Telephoto for Queensland

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).

jhallettbc

jhallettbc

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I will be going to Queensland in February and will certainly be doing some bird photography. I have the 500 PF but find the VR on a Z9 is not sufficient enough for me so am looking at a Z lens. I don't want a 600 mm lens, something more compact. This narrows the choice to the 400 4.5 or 100-400 ( I will get the 1.4 TC). I am leaning towards the 400 4.5 but wonder will the zoom be a real advantage. I can't think of a place I've been where I ever needed anything less than 400.
 
Member's gallery
For wildlife IMO you can never have too much FL. If the subject fills the frame just shoot portraits or partial body shots. That said, for travel the advantage of something like the 100-400 is that it can also be used for landscape shooting. A 24-120, 100-400, and 1.4x TC in the bag cover a lot of subject matter. I already have the 400 4.5 and not the 100-400 so would be content to go with the 400/TC. If I was going to buy one or the other specifically for travel I'd likely go the other way for the two lens complete kit.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for your thoughts. I have a D780 with an 18-35 and 24-120 so that will cover my landscapes. Still leaning towards the 400 4.5
 
Member's gallery
I was recently on a trip to Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah. Landscape photography was the goal. My main kit was the Z 14-24 mm, Z 24-70 mm f2.8 and Z 70-200 mm. On a Z8 and Z7II. I brought a longer lens because there was some chance of seeing birds and other animals and there were also pictographs on the other side of a canyon we were going to visit that we could not get close to.

I ended up taking the Z 400 mm f4.5 lens and Z 1.4x TC. If I were to do it again, I'd take the Z 100-400 and Z 1.4x TC instead. It would have given me more flexibility for framing rock formations, details on canyon walls and other more distant or smaller items. And the Z 100-400 with the Z 1.4x TC would still have been 560 mm (albeit at f8 rather than f6.3) at the long end and great for the pictographs (and good for birds or animals had we seen any I wanted to photograph).
 
Member's gallery
Sounds like the 100-400 would have been perfect for you. I am not into fine landscape photography so I know I’ll be fine with my D780 and 24-120. On the other hand with the 100-400 I could dispense with the 780.
 
Member's gallery
I'd vote for the 100-400 because in Queensland you will likely also find kangaroos and wallabys. Maybe koalas as well! And some may be very close, when I was there we often saw roos and wallabys on the sides of the roads (like you'd find deer here in the USA!) So the zoom would be very useful. On my trip (which was several years ago, so pre-mirrorless for me) I was using the 200-500 at the time, which was perfect.
 
Member's gallery
janzin said:
I'd vote for the 100-400 because in Queensland you will likely also find kangaroos and wallabys. Maybe koalas as well! And some may be very close, when I was there we often saw roos and wallabys on the sides of the roads (like you'd find deer here in the USA!) So the zoom would be very useful. On my trip (which was several years ago, so pre-mirrorless for me) I was using the 200-500 at the time, which was perfect.
Click to expand...
I’ll use my D780 for those kind of shots.
 
Member's gallery

Parks by location

Local government information for the beautiful areas between Yarraman and Clifton, Millmerran and Toowoomba.
www.tr.qld.gov.au www.tr.qld.gov.au

Native birds of Toowoomba local government area (Department of Environment, Science and Innovation)

wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au

Parks by location

Local government information for the beautiful areas between Yarraman and Clifton, Millmerran and Toowoomba.
www.tr.qld.gov.au www.tr.qld.gov.au

Spring Bluff Railway, Spring Bluff Cafe, Murphys Creek

springbluff.com.au springbluff.com.au

If you get to Toowoomba the above is info. If you do get to Toowoomba call in and I'll introduce you to my Cocky mates. The King parrots are best early morning, Scally Breasted and Rainbows mid-late afternoon.
Highfields waterfall is best for birds. The waterfall is big, equivalent to a couple of kitchen sinks emptying, but the birds are good.

Check out O'Reilly's. If you are lucky you might get photos of the Lyre bird. It is only found in Lamington National Park [ O'Reilly's ]. If you are very lucky you will see a Rifle bird.

I'm told the Atherton Tablelands are good but I've never been there.
 
Member's gallery
I'm going to be the odd one out here it seems. I am a birder and I am from Australia and I think you should be using your 500 pf and also take the 1.4x TCIII. If you are going to take bird photos, you want as long a lens as you can get and the 500 + 1.4x TCIII makes a brilliant 700 f8. I used to use that combo and thought it brilliant, so much so that I questioned buying the 800pf but now that I have it, the 800pf is my go to lens for birds in Oz. In other words, you will need the length. I still have my 500 pf and won't be selling it any time soon. Many birds in Oz are small, but even the larger ones can tend to be flitty and you may not get near enough to them. I would then use the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and use the 1.4x TCIII on that if you require closer shots like you may be able to get at O'Reilly's as Ibraham has suggested - you can get quite close to the birds there. Otherwise get the 100-400 and take that as well but leave the 70-200 at home.
 
Member's gallery
I was in Queensland and Western Australia last February, with my 500 f5.6 and Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6, Used the 500 98% of the time. A lot of small birds and critters. I would use my new Z 600 f6.3 when I go again.
 
