BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Michele N. Yamrick
 

Long Lenses....I just don't get it!


Okay, so I'm not 'up' on how some things work....I want a wildlife lens. I want to be able to take a good, well very good, shot of say, a bald eagle, from 'way the heck over here', when the bird is 'way the heck over THERE'. In my area, there is a huge lake, with a nest, that is not accessible. My best guess on distance from 'me to the nest' would be about between 300 and 400 yards....

Will a Nikon Nikkor 300mm 4.5 AIS do the job? Or do I need to look at bigger?

I just don't know what to choose to give me that serious close shot, without being close at all....


To love this question, log in above
1/29/2008 4:12:38 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  I have the Nikon 80-400 VR and it gets you pretty close, but with eagles "way the heck over there" it probably wouldn't get you in close enough. Even with this lens I have to be fairly close to wildlife to get full frame shots of them.


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 5:11:29 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Thanks for the insight. I wonder, though if this 300mm will take a nice shot, that would be easily cropped to a decent image.....

I wonder too,if a teleconverter combined with the lens would work......

I wonder just a bit too much eh? LOL!


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 5:15:25 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  400 yards is a bit far to hope for anything decent.
Even assuming that you have a high-quality 600 mm prime telephoto and matching 2X teleconverter, the best you could hope for at that distance would be a blurry "spec" obscurred by atmospheric haze.

This photo shot recently was taken at about half that distance with two stacked 2X teleconverters on a 600 mm f-4 (2400 mm).
It was calm (no wind) and clear (no haze) so I was lucky to get this one keeper.


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 6:05:22 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Well, 400 yards, is a guess....but now that you mention it, I guess I need to be a bit more realistic on what can be found to get the shot.

So perhaps, a decent zoom lens, with a converter, and hope for the best then? Trial, error and experiment!


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 6:08:55 PM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Hi Michele,

You own a Nikon D50. This camera sports an imaging chip that measures 15.6mm by 23.7mm. We base everything regarding what is normal and what is telephoto and wide angle on the diagonal measure of your cameraís chip. This measurement is 28.4mm. By convention this camera operates at normal when a lens about 28mm is mounted. When so rigged the image produced appears normal i.e. the human experience.

Letís pretend you have a normal lens mounted and you were able to sneak up on your favorite subject, the eagle. Would you be satisfied if you were able to take pictures at will from a distance of 10 feet? I think so. However your subject is 200 yards away (600 feet) so you are not currently satisfied, you need a lens longer than normal, and you need a telephoto.

Now assume 600 ft. is about the average for sneaking up on a vigilant eagle. If you were to mount a lens that provided 2x (two times) magnification, one that cuts in two the subject distance, you would need a 56mm focal length lens. Now the bird will appear as if he were only 300 ft. away.

If you mounted a 4x lens, one that quarters the distance, you would need a 112mm focal length. Now the bird will appear as if he were 150 ft. away.

If you mount an 8x lens, thatís a 225mm, the apparent subject distance is cut to 75 ft.

Now we round at bit (it makes no difference).

If you mount a 16x lens, thatís a 500mm, the apparent subject distance is 37 Ĺ ft.
If you mount a 32x lens, thatís 1000mm, the apparent distance becomes 18 ľ ft.
If you mount a 64x lens, thatís 2000mm, the apparent distance becomes 9 1/3 ft.
All being equal you would be very happy with a 2000mm.
Because they are super expensive itís OK to wish for a 1000mm and crop the image using PhotoShop or PaintShop etc.

Donít pay me any mind, I dispense only marginal technical gobbledygook
Alan Marcus, Anaheim, CA
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 6:18:07 PM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Hi Michele,

You own a Nikon D50. This camera sports an imaging chip that measures 15.6mm by 23.7mm. We base everything regarding what is normal and what is telephoto and wide angle on the diagonal measure of your cameraís chip. This measurement is 28.4mm. By convention this camera operates at normal when a lens about 28mm is mounted. When so rigged the image produced appears normal i.e. the human experience.

Letís pretend you have a normal lens mounted and you were able to sneak up on your favorite subject, the eagle. Would you be satisfied if you were able to take pictures at will from a distance of 10 feet? I think so. However your subject is 200 yards away (600 feet) so you are not currently satisfied, you need a lens longer than normal, and you need a telephoto.

