Lens recommendations for Tetons and Yellowstone for wildlife

[RikWriter]

That's a great shot. I assume that you captured it while hiking and not off the road. In that case a tripod would be a burden.

I was about 50 yards from a parking area. However, the ground was uneven and the gap through the trees that I had to shoot through would have been very difficult to manage with a tripod.

 

[Anjin San]

Paul, It was very kind of you to elaborate on the merits of the 400mm and 600mm primes vs the 180-600mm.
I don't do lens testing using targets - only evaluate on a 4k monitor or a print made on my Canon PRO 4000.
Right now I will use the 180-600mm and save my $$$ for a 600mm. I may have to sell some medium format equipment that I am no longer using.
Last time I used Ebay, the fees were ridiculous and they hold your money for a long time because of the dishonest sellers on there.
Fred Miranda is much safer, but there are thieves that manage to rip people off on there as well.
Many thanks!
Mike

Paul's right of course regarding the relative sharpness of the various lenses in question…but he's also right on when he says the differences are minor. Don't forget…if you're displaying them on a screen they're going to be downsampled to 1280 pixels wide or something in that range…and if you're printing the various printing mediums and printer resolution and all mean that a lot of the differences one sees at 2:1 in LR just disappear. I've found that my 600PF with the 1.4 and the 100-400 on the second body are just fine for screen output and would be fine for prints up to poster size or so as well. While one might be able to see minor differences in the prints if one examined them closely enough…most people aren't going to do that and are going to be looking either on screen or at the typical viewing distance for the size print. I haven't done a bunch of print comparisons…but using my Z9 and all possible combos of my 500PF, 600PF, 100-400, 70-200, and both Z TCs there is little to no visible difference in on screen output…and what difference there is is more 'different' than 'better or worse'…and it's not really sharpness differences but more background differences due to bokeh changing with various focal length and TC and aperture combos. Even looking at the resulting photos at final output size on my 27 inch Studio Display doesn't show any differences worth quibbling over. So…in my opinion…as is often the case…better is the enemy of good enough.

Other's mileage probably differs…and that's just fine…what matters is what you think and how important it is to get maximum quality at 2:1 vs are there are any quality differences at output vs cost/weight/flexibility and all the other factors that go into making a decision on which to carry. I don't have either the 600TC or the 800PF but do have all the other lenses we're talking about in this thread and I don't have the exotics because of size and weight and flexibility considerations. For me…the 600PF with TC and one of the two zooms is an optimum combo…and which zoom depends on how far I'm walking since the 180-600 is heavier and whether I think the 100-180 range is going to be needed on today's outing. That's clearly not the *best* combo for 2:1 in LR viewing…and it might not be the *best* for whatever the output is but it checks all the other boxes for me and as I said…better is the enemy of good enough. I'm not making money at this…it's a hobby for me…but even the picture I shot in Africa a couple weeks back of the serval cat before dawn at 840mm, f9, 1/60th and ISO 25000 or so is just fine once noise reduction for the ISO happened…and it's far better than not having a picture of the serval at all…and nobody that sees it on the blog is going to comment that "it would have been better with at 600TC.

 

[PAUL50]

Paul's right of course regarding the relative sharpness of the various lenses in question…but he's also right on when he says the differences are minor. Don't forget…if you're displaying them on a screen they're going to be downsampled to 1280 pixels wide or something in that range…and if you're printing the various printing mediums and printer resolution and all mean that a lot of the differences one sees at 2:1 in LR just disappear. I've found that my 600PF with the 1.4 and the 100-400 on the second body are just fine for screen output and would be fine for prints up to poster size or so as well. While one might be able to see minor differences in the prints if one examined them closely enough…most people aren't going to do that and are going to be looking either on screen or at the typical viewing distance for the size print. I haven't done a bunch of print comparisons…but using my Z9 and all possible combos of my 500PF, 600PF, 100-400, 70-200, and both Z TCs there is little to no visible difference in on screen output…and what difference there is is more 'different' than 'better or worse'…and it's not really sharpness differences but more background differences due to bokeh changing with various focal length and TC and aperture combos. Even looking at the resulting photos at final output size on my 27 inch Studio Display doesn't show any differences worth quibbling over. So…in my opinion…as is often the case…better is the enemy of good enough.

Other's mileage probably differs…and that's just fine…what matters is what you think and how important it is to get maximum quality at 2:1 vs are there are any quality differences at output vs cost/weight/flexibility and all the other factors that go into making a decision on which to carry. I don't have either the 600TC or the 800PF but do have all the other lenses we're talking about in this thread and I don't have the exotics because of size and weight and flexibility considerations. For me…the 600PF with TC and one of the two zooms is an optimum combo…and which zoom depends on how far I'm walking since the 180-600 is heavier and whether I think the 100-180 range is going to be needed on today's outing. That's clearly not the *best* combo for 2:1 in LR viewing…and it might not be the *best* for whatever the output is but it checks all the other boxes for me and as I said…better is the enemy of good enough. I'm not making money at this…it's a hobby for me…but even the picture I shot in Africa a couple weeks back of the serval cat before dawn at 840mm, f9, 1/60th and ISO 25000 or so is just fine once noise reduction for the ISO happened…and it's far better than not having a picture of the serval at all…and nobody that sees it on the blog is going to comment that "it would have been better with at 600TC.

Well said.