Member's gallery
We were in Queensland the past couple of weeks. While I haven't been to Queensland specifically for a birding trip, this time I decided I would take a long lens. With our carry-on baggage size and weight restrictions I took a Fuji X-H2S and 150-600mm lens. As the Fuji is an APS-C sensor this effectively gave me 225-900mm. Like our previous trips to Queensland, this was about enjoying time with family and friends. Sitting on either their front or back deck depending if it was morning or afternoon the birdlife was amazing. The majority of the photos were at 900mm, and even then it was a tad short.

This is a Rainbow Bee-eater on the letterbox of the home two pairs were nesting in front of. I took this photo to give some perspective how small many of these birds are.

53312178427_f7d6bfedd3_h.jpg
 
Member's gallery
I have appreciated all the different points of views and preferences. They are all helpful in me deciding what is right for me which includes my level of interest in birding, how much I want to carry, how much money I want to spend and some other things.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I have appreciated all the different points of views and preferences. They are all helpful in me deciding what is right for me which includes my level of interest in birding, how much I want to carry, how much money I want to spend and some other things.
Click to expand...
You were concerned about the VR not being enough on the 500 pf. What shutter speeds could you use it at successfully? On the D850 and Z9 I could get 1/100sec with almost 100% blur free - always dependent on the subject being still! Again, like Richard and JCGamble have stated, length, length and length! :) Just so as you can rest assured that the 500 + 1.4x TCIII combo is good on a Z9:

All these birds have a body about the size of a man's thumb! They are tiny and you need the length!

Beautiful Firetail:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

original.jpg


Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Variegated Fairywren:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

original.jpg


Spotted Pardalote:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/800s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1400

original.jpg


Southern Emuwren

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400

original.jpg


Zebra Finch

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1100

original.jpg


Female Golden Whistler

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

original.jpg


These are Pied Oystercatchers but this is as close as they would let me get and this is about a 20% crop

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250

original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
I was just in Australia. I was shooting withe the canon 100-500mm. More often than not, the bird was too far ( I didn’t use the TC). I got great shots of Kookaburra though!
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
You were concerned about the VR not being enough on the 500 pf. What shutter speeds could you use it at successfully? On the D850 and Z9 I could get 1/100sec with almost 100% blur free - always dependent on the subject being still! Again, like Richard and JCGamble have stated, length, length and length! :) Just so as you can rest assured that the 500 + 1.4x TCIII combo is good on a Z9:

All these birds have a body about the size of a man's thumb! They are tiny and you need the length!

Beautiful Firetail:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

original.jpg


Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Variegated Fairywren:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

original.jpg


Spotted Pardalote:

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/800s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1400

original.jpg


Southern Emuwren

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400

original.jpg


Zebra Finch

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1100

original.jpg


Female Golden Whistler

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

original.jpg


These are Pied Oystercatchers but this is as close as they would let me get and this is about a 20% crop

Z9 + 500 f5.6 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250

original.jpg
Click to expand...
Great photos. Thanks for sharing. I found in my recent Sri Lanka trip the lowest I could go was 1/200 and usually stayed with 1/320 to be safe. I don't know whether it's my age or technique. Also in SL the birds were almost always up high and found the higher I had to lift the lens, the less steady I was. The monopod helped but often in the dense jungle forest it was more of an inconvenience, as were the leeches, lol.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
Great photos. Thanks for sharing. I found in my recent Sri Lanka trip the lowest I could go was 1/200 and usually stayed with 1/320 to be safe. I don't know whether it's my age or technique. Also in SL the birds were almost always up high and found the higher I had to lift the lens, the less steady I was. The monopod helped but often in the dense jungle forest it was more of an inconvenience.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much! Probably less stable with the lens pointing upwards. However, I don't think you'll have such an issue here in Oz. Whatever the case you need to be comfortable with your decision.
 
Member's gallery
I can't believe how many times I've gone back and forth on a decision about lenses. Almost sure this is my final decision. I'll keep my 500 PF (and 1.4 TC) and take it to Australia, being persuaded by the majority here that I need the longest possible tele. I'll also buy the 100-400 used and pay for it by selling my 70-200 FL E and 300 PF which I rarely use. Seems like the best solution.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I can't believe how many times I've gone back and forth on a decision about lenses. Almost sure this is my final decision. I'll keep my 500 PF (and 1.4 TC) and take it to Australia, being persuaded by the majority here that I need the longest possible tele. I'll also buy the 100-400 used and pay for it by selling my 70-200 FL E and 300 PF which I rarely use. Seems like the best solution.
Click to expand...
I think it's the right decision. Do a bit of testing of you 500 + 1.4x TC so as to see how it performs.
 
Member's gallery
Good luck on your trip. I think the 500 mm PF and the 1.4x TCIII is an excellent combination on a Z body.

I have used the 500 mm PF extensively on my Z9, with and without the 1.4x TCIII. (Before I got the Z9, I used the combo on my Z7II a lot too.) I did not find VR/IS to be a problem.

On several trips, I used the 500 mm PF (with or without a TC) on one body and the Z 100-400 on a second Z body. It’s a very versatile kit. In addition to focal length versatility, the Z 100-400 gives you a very nice close focus distance that is great for small, close subjects (for example, butterflies and dragonflies).

I recently sold my 500 mm PF because I ordered the 600 mm PF. But the 500 mm PF (with and without TCs) was my most used lens for wildlife for a number of years —used for everything from hummingbirds to polar bears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top