Now assume 600 ft. is about the average for sneaking up on a vigilant eagle. If you were to mount a lens that provided 2x (two times) magnification, one that cuts in two the subject distance, you would need a 56mm focal length lens. Now the bird will appear as if he were only 300 ft. away.

If you mounted a 4x lens, one that quarters the distance, you would need a 112mm focal length. Now the bird will appear as if he were 150 ft. away.

If you mount an 8x lens, thatís a 225mm, the apparent subject distance is cut to 75 ft.

Now we round at bit (it makes no difference).

If you mount a 16x lens, thatís a 500mm, the apparent subject distance is 37 Ĺ ft.
If you mount a 32x lens, thatís 1000mm, the apparent distance becomes 18 ľ ft.
If you mount a 64x lens, thatís 2000mm, the apparent distance becomes 9 1/3 ft.
All being equal you would be very happy with a 2000mm.
Because they are super expensive itís OK to wish for a 1000mm and crop the image using PhotoShop or PaintShop etc.

Donít pay me any mind, I dispense only marginal technical gobbledygook
Alan Marcus, Anaheim, CA
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 6:18:07 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  I don't think your theories or calculations are lining up with actually looking at an eagle from 200 yards.


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 9:48:02 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  And this is why I prefer photographing Pigeons and Seagulls...they just walk right up to you if you eat a sandwich on a park bench...you can use a 50mm lens for those guys and they easily fill up the WHOLE frame.


To love this comment, log in above
1/29/2008 11:45:34 PM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Gregory,
To change the relative size of an image we can move closer or we can switch lenses. If we photograph an eagle from a distance of 300 ft. using a 25mm lens, the image of the eagle at the focal plane will be tiny. Likely the image will be so tiny that the bird will not be recognizable. If we choose to double the image size we have two choices, a. get closer b. switch to a longer lens.

If we switch to a 50mm lens the image will be enlarged by a factor of two (2x). Had we chosen not to switch, we need to half the distance, moving forward, at the 150 ft. mark, the 25mm yields the same size bird image. However the two images are not identical, changing subject distance changes prospective.

Each doubling of the focal length results in a 2x change in magnification. Thus:
If 25mm is normal
50mm = 2x
100mm = 4x
200mm = 8x (equivalent to a view using a pair of binoculars)

Michele, I advise you to invest in spotting scope. You know, the ones used by shooters to check their targets. You can get one at a sporting goods shop. I use a Nikon Spotting scope. Get the straight body design; avoid models with the eyepiece set-off at an angle. My scope Nikon RAII, has a zoom eyepiece 15x ~ 45x. You can mount a scope on a tripod and just hold the camera against the scopeís eyepiece. If you search the web, you can purchase scope and mounts that will attach (clamp) your camera to the eyepiece. This method will serve you well at a cost you can put up with.

Well, if I eat it, and if it makes me grow larger, I can reach the key; and if makes me grow smaller, I can creep under the door: so either way I'll get into the garden, and I don't care which happens! Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: Lewis Carroll

Alan Marcus, Anaheim, CA (marginal technical gobbledygook)
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 8:14:42 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   I actually own a Nikon D200 now, I upgraded in September of '06....(and now I go, 'oh great, the D300 is out now'....*insert eyeroll*)

Alan, I'm going to read over your responses again, to make certain I understand them....

And I appreciate everyone's answers....

And yes, seagulls are MUCH easier....I had one living on my deck in the Outer Banks. Just open the door, POOF there he was! LOL!


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 8:25:15 AM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Hi agin Michele,

The Nikon D200 chip is 15.8mm height by 23.6mm width diagonal measure is 28.4mm so everthing I said is applicable.

Do consider the spotting scope I love my Nikon Stright body Sky & Earth

Best regards,
Alan Marcus


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 8:45:51 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   I will do that Alan, thanks...by the way love the Lewis Carroll quote....


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 8:56:55 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  I know how things look at 100 yards with 800mm.(real focal length)
Put an eagle 200 yards away with 1000mm, it's not going to look like it's 18 ft away. Slightly smaller sensor or not.


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 10:43:54 AM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Hi Gregory,

You are overlooking what must happen to get to a final print or display image. We must blow-up (enlarge) the image produced by the smaller sensor more than an image produced by a full size 35mm format.

