Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Rules: One new topic per day FM Forums | Nature & Wildlife | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2009 · Low light wildlife photography

DavidHall Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #1 · Low light wildlife photography If I want to shoot wildlife in low light, what is my best lens option? I have a 70-200 2.8. It has been recommended that I get an 85mm 1.2, but I think that is most often mentioned as a portrait lens. And, since it is almost $2,000 I don't want to be wrong. Any thoughts? Thanks Nov 04, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Tim Kuhn Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Low light wildlife photography 300/2.8 L IS is what I lust for. I don't know anybody that has used that lens that hasn't absolutely loved it. Tim Nov 04, 2009 at 02:39 PM

martines34 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Low light wildlife photography You might want to try a 135 mm - f 2 but then I don't know what camera body you are using. Nov 04, 2009 at 02:54 PM

Thomas Sanders Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #4 · Low light wildlife photography Tim Kuhn wrote: 300/2.8 L IS is what I lust for. I don't know anybody that has used that lens that hasn't absolutely loved it. Tim +1 Tom Nov 04, 2009 at 02:59 PM

bht-kevin Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #5 · Low light wildlife photography 300/2.8 IS is my dream lens. How low-light and how long are your shots? Nov 04, 2009 at 04:59 PM

CarlG Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Low light wildlife photography Reach is a major consideration, too. Not sure why you are looking to an 85 1.2 and 70-200 for wildlife? Even the 300 2.8 may be a bit on the short side, depending upon what you are shooting. You also fail to mention the type of wildlife you want to shoot in low light. While a 2.8 lens is the best option, the longer lenses (500 & 600) tend to be f/4's. All well and good if you have a body that can handle higher ISO's with minimal noise. Then you would need to consider a solid tripod and head that can handle the weight of the longer telephotos. You can handhold these longer lenses in good light but real low light is tough. Too many variables for a blanket answer, I would think. Nov 04, 2009 at 05:48 PM

Martin Good Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · Low light wildlife photography I am lucky to have a 300 2.8 and a 500 F4. I recall last winter here in Geneva where and when the light was low I used the 300 almost exclusively unless on real good sunny days which were few and far between. Distance to the subject is quite important though and you got to get close with the 300. A lot depends on your subjects too and their size and whether they are moving fast like small birds seem to be always doing or a bigger animal like a deer which may stay stationary for a few moments and let you get the shot and which you can fill the frame from a longer distance. Martin Nov 04, 2009 at 06:32 PM

Slinky Pickle Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #8 · Low light wildlife photography If you have a crane to carry it around you could try this one. You could use that same crane to carry your wallet too http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3 Nov 04, 2009 at 08:38 PM

	end FM Forums | Nature & Wildlife | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?