While this does not answer you question on which lens to use photographing
birds it is a comment on bird photography in general. Most of this is
probably obvious for photographers more advanced than me. So bear with my
blather please.
Bird photography (for me) was much like eating an artichoke. You have to
work a lot to get a little.
But just as enjoyable none the less. For me to grow in photography,
particularity focus technique it's a very worth while endeavor. I found bird
photography more of a challenge for the photographer than the equipment,
assuming you have high standards for sharpness. The lenses have the
sharpness. But it is in a very narrow slot and extracting that sharpness is
not easy (for me).
The long lenses you mention have an extremely limited depth of field even
when stopped down.
This is further compounded by the typically slower nature of the longer
lenses (unless you have unlimited resources $$$). But even if you choose to
add cash you must deal with amplification of movements - the slightest
movement on the body lens side is a large movement swing on the "image
capture area" side. On the longer lenses its hard to get a sharp shot (FOR
ME) using 2 tripods (one on the lens and one on the body ) on a
stationary subject. Shooting woodchucks in my backyard with a 300mm 2.8 at
20 feet I only had a depth of field that made it difficult to have their
nose, eyes and ears sharp. A distance of less than 2 inches! This was a full
head and shoulders portrait. However given enough film and carrots - I got
my shot, and made an new friend for several years. Of course I now have
thousands of woodchuck photos. Only about a dozen of which I consider
publication quality and only one of which was published. Depth of field
shallow.
I spent an afternoon photographing ducks - a large subject as far as birds
go - landing and taking off at a pond using a tripod and shoulder stock only
to find 2 sharp photos (by my standard - tack sharp) out of 72 shot. I was
using ASA 400 in full sunshine using a 300mm F2.8 lens at about F5.6.
After a that day I gave up my attempts to "catch" the bird (obvious to a
more advanced photographer Im sure) and settled on letting the bird fly into
my pre-focus zone. Sit and wait as opposed to stalking. That helped quite a
bit especially with small birds. I gave up my self image as a sharp shooter
and became a mediator.
A feeder in my back yard again proved my spray and pray focus on the fly
was less rewarding than knowing the bird's approach to safety.
Both my subjects a Blue Jay and a Cardinal would stop on a particular tree
limb and scope out the area (for cats I assume) before proceeding to the
feeder. Knowing where they would land made all the difference in the world.
I might consider a 300mm and use a 2x converter if the lens is fast. The
advantage is (IMO) the lens is lighter and had more usefulness in other
photographic applications than you may find with a dedicated 600mm. Of
course if your making your living with this type of photography it make
sense to have a dedicated lens.
I found my results with 300mm 2.8 Tokina with a 1.4 X converter are far
sharper (visible to the eye on a print) then a fixed 400mm Sigma.
Of course the 300mm and 1.4X converter cost 4 times the price of the 400mm!
Even with a 2x converter the 300 multiplied by 2 to 600 was sharper and
faster than the Sigma 400 multiplied with a 1.4 converter.
It seemed to me stretching the ability of a top notch lens with a converter
produced better results and performance than 2 lesser priced dedicated
lenses (if you have those kinds of choices available to you).
Your mileage may vary!
Good luck on one of the more challenging aspect of wildlife photography.
Tom
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|