First, your are right, it makes no difference what the film or chip size is, the image size at the focal plane is predetermined by the focal length Ė the object distance Ė object size. These dimensions are dictated by the laws of physics. As you know, the image size will be the same at the focal plane regardless of format size.

However consider this: Letís say the subject is a bird and the image at the focal plane is 12 mm (height). If you are using a camera with a 35mm format dimension (24mm by 36mm) the image height is Ĺ of the frame heigh. If you are going to make a 4x6 print you must blow-up (enlarge) this image 4.23x to make a 4x6 un-cropped.

24 x 4.23 = 101.5mm = 4Ē
36 x 4.23 = 152.3mm = 6Ē

This degree of blow-up carries as to image of the bird i.e. 12mm x 4.23 = bird height becomes 50.76mm on the finished print or display (no cropping).

Now for the smaller sensor 15.6 x 23.7 :

The same lens produces the same image size (12mm bird height) but with this format the 12mm image height almost completely fills the height dimension of the format. To make a 4x6 print we need to blow up this format 6.5x.

15.6 x 6.5 = 101.4mm = 4Ē
23.7 x 6.5 = 154mm = 6.06Ē

Thus the degree of blow-up carries to the birds image and we must apply to the 12mm image
height. Now thatís 12 x 6.5 = bird heiht is 80mm.

In other words the birds image on the finished print (dispay) will be 50mm in height when produced using a 35mm and 80mm in height when we are using a camera with a smaller sensor.

Thus the image ratio between the two is 80/50 which equals 1.6

I tried to tell you that I am a dispenser of technical gobbledygook.

Have a great day!
Alan Marcus


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 11:29:17 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Okay, brainiac that I am, I think I'm going to do this over the weekend: I'll head up to Stephenson Dam, and take a photo at 200mm and 300mm and see what happens.....

Maybe if that bad boy is frozen over enough, I'll just mosey on over there and......*grins*

Shall I post what I come up so we can brainstorm a bit????


To love this comment, log in above
1/30/2008 5:59:33 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Just make sure you do it at 200 yards.


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 12:22:42 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Right, let me pack that yardstick now.

(J/K)


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 7:19:48 AM

 
Jack L. Howdeshell
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/21/2006
  Camouflage and a kayakÖfor those of us that donít have (or in my case, canít afford) big glass, itís the next best thing. :) Paddle right up take a picture, worse case scenario you will have an opportunity for amazing flight shots. Learn where they hang out and get there while they are out visiting and they fly right to you sooner or later. Either way it will take you into some amazing locations others will never see, let alone photograph.

Jack


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 9:39:40 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Or you could travel up north to some places where they've gotten so used to people feeding them that they congregate on the back deck, like grackels.


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 12:35:22 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  I too have utilized the kayak approach with success. Mostly in areas where "drive-by shooters" and day hikers prevail and keep the birds at bay.
A kayak can help you to get closer if your glass doesn't reach beyond the comfort zone of raptors and other skittish critters.
I've used this technique mostly to allow access to remote areas where few have been. Often, I've had birds of prey look down on me in confusion as I came ridiculously close to them while quietly paddling along.
The bad part is that you can't just stop there and start shooting. Not only because of that "set-up time" we all need...but as soon as we modify OUR behavior, our intended subject immediately suspects that something is amiss and takes off and we usually end up with nothing.

Your best bet is to learn what you can about specific locations where your intended quarry frequents (...or even specific birds once you you've been there enough to really know them) and wait for that perfect opportunity when you can satisfactorily capture your quarry with your equipment.

(...or just move to Alaska) :(

Bob


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 2:40:50 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Its cold enough here!!! *laughs* In all honesty, this particular pair, are year round residents. The 'drive by' shooters, have to literally drive down to the boat launch, and even at that, unless you have some serious glass on, you won't even see them.

The other location, hosts 3 year round residents, a mated pair and an immature eagle.

I actually do like the flight shots, for these birds, who are actually rather accustomed to humans in their environs,(its a state park, the dams are used for fishing, boating, swimming....)and they have been known to put on a seriously grand aerobatic show for the public.

