I am doing a nature documentary short film but not sure which lens to use for close ups of birds and other animals. I have a Canon DSLR, and a 300 mm lens, but perhaps should go longer for close ups. I showed some test footage to the people who wanted me to do it, and they said I could get shots of the animals closer up.

Any suggestions for a lens under $1000 if possible?

The classic wildlife lens for Canon is their own 100-400mm Mk 1 or Mk 2.

I’m using a Tamron 150-600mm G1. There’s a G2 of this lens available, which is supposed to be an improvement.

Sigma has their competing 150-600 lens in two different lines, “C” for consumer, and “S” for sports. I read great things about the S lens, but haven’t used one. There are lots of reviews out there for all these lenses. They’re all quite decent for the money.

Beyond those lenses cost and capability go up steeply as you get into the longer sports/wildlife lenses.

Okay thanks. I thought maybe I should get one that is also parfocal and constant aperture in case I have to adjust the zoom with the animal movements, during shooting.

However, are those lenses parfocal and constant aperture? I read about them online before but they didn't say if they were those specifically in the specs.

You should consider renting such a lens instead of buying one -- https://www.lenslenders.ca/

The lenses that Seth mentions above are variable aperture. All you have to do is stop down to the maximum aperture value at the telephoto end of the lens, and presto, it's now constant aperture.

Photography lenses in general are *not* parfocal. My advice is to simply avoid changing focal length during the shot. There's no good way to do that with a still photo lens,* unless you have rails and rings for proper external lens control.

* -- one notable exception is the Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM, which is the only lens that will interface with the Canon power zoom adapter.

The shoot is in six days though, and I was told that my tests shots with the 300mm I have were not close enough. The rental stores do not have anything available in such short notice, so I may have to buy and then sell it again, or something, not sure.

There are several different Canon 300mm lenses.

Which one do you have, specifically?

I ask because you might have the option of using a Canon 1.4x