Costa Rica Birds

May 13 - 23, 2024

a lot of creative images, particularly architecture and landscapes.

Option 3: Bring everything just in case

If you are so dedicated to ‘getting the shot’ no matter how much gear you have to carry, and physical issues aren’t part of the equation, you still don’t want to burden yourself to such an extent that photography isn’t fun anymore. The range of focal lengths, though, that I feel are imporant are 14mm to 500mm, and with a 1.4x teleconverter, the 500mm focal length (on a full frame sensor camera) becomes 700mm.

To give you an idea of what I own and carry when I’m in ‘Option 3’ mode are:

14mm Sigma f/1.8. This is a heavy lens, but the super fast maximum aperture is ideal for shooting in dark environments like cavernous cathe- drals, palaces, theaters, and museums. It’s also great for exaggerating perspective like I did in the landscape of Bryce Canyon, below, in which I placed the lens about 18 inches from the root in the foreground in such a manner that it seems unusually large in contrast with the distant canyon.

16-35mm. If I choose not to carry the 14mm

Sigma, this wide angle zoom is great for most situations.

24-105mm. This is my favorite all-around lens. When I travel, I use this lens about 75% of the time because it’s so versatile and light.

100-500mm. For many years I carried a 70200mm f/2.8 telephoto zoom everywhere I went. In the Canon lineup, the 100-500mm lens is only 4.3 ounces (1/4 pound or 122 grams) heavier than the 70-200mm, and it’s focal length range is incredible. So, I sold the 70-200mm and replaced it with this relatively new Canon lens. I use it for wildlife, portraits, architectual details, and much more. At 3 pounds, it is not a super light lens, but given the 500mm focal length capability, it’s not that heavy, either.

1.4x teleconverter. This small lens is worth its weight in gold. It multiplies the focal length of a lens by 1.4, thus 500mm becomes 700mm. For wildlife and birds, this is a great way to go.

The downside of using a zoom telephoto along with a teleconverter is the loss of light. At 500mm, the maximum aperture of the Canon 100-500mm is f/7.1. Nikon, Sony, and Fuji lenses are comparable. The 1.4x teleconverter causes a one f/stop loss of light, so at 700mm the maximum aperture I’m working with is f/10. In bright sun, this isn’t a problem, but in low light the reduced light entering the camera forces the ISO to be raised, often too high for my comfort zone.

So, for wildlife and bird photography where long lenses are essential, there are three types of lens choices:

Choice one: Use a lens combination like I just described. This is what I do. I shoot with a 100-500mm f/4.5 - f/7.1 telephoto with a 1.4x teleconverter (and sometimes a 2x teleconverter). I went this route because 1) it is affordable, not super heavy, and the volume of the lens allows it to easily fit into a small backpack. When I have to raise the ISO, I know with software like Topaz DeNoise AI and/or Neat Image, I can eliminate the noise while maintaining excellent resolution.

Choice two: Spend a lot of money and buy a super telephoto. A typical 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 costs between $13,000 and $15,000, and they are very, very heavy. If you’ve been body building for years and you’re under 30, you can probably hand hold lenses like this and, with a fast shutter speed, get sharp pictures. But it won’t be fun. A tripod (or bean bag) is essential. Carrying this kind of gear means your photo backpack has to be huge and therefore very heavy, or you need a separate case just for the lens. When I was younger, I carried the Canon 500mm f/f4 telephoto to Africa and Brazil many times. It’s doable. But you pay a big price in joint pain (shoulders, neck, and back) and, of course, money.

Having said that, these are incredible lenses with large apertures and superior glass. If your focus is right-on, the images turn out to be breathtakingly tack sharp.

Choice three: You can buy a third party telephoto from Tamron or Sigma, such as a 150600mm. These are much lighter and significantly less expensive. For example, the Sigma 150-600mm is $1089 at B & H. The reason why these lenses are so much less expensive, as well as much lighter, is because their maximum aperture is smaller than their expensive counter- parts. The Sigma’s maximum aperture at full extension (i.e. when used at the 600mm focal length) is f/6.3, or 1 1/3 f/stops less light than an f/4 lens. That’s the compromise you have to make to save a great deal of money and to carry a much lighter lens. To give you a sense of scale, the Nikon 600mm f/4 telephoto weighs 11.2 pounds, while the Sigma 150-600mm lens weighs 4 pounds.

The Tamron and Sigma lenses are not as tack sharp as the Canon, Nikon, and Sony telephotos. I prefer Sigma optics over Tamron, but both companies produce fine images that will satisfy most photographers.

In the last few years, Canon users have been given another possibility. The new 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11 lenses are truly remarkable. These are fixed aperture telephotos, meaning f/11 is both the maximum and minimum lens aperture. They are exceptionally inexpensive and hand-holdably light. The 600mm f/11 telephoto costs $799 while the 800mm f/11 is $999. They are made to be used on any camera body with the R mount.

To give you a sense of scale again, the 800mm f/11 lens weighs only 2.77 pounds! The small aperture is, indeed, problematic in low light conditions, so raising the ISO for most situations is a given.

I used the Canon 800mm for the polar bear shot below, and in the dim light of a snowfall and an overcast sky, my settings were 1/1250, f/11, and 3200 ISO. With modern cameras, this kind of ISO isn’t nearly the problem it was in the past. Noise has been reduced in the original files, and with Topaz DeNoise AI and then Topaz Sharpen AI, images look quite good. §