The lens makes a difference.

 

As I have lived in the Lower Mainland of BC for 30 years, I have had many opportunities to photograph great blue herons.  Over that period of time I have photographed them with negative and slide film and a host of digital sensors.  Although the camera has had some impact on the quality of the image I could attain, I have to say that the real deciding factor has been the lens.

My field equipment reflects my passion for wildlife.  I have owned about a dozen different lenses with a focal length of 200 mm or more.  These include a number of prime lenses (2 - 200 mm f/4 lenses, 2 - 300 mm lenses {f/4 and 4.5}, and 2 - 500 mm lenses {an f/8 mirror and f/5.6 PF).  I have also owned a number of zooms including a 100-300, a 28-300, an 80-400, and two 150-600s.  I have also used a 1.7x and a 2x teleconverter.

All of them have allowed me to photograph wildlife, but I have to say that, in general, the primes are superiour to zooms.  Longer focal lengths mean that I have less cropping to do in post; this has the desirable effect of keeping pixel size/grain small.  Zooms allow the flexibility of changing magnification, but I found that most of the time I used them at their maximum focal length.  I concluded then that a prime lens with a slightly faster minimum aperture was the way to go.  

Another thing I discovered over time is that you can compensate smaller minimum apertures with higher ISO speeds.  Although amazing lenses such as a 300 f/2.8 or even a 600 mm f/4 are desirable, they are simply outside of the range of most people's pocketbooks, including myself.  However, slower lenses such as a 300 f/4 or a 500 f/5.6 cost much less (more than half) but will produce excellent images at ISO values a stop or two higher.  Modern digital cameras, especially full-frame, can produce excellent images at high ISO values with little noise.  The above photo was shot with an f/5.6 500 mm prime lens at an ISO of 400.  

If you are going to use zooms, consider only telephoto zooms instead of the convenience of an all-in-one zoom.  Although handy, the fact is that zooms with a greater range of more than 3x tend to be less sharp.  My 28-300 was very good at lower focal lengths, but I found that longer ones produced soft images.  The 80-400 that I currently own is very sharp zoomed out.  It is, of course, not as sharp as the 500 prime.

Another factor to consider is weight.  I have dreamed of one day owning a 600 mm f/4 lens, but the truth is such a beast is a behemoth in size and weight.  It is almost 4 kilograms (8 1/2 pounds) and half a meter long if you include the camera.  To operate it you should be using a tripod, preferably equipped with a gimbal head.  That is more heavy gear and really limits where you can go.

I currently have two lenses in my wildlife arsenal; my 500 mm PF Nikon and the already mentioned 80-400 mm zoom.  I rarely bring both with me and chose depending on where I will be shooting.  Birding means the prime while domestic animals and zoos mean the zoom.  If I am not sure I go with the 500 PF because it is simply better.  I can kayak with both and they both sit in a Pelican case or watertight bag with no problem.  Many of my bird photos are taken from a kayak.

Some applications such as Photoshop allow you to correct a lens' aberrations in post.  This may mean that you can get better performance out of an older piece of glass than what was previously possible.  For example, I have a 20-35 mm D f/2.8 lens that I love, but it has significant chromatic aberration.  Some adjustments remove these from the image and produce an improved shot.  You may be able to get good performance out of older equipment following this strategy.  Nice and new is neat but expensive.

Thanks for reading.   www.ericspix.com