105mm portrait lens vs. 500mm tele: will you see the difference?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

105mm definitely looks better. This makes me think of Jason Lanier or some other portrait photographer that had a video reviewing the sigma 105 F1.4 including wildlife shooting in South Africa. Only problem with short lens is likely shooting angle in Africa, as you mostly shoot from game drive vehicles. Effect of not shooting eye level will be greater with a shorter lens. No problem with elephants and rhino’s etc, but will be difficult with smaller game.

I would love to give my sigma 135 f1.8 a try from a hide… Unfortunately hides are few and far between in Namibia- I only know of one at Onguma lodge

edit -I found the video.
 
Last edited:
People take Robert Capra's remark out of context. In the time period that Capa photographed combat soldiers the longest lens that could be used with the Leica RF cameras was 85mm and that required an external viewfinder to correct for parallax. As a practical matter the lenses used were in the 50mm focal length area. One had to get very close to fill the frame with a 50mm lens on 35mm film cameras - and this often had fatal results for the photographer.

Longer lenses all distort perspective and reduce the depth of field. It comes down to how close one can get to a subject or group of subjects without harm to the photographer or without disturbing and distorting the behavior of the subjects. It all depends on the situation and the subjects and the capabilities in equipment and time available for the photographer.
 
a shot of a giraffe running into dramatic sunset clouds
oh, I didn't know about it. I knew about a portrait of a girl with a lion behind, what made me ask questions what it is all about... In any case I liked the lion more... ;-)
I also didn't know that about Art Wolf.
That is definitely not a way I like.
Normally I am lucky to have animals at the camping place. :)
 
105mm definitely looks better. This makes me think of Jason Lanier or some other portrait photographer that had a video reviewing the sigma 105 F1.4 including wildlife shooting in South Africa
Very interesting. I saw already some videos from Jason Lanier. I have 105mm form Nikon because it is smaller but I think, Sigma is better.
And yes, you need to give your Sigma 135mm a try!
It's a pity that in Namibia there is not many hides because especially there it can be very productive at least for birds! Perhaps, you should build a one of your own?
 
Yarrow has a long record of unethical tactics, in which his ego and pursuit of revenue overwhelm ethical guidelines and laws. He's leveraged a successful career in finance etc to fund customized trips that can afford assistants and buy in local expertise. The latter has included managed sets, with baiting, and also captive wild species; as in a tiger that became stressed out.
In how it's packaged in media releases, cleansed of the grubby details, his marketing in interviews and public presentations can be taken as persuasive, but certain facts need to be considered. This article is a partial summary of repeated abuses:
Some of published reports of unethical events include: Chasing a giraffe with a vehicle to capture the animal galloping in dust; exploiting caged animals under dubious circumstances in setup studios etc (back in 2015 he tried to dilute criticism of the tiger fiasco, in Detroit, with platitudes about supporting conservation etc); positioning a human model far too close wild elephant, and exploiting the priority status of an endangered big tusker;





Unscrupulous. This is not wildlife photography according to Ethical Guidelines


EDIT there's this interesting article (3 parts) about authentic wildlife photography published in 1998
 
Last edited:
Back
Top