Truth be told, if it weren't so darn cold here right now, I would head up there, cross the dam, and set up a blind..then at first light..I'm set *Grins*

Only touchy thing right now, is all of the counted pairs here, are preparing to nest and raise their young this spring...so they won't take too kindly to many intrusions they deem 'too close for comfort.

I am grateful for all suggestions.....

Now if only the weather holds up....I may still head up there this weekend.....


To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 3:12:55 PM

 
Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  I'm actually planning to see if "the eagle has landed" at one of my favorite haunts this Sunday as well.
A guy I met last week said that he'd seen over a dozen bald eagles fishing below a near-by hydro-electric dam. (I've been to this dam many times before but never in winter.)
He said that the birds will roost (out of range of course) on the far side of the spillway and start circling when the sirens would sound in advance of a discharge.
(He called it..."The ringing of the dinner bell.")
The eagles would then swoop into the rising waters to feast upon the gizzard shad that were churned up by the turbines.



To love this comment, log in above
1/31/2008 3:35:36 PM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  Hi, Alan,

I hate to wade into these types of discussions since I don't know if you're being serious or just trolling. But there is a fair bit of misinformation in your posts that should be corrected so wade I shall. Rather than throw up a bunch of meaningless numbers, let's look at a couple of real-world situations.

You said, "You are overlooking what must happen to get to a final print or display image. We must blow-up (enlarge) the image produced by the smaller sensor more than an image produced by a full size 35mm format."

This is untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

Setting aside sensor size, my images are 3,888 x 2,592 so if I print them out at 240 ppi (normal for the lab) I can get a 16x10 print from an uncropped image. Don't think I'll need to "blow up" too many images... Makes no difference if those 10 million pixels come out of a full-frame camera or a camera with a "crop factor".

But you say, 'Ah Ha! My full-frame sensor has a larger sensor area so the bird is going to be bigger within the image, all things being equal!' (That is the only thing I can figure that you're thinking as to why I would have to blow up my images.)

Well, not so fast.

In your first post, you spent a lot of time on "magnification" factor but failed to mention that a full-frame sensor has less "magnification" than the smaller sensors.

What we really need to be discussing is field of view (FOV). At the same distance and same focal length a full-frame sensor has a wider FOV. So the smaller sensor (SF) actually fills the frame to a greater degree than the full-frame sensor (FF) for any given subject. What does that mean in the real world? It means that the image appears closer -- is larger in the frame and image -- is magnified.

With a crop factor of 1.5, the 200mm lens "acts like" a 350mm lens on the smaller-sensor camera.

Converting that to magnification, the FF sensor gives you a 4x (200/50) magnification and the SF sensor gives you a 7x (350/50) magnification.

This is precisely why many nature photographers like the smaller sensor cameras. My 400mmm lens works just like a 640mm lens on my 1.6 crop factor Canon.

Cheers,

RK


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 11:12:49 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Hmmmm that sounded interesting RK.....

So, if I get this lens:
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF

What could I expect out of my Nikon D200??


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 11:36:34 AM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  Hi, Michelle,

Great lens! I have the Canon eq. 70-200 f/2.8L IS/USM and love it. My Nikon friends are equally happy with their Nikkor 70-200s.

The D200 has a crop factor of 1.5, so it is equivalent in field of view to a 350mm lens.

Cheers,

RK


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 12:17:08 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Hmmmmmm....so then if I should decide on the Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED AF-S....

Might be even better eh?

I am liking this idea....

(and yeah, I'm on B&H Photo's site right now scoping out lenses.....its an addiction! LMAO!)


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 12:32:40 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  When shooting any moving subject you need SPEED, I think you'll have far more success with the 70-200 2.8IS than a slow f/5.6. Plus with the 2.8 you can attach a 1.4X and still have autofocus.


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 1:11:01 PM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  What he said. ;^)

Nikon has two levels of lenses; pro and not-pro. I think the pro lenses are designated with the D (e.g., 70-200mm f/2.8D). (Canon's are "L" lenses.)

Anyway, in addition to the speed (lower f-stop available over the entire focal range), the pro lenses are better glass. That is, they're built better (heavier and take a beating better), weather proofed and have better optics. In general, they experience fewer chromatic aberrations, less vignetting, and sharper images at the focal extremes, a common issue with the lesser lenses.

