best set of lenses for light kit /wildlife, landscapes

[Bingley]

Interesting that you mention that. I'm thinking of getting a press pass, and camping out on the Palin compound and date their daughters (ba dum ba dum!)

OK, but here's the critical question: Can the BEARS see Russia from her house?

 

[Richard Marks]

You know the other funny thing is that even when a situation for which a rangefinder is completely inapprpropriate arises, there are still those who are prepared to recommend an M lens or two! This does show loyalty of the very highest degree.

The only advantage of a rangefinder that I can think of is that if the beast attacks whilst you pressing the shutter, you will still be able to see him.

Richard

 

[aizan]

m8 + 28mm
slr + loooong lenses

 

[35mmdelux]

28, 50, 90mms.

 

[Vics]

John Shaw, the great photog in the field of Nature/wildlife, used to advise starting at 24mm then going up in rough doubles, i.e. 50, 105, 200, 400. Lots of us used a 300 and a doubler for the last. You see where I'm heading. It's NOT OK to approach wildlife so close you could get a good photo with a 90. This is SLR work. Nowadays it would be DSLRs and zooms. Tripod a must! See Shaws site for lots more info. www.johnshawphoto.com.

Vic

 

[ferider]

"If your (Polar Bear) picture isn't good enough, you're not close enough".

😀

 

[Vics]

"If your (Polar Bear) picture isn't good enough, you're not close enough".

😀

Nice!
Vic

 

[ferider]

Seriously, though, it does depend a little on the situation and what one wants to shoot.

See for instance http://www.tundrabuggy.com. For a tourist trap like that, a 50mm will be just fine.

Roland.

 

[kxl]

Regardless of the OP's intent, some of us do have to respond in all seriousness. Comments and responses posted on worldwide-open-to-everyone-net must always take into account the lowest common denominator, and one never knows if anyone might seriously consider using an M8 and 50mm to shoot a grizzly. Besides, having read through some of the OP's previous posts, it wasn't a stretch to assume he belonged in that lowest common denominator group... just kidding!

 

[pawel glogowski]

28 for grizzly and 21 for polar (they are much longer).

 

[Ronald M]

Wildlife = visoflex + 400 or 560 6.8.

You will get excellent photos from a safe distance.

 

[Richard Marks]

Regardless of the OP's intent, some of us do have to respond in all seriousness. Comments and responses posted on worldwide-open-to-everyone-net must always take into account the lowest common denominator, and one never knows if anyone might seriously consider using an M8 and 50mm to shoot a grizzly. Besides, having read through some of the OP's previous posts, it wasn't a stretch to assume he belonged in that lowest common denominator group... just kidding![/quote
You do not have to respond. The internet is not regulated and any one who belives what they read there as absolute truth may well be a Darwin Award contender as an earlier poster suggests.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[kxl]

You do not have to respond. The internet is not regulated and any one who belives what they read there as absolute truth may well be a Darwin Award contender as an earlier poster suggests.

Best wishes

Richard

"Even a filthy beggar like that has got a protecting angel..." -- Angel Eyes (The Good, The Bad & The Ugly).

 

[semilog]

Thanks all:Thanks Joe, Tim, and Son: I grew up going to Yosemite annually with Ansel and others, before the tourists found out about the place.

You seem to be suffereing from some misconceptions. Yosemite Valley hotels were built in the late 1800s and the Yosemite Valley Railroad was incorporated in 1902. The Valley has been nothing but a major tourist destination ever since. Well, tourists and dirtbag climbers.*

And the bears in the Valley are similar to the bears in Alaska in the same sense that basset hounds are similar to dobermans. I strongly suggest that you should not attempt to photograph a wild grizzly or a polar bear with a 50mm lens. Instead, I suggest the C-V 12mm to get a panoramic view of the inside of the bear's tummy.

* "At either end of the social spectrum there exists a leisure class." -Eric Beck, Yosemite climber

 

[semilog]

"If your (Polar Bear) picture isn't good enough, you're not close enough".

😀

ROTFLOL !!!!!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You know the other funny thing is that even when a situation for which a rangefinder is completely inapprpropriate arises, there are still those who are prepared to recommend an M lens or two! This does show loyalty of the very highest degree.

The only advantage of a rangefinder that I can think of is that if the beast attacks whilst you pressing the shutter, you will still be able to see him.

Richard

😛 That's a good one!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Richard Marks]

"Even a filthy beggar like that has got a protecting angel..." -- Angel Eyes (The Good, The Bad & The Ugly).

Im afraid I dont understand your post. Please explain. It is a while since I saw that film!
best wishes
Richard

 

[Richard Marks]

😛 That's a good one!

Cheers,

Juan

Juan you are welcome!
Richard

 

[ampguy]

Thanks

Thanks

I like John's books and photos. Also Moose Petersons.

I'm narrowing the kit down to m-hex 28, CV 21, and 50 lux. Hoods, but no filters. Last I checked, wild animals were seldom wearing synthetics 😉

A J3 in the backpack, in case it rains.

John Shaw, the great photog in the field of Nature/wildlife, used to advise starting at 24mm then going up in rough doubles, i.e. 50, 105, 200, 400. Lots of us used a 300 and a doubler for the last. You see where I'm heading. It's NOT OK to approach wildlife so close you could get a good photo with a 90. This is SLR work. Nowadays it would be DSLRs and zooms. Tripod a must! See Shaws site for lots more info. www.johnshawphoto.com.

Vic

 

[FrankS]

I wish you much success in getting up close to a bear! 😉