Expert Tips on Wildlife & Nature Photography
Court is an avid nature and wildlife photographer and naturalist Expedition Leader for Natural Habitat Adventures. His background in wildlife and conservation biology led him to pursue a joint Ph.D. in ecotourism and entomology. As Editor in Chief of The Natural Photographer, he is eager to share his photography knowledge and creative guidance with readers through comprehensive tutorials and blog posts. You may view more of his photography at www.courtwhelan.com
6 Comments
Naushad Jamil
August 2, 2019 at 1:31 pm
Court Whelan, Ph.D.
August 21, 2019 at 10:16 am
Jeff Kouba
April 21, 2021 at 3:32 pm
Court Whelan, Ph.D.
May 5, 2021 at 1:39 pm
ROD BALDWIN
September 4, 2023 at 5:51 pm
Court Whelan, Ph.D.
September 6, 2023 at 1:54 pm
Loved the writeup here. I was in a dilemma to decide if I should take a super telephoto like 200-500mm. Your comment on 70-300mm could take 95% of the shots helped me calm a bit on not worrying about the 200-500mm. You also said earlier in the article 70-200mm can do 50% of the zoom shots. So these are a bit conflicting. Perhaps your point is with high megapixel shots and heavy cropping 50% + 45% (heavy cropping) can be achieved.
I myself didn’t have much good luck with heavy cropping on 24MP images.
Thanks.
Hi Naushad, there is always the saying that “you never have enough zoom”, so it’s always worth considering a bigger telephoto for wildlife. But a big consideration here is whether you have a crop or full frame camera. If you have a crop frame, that 300mm likely turns into something just shy of 500mm. But that also means that a 500mm turns into something around 700mm, which is powerful! If you do indeed have the 200-500mm, I’m not sure if I would leave it behind, as you may get some really great shots with it.
Great write up. We’re going to Katmai to photograph bears in mid-September. Do you think some sort of weather protection for the camera (e.g. a rain sleeve) would be necessary/useful??
Hey Jeff, for Alaska it’s always a possibility. They’re inexpensive and ultra portable, so there’s no big downside. I do prefer to shoot without one if it’s intermittently raining, but if I’m getting stellar shots and it’s pouring, I’ll indeed don the camera weather jacket. For $30 it’s a great insurance policy :).
Just searching for an opinion really, i currently use a Canon R7 and a Tamron 18-400mm and have no problems at all ( except for me that is ) but i’m spending a huge amount of money to go to Alaska and wondering should upgrade the lens to a 600mm?
Hi Rod, great question! The 18-400 will be good, but these “multi purpose” lenses sometimes can lack a bit of quality when using them at their greatest telephoto reach of 300 or 400mm. You don’t really need a 600mm for Alaska, especially because you’re on a 7D, which gives you a 1.6x crop factor making your 400mm a 640mm actually. However, if you want to upgrade, I would consider Canon’s 100-400mm mark 2, which is a wildly sharp lens. If you are talking about Canon’s 600mm f/4, that’s a SUPERB lens, but quite large. Not entirely prohibitive, but it’s a real consideration if you want to carry that along with you, as well as a tripod. My vote is for the 100-400ii. Hope this helps!