Big difference in price between the 70-200 and 70-300, but equally big difference in lens quality. (Of course, the jury is out about whether there is a commensurate increase in _my_ picture quality....)

To piggyback on what Oliver said, the 70-300 is max f/5.6 at 300mm while the 70-200 is f/2.8 at 200. With the 1.4 extender you get +/- f/4 at 280mm. Not too shabby! And with a 2x extender (I _think_ AF still works) you still get f/5.6 at 400mm.

Hey, what's an extra grand if you're having fun! =^0

Cheers,

RK


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 1:32:01 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Welllllll....

Here is what I'm looking at right now:

Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus with collar.

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8DG-AFS ED-IF

Both unfortunately are out of stock!!! *grrrrrr* BUT...the prices are niiiice...the first one, Import is $809 and change, the second is $1,649 USA

I agree, with birds, you definitely have the need for speed!


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 2:38:55 PM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  And for birds you will be hand-holding most of the time so the VR will come in handy....


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 3:18:06 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   I do believe I'll spending a little of that tax refund on this lens.

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8DG-AFS ED-IF

Yes, that's the verdict.

Now I'm excited!


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 5:24:02 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Here is a link to the lens I've chosen.

I'd like your opinions please.

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 6:05:27 PM

 
Alan N. Marcus   Hi Mr. Stephenson,

First let me assure you that I welcome divergence. Debate helps us all grow and learn. As for me, I have been wrong perhaps ten thousand times or more over my 50+ year career in photo science and manufacturing. Also, let me tell you for sure, itís 50+ years experience - not one yearís experience 50 times. Also, I readily face up when wrong.

After reading your assessment I check through all and I stand firm on every word. That being said, actually we are not far apart on our views. I think rather you have misread some of my remarks and thus I urge you to re-read. Perhaps you will see that we are not that apart on our views.

You think a print made at the native resolution of the camera sensor on a printer set to a specific resolution is not an enlargement.

Consider: A camera images at 2,592 by 3,888. This image is printed at 240 PPI. The print size will be 10 by 16 inches and this print size is independent of the camera chip size.

Now the cameraís lens images onto the surface of a chip. The chip has fixed height and width dimensions. A full size sensor measures 24mm by 36mm. To get a 10 by 16 print the magnification factor is 11.3x.

Should the sensor be smaller -- say 15.8mm by 23.6mm -- the magnification factor is 17.2x.

How can you say this is not an enlargement?

As to the bird image size on the chip:
I said the bird image on each respective chip will be the same height using the same focal length lens. My example was 12mm height for both cameras, same bird, same bird distance, same lens focal length.

I tried to point out that on the print, the image of the bird would be bigger using the smaller chip. In my example it was 80mm in height and for the larger chip it was 50.76mm high. The magnification factor for the bigger chip was 4.23x; for the smaller chip it was 6.5x. I used these values to calculate a crop factor of 1.6.

I did not touch on field of view, I should have.

I did not know that nature photographers preferred a smaller sensor. I would have advised against this as a smaller chip has a higher signal to noise ratio that compromises enlargement. I do agree that smaller chips have a larger crop factor, thus when using lenses intended for the 35mm format, they give a higher apparent magnification.

Mr. Stephenson, please re-read my posts. Also, on matters of photo science I am always serious, never ďtrollingĒ. I do add some levity throwing around the world gobbledygook. Sometime the hard stuff seems like nonsense.

Best regards,
Alan Marcus
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
2/1/2008 10:06:19 PM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  I love P Mode...and really pretty girls. Size Matters...Gooooood Niiiight. Alan 1 everone else (besides me) -1


To love this comment, log in above
2/2/2008 3:11:35 AM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  Good Luck with your trolling, Alan!

Cheers,

RK


To love this comment, log in above
2/2/2008 12:55:12 PM

 
John G. Clifford Jr
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/18/2005
  Long lenses are telescopes that mount to our cameras.

To get an idea of how something would look through a long lens, convert it's focal length in mm, e.g., 200mm, to a magnification power, e.g., 4x (4 power, or 4 times the magnification of the normal eye). The quick and easy way to do this is to divide the focal length by 50, e.g., 300/50 = 6. Then, multiply this number by the 'crop factor' of the sensor. For a Nikon D50, the crop factor (ratio of the sensor to that of a 35mm-sized sensor) is 1.6, so we then multiply 6 x 1.6 which gives us 9.6x magnification... or in other words the same magnification as a set of 10x binoculars.

