athletes doing terrorist things or going on jihads.    So what exactly happened that over a decade a religion went from peaceful to radical and what's to say another one won't follow suit when history already shows it has in the past? 
    • the only way I was not happy with rabbit was when I smoked some.  did that with a "tree rat" and that I thought was good smoked.  enjoy your feast!!
    • How about supply and demand? People are coming here because there is a demand for them and in the free market that Goppers have been preaching for half a century at least the level of immigration will be determined by the need for them. Government should merely be responsible for providing the mechanism that they need to become citizens in a timely manner that satisfies the marketplace.     
    •   That is my concern regarding wild rabbit. I don't want to dry the hell out of them so grilling is out. Gonna try Smurfy's  recipe tonight. I haven't eaten  rabbit in ages but remember them being tasty.    Appreciate and thanks to all that responded
    • @Jim Uran they are coming out with bigger batteries. I am going to get the 6 amp batteries and you can get  a car charger to keep your batteries charged up. I am running 3 amp batteries but I have 3 of them
    •   That's what I thought. Thank you for being honest once.     How do you figure? The average minimum wage in Mexico is around $5.00 per day so my guess would be that anything above that would be prosperous to those people.     That's the cost of freedom, and it's not a tax. That sounds like fake news.     So, your above point is moot. Got it.     Who wants to increase immigration? Allowing immigrants to become legal through the political process and the law is the exact answer to the problem that I am proposing but you just won't see it because Trump told you you need a wall. Open your eyes.     You and I know that "stealing" from your fellow man is a completely different situation than the victim less crime of crossing a political border. You admitted you would do it too if you needed to. Needing a coat or a better car is the reason most cross the border in the first place. That argument doesn't apply unless you passed laws to make it impossible to get a car or a coat but that's not the case, is it? You're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those illegals you hate would never be able to enter at all or it would take many years, sometimes decades and the costs would be prohibitive. I don't condone the actions but they are living in poverty and I can see how you would take that chance in order to provide a better life for your family.     Now it's your turn.
    • those cracker spreads are real good!
  • Our Sponsors