Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Prime
Nikkon 50mm f/1.4D vs 50mm f/1.8G?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mike D90" data-source="post: 308514" data-attributes="member: 17556"><p>I sure do not want to try to talk you out of wildlife photography. It, to me, is the only thing that excites me with my photography. What I do want to do, though, is try to help you now using what I have learned so you don't make an expensive mistake.</p><p></p><p>I can tell you for a fact that for most wildlife needs, 300mm is on the very short end of what is recommended and needed. If you shoot with anything shorter, your shots end up being cropped to make them close up shots and you lose all the quality. It is just not worth it and is so frustrating.</p><p></p><p>Using my 70-300mm lens, I have to be no farther than about 4 feet from a normal small size bird, such as a Red Bird (Cardinal), to make the bird fill the viewfinder. It is extremely difficult to get that close to a wild bird. It takes a lot of thought into a feeder and blind setup so you can shoot through a small hole.</p><p></p><p>Those type shots them become <em>"not so natural" </em>looking because they aren't very natural.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mike D90, post: 308514, member: 17556"] I sure do not want to try to talk you out of wildlife photography. It, to me, is the only thing that excites me with my photography. What I do want to do, though, is try to help you now using what I have learned so you don't make an expensive mistake. I can tell you for a fact that for most wildlife needs, 300mm is on the very short end of what is recommended and needed. If you shoot with anything shorter, your shots end up being cropped to make them close up shots and you lose all the quality. It is just not worth it and is so frustrating. Using my 70-300mm lens, I have to be no farther than about 4 feet from a normal small size bird, such as a Red Bird (Cardinal), to make the bird fill the viewfinder. It is extremely difficult to get that close to a wild bird. It takes a lot of thought into a feeder and blind setup so you can shoot through a small hole. Those type shots them become [I]"not so natural" [/I]looking because they aren't very natural. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Prime
Nikkon 50mm f/1.4D vs 50mm f/1.8G?
Top