Now, looking at an eagle 400 yards away with a set of 10x binoculars means you're looking at a very small bird. The eagle now looks to be 40 yards (120') away.

This is why you see nature photographers with 600mm or 1000mm lenses with 2x teleconverters. You'll need a tripod and a high shutter speed, which requires a high ISO setting, to prevent blur.

IF the lighting is good (middle of the day sunny) then you may be able to use a mirror lens (catadioptric). You can buy a 1000mm/10 lens for under $500 that will be very sharp... but you must hold it very steady. BTW, this photo in my gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=4510375&catID=&style=&rowNumber=5&memberID=130725 is a full-size crop of an image taken with a Tamron 350/5.6 SP mirror lens. If I'd been using my Sigma 600/8 mirror lens the quality would have been even better (less cropping).

In short, taking high quality images of an eagle at 400 yards away will be very costly, or it will require nonconventional equipment (a mirror lens) and time and skill, or else it will be impossible.


To love this comment, log in above
2/2/2008 6:09:27 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139

This is the lens I've chosen. I've opted for a fast zoom, because my chances of catching one of these bird actually in flight, is much better, than actually catching a nest shot. Sure, I wanted that, but I'm not about to spend way too much $$ on a lens I won't use all that often. A faster, albeit shorter zoom, is going to serve me much, much better in the long run

This lens will run me about $1,799, and and I think it will be money well spent.


To love this comment, log in above
2/2/2008 6:52:40 PM

 
Alan N. Marcus   A tip of the hat to John Clifford!

Well said!

Alan Marcus


To love this comment, log in above
2/2/2008 10:34:27 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Encyclopedia Alan doesn't troll. He takes a long time to get where he's going, but doesn't troll.
I just think anybody who takes a picture of an eagle that's really 200 yards away with a 1000mm, they're not going to get a picture back that makes them think it looks like it's 16 ft away.


To love this comment, log in above
2/3/2008 12:13:36 AM

 
Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/16/2004
  ummmmmmmmmmm. yeah so I tried to in touch....just wont happen.


To love this comment, log in above
2/3/2008 2:21:54 AM

 
R K Stephenson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/5/2007
  The original question about getting a decent shot from 400 yards was pretty well covered in the first few answers; it isn't something I addressed.

"He takes a long time to get where he's going".

Yes, and he has a little trouble staying on point, too. I think Alan subscribes to the theory that the the longest answer wins.

But none of that excuses the fact that he offered some statements that obfuscate the issue.

Cheers,

RK


To love this comment, log in above
2/3/2008 6:52:56 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8DG-AFS ED-IF

The 'new baby' arrived today.....

Okay now I'm excited....this one heckuva lens!


To love this comment, log in above
2/22/2008 5:15:53 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  300 yards excited?


To love this comment, log in above
2/22/2008 8:46:58 PM

 
Michele N. Yamrick   That rates an *eyeroll* and nothing more.


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 5:47:33 AM

 
Raymond H. Kemp
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/2/2004
  After looking at your gallery Michelle, it appears you have made a great choice with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR lens. I think you were wise not to select a lens based upon one shooting example such as the eagles.

The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is probably the best zoom Nikon has made to date. I too own this lens and I'm stunned at its sharpness!

It is a lens that I don't use day to day due to the type of photojournalism that I shoot, but when the need arises for its use it has performed very well!

Good luck with your endeavors!

Ray


To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2008 8:15:30 AM

 
Michele N. Yamrick  
 
  White Breasted Nuthatch
White Breasted Nuthatch
© Michele N. Yamrick
Nikon D200 Digital...
 
  Another Nuthatch
Another Nuthatch
© Michele N. Yamrick
Nikon D200 Digital...
 
 
Well the weather has been okay for about oh 24 hours now, so I went out with the 'new baby' for a little bit, at my bird feeder....


These images are 'right out of the box', that is, I put the lens on and shot. No real tweaking.

Oh yeah, money WELL spent!!!


To love this comment, log in above
3/11/2008 7:12:57 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.