If you had the finances, which option?

[theanimal]

My wife and I have been talking and she's been mentioning that I should be looking into the high-powered lenses. I've come up with 5 options that encompass two lenses. I just need a vote on (if you had the finances to do so...which package would YOU choose)

Option 1: The Whole Kit and Caboodle.

LensRetailer Price Price w/tax Per/Month Savings
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 G IF ED VR The Camera Store 9,646.47 10,847.65
Nikon AF-S VR 200-400mm F4 G IF-EDBroadway Camera 6,439.99 7,213.00
Nikon TC-14EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-17EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-20EIIIThe Camera Store 548.77 614.62
Gitzo 5561 SGT 6X tripodB&H Photo 1,299.00 1,534.51
Wimberley WH-200B&H Photo 594.95 691.06 Total Cost: 21,810.62 $ 610.00/mo

Option 2: Just the Big One and TCs Plus Tripod

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 G IF ED VRThe Camera Store 9,646.47 10,847.65
Nikon TC-14EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-17EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-20EIIIThe Camera Store 548.77 614.62
Gitzo 5561 SGT 6X tripodB&H Photo 1,299.00 1,534.51
Wimberley WH-200B&H Photo 594.95 691.06 Total Cost: 14,597.62 $ 408.00/mo

Option 3: Bare Bones and Use Monopod w/ Gimbal

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 G IF ED VRThe Camera Store 9,646.47 10,847.65
Nikon TC-14EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-17EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-20EIIIThe Camera Store 548.77 614.62
Wimberley WH-200B&H Photo 594.95 691.06 Total Cost: 13,063.11 $ 390.00/mo (use Wimberley on 680B Monopod - which I already own)

Option 4: Big Lens + TC

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4 G IF ED VRThe Camera Store 9,646.47 10,847.65
Nikon TC-14EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-17EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-20EIIIThe Camera Store 548.77 614.62 Total Cost: 12,372.05 $ 345.00/mo. (screw the Manfrotto 680B monopod onto the 600mm foot)

Option 5: 200-400VRII Option

Nikon AF-S VR 200-400mm F4 G IF-EDBroadway Camera 6,439.99 7,213.00
Nikon TC-14EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-17EIIThe Camera Store 396.15 454.89
Nikon TC-20EIIIThe Camera Store 548.77 614.62
Gitzo 5561 SGT 6X tripodB&H Photo 1,299.00 1,534.51
Wimberley WH-200B&H Photo 594.95 691.06 Total Cost: 10,962.97 $ 299.00/mo.

All of the "savings per month" is based on a 3 year save-up period. This is no longer a hobby, but a dead serious shot at a career in wildlife photography. I'm fed up with playing it safe and I'm going for it. I'm getting the equipment in 3 years time.

So my question to you is: "If you had the financial resources to get these...which option would you go after...and why?"

[Gord]

Lots of options! Im not sure if I can give much advice on one package or another, but might have some thoughts on parts which you might consider.

Personally, Id go with the 1.4x extender. You have some good lenses in your sights which will give you a lot of reach. I dont think sticking a 2x on a 600mm is going to generate that great of results. It will work, but it will degrade quality. A 1.4 is a much better choice to get a bit more distance while still respecting the quality that the lens can offer. Bigger might seem better, but there is a limit and I would think about finding the maximum that will still give good results or might even be useful.

I might hesitate to only have a big 600mm lens. It will be nice, but I wonder if you might find at times that it's too big or might limit the places you can go (ie Reifel Island where the birds tend to be closer). While the 200-400mm wont get the results of a prime lens, it wont be too far behind and will give a little more option. I see you consider this in option 1. That being said, if option one does not pan out right away, Id say go with the shorter lens first and then add to your collection with the larger lens when you can. You're already experienced with photography, but I think all the same, you might find the shorter lens easier to handle and get used to so when you get the big one on, you'll be that much more adept. Ive done photography all my life and still find with new gear that there is a learning curve and simply getting the hang of the new ins and outs.

Im glad to see you are not going cheap on tripods. A good tripod will help you get on target easily without having to wrestle with controls or sticky function. Just as importantly (if not more) it wont fall over and cause damage to your investment.

Back to lenses, I wonder if the 300mm F/2.8 wont make you very happy. It's cheaper than the 200-400mm and from what Ive read and learned, it's arguably a better quality lens. Stick a 1.4x converter on it and you've got over 400mm reach too at minimal cost to quality. The vibration reduction also will help with hand held photography for when tripod is not possible. Im not certain the 400mm will be as forgiving off the tripod.

Finally, Ill take what ever tips you have on how you got your wife to approach you with the suggestion of buying expensive camera gear. ;D ;D ;D

Keep us posted on how your shopping goes!

[oldfulica]

Sept 14, 2011 20:51:02 GMT -8 theanimal said:

. This is no longer a hobby, but a dead serious shot at a career in wildlife photography. I'm fed up with playing it safe and I'm going for it. I'm getting the equipment in 3 years time.

Hi Animal
I have often thought a career in wildlife photography would be a great way to make a living also. But with the explosion of the computer many possible venues for selling photos has greatly diminished. Most magazines now can't compete with television and the computer. As a result they offer photo contests and get everyone with a camera to enter-often with a fee. They then use these images in their publications. For instance the BBC in Europe charges $50 just to enter their contest and they get 1000's of entries. Why hire a photographer? A few months ago there was a show on Tv about 2 French photographers who spend about 3 months a year in Africa. They camp in their vehicle and do nothing but take pictures of wildlife. Then they return home with 1000's of pictures. After sorting through them they may end up with a dozen suitable for publication. You have to be dedicated to do that. Photography can be a lot of fun but I think to make money at it you have to have a niche, like portraits or births etc. or get that one shot that no one else has. Anyway, good luck with what ever package you choose. I admire your tenacity to hang in there for 3 years. It is a gamble but you just might make it.

[kenpossum]

My two cents. I agree with Gord that the 300mm with a 1.4 TCH-EII might be considered. I find that anything over 600mm gives me more limitations than positives. I often lose a great shot simply because I can't find the subject in the viewfinder fast enough, and when I do, I am too close. But then, I am shooting birds in BC. If you plan to make a career out of shooting polar bears in Manitoba and not using an all terrain ice-bus, go for a 1000mm and a 2x converter.

I like the TCH-EII as it retains the auto-focus whereas I believe all the others are strictly manual. I also use an older Nikon 2x and am very pleased with the sharpness. I combine it with a 300mm prime or a 500mm prime. It is strictly manual. The differences in quality (sharpness) in a tele lies with the number of lens elements. Five is ok, seven is better. Check out the specs.

As for tripods, I have not used the Gitzo you are looking at, but I would hope it has a large ball head to give you flexibility. I can't see using the huge size and weight combo you are looking at with a monopod.

I suggest contacting some of the pros who work for National Geographic etc, and ask their opinion. You might be surprised with their thoughts. I would keep away from the ones who get their equip free from their sponsors.

Good luck with your project. Going nature pro is a leap, but worth it if you can struggle with finances. It may be awhile.