Top Geek
Forum Addict
Hey, I said "new topic"
EDIT: hey, new page, too
EDIT: hey, new page, too
Last edited:
Jealous!Hoya NDx400
Which is exactly what I was trying to say. The guy you told us about was an expert as you've mentioned. A lot of experts can get nicely along with a 200mm in nature but that means 1. years of experience 2. dressing yourself like a bush.Yes, I know. People always look at my 50-200 in awe cause it's the size of twenty compacts, and they think I could have photographed Neil Armstrong giving the finger if I'd been around in 1969. And to be fair, it's EFL is 400mm, but even that isn't really long enough for serious birding. My point's just that you can photograph birds with just a 200mm, it's just a lot harder.
I remember a specific shot a small wild bird in NG. It was a close-up with a wide-angle lens, to show the bird within a landscape of its habitat. It was phenomenal and there was no doubt a great deal of expertise and setup involved.
If you are going to become an expert on wildlife, then, by all means, 200mm should be plenty. Otherwise, I'd look into something at least twice as long. Since you're looking at the 200/2.8, you should be able to use a 2X TC to make it a 400/5.6.
My single most redeeming photos were from two church steeples I shot. I had spotted them two weeks earlier, then waited for the proper weather (storm clouds), then did a 45min drive in about 20 to get across town to take the photos. It's so fulfilling to properly scout a location and then get the perfect shot from it!-------------------------------------
New topic... lesson learned about landscape / nature shooting yesterday: I need to start scouting more often so I can have a good location in mind. I was literally seconds too late for the bit of good light during a break in the rain clouds yesterday I waited another half-hour or so before I realized that there wasn't going to be another break before sunset (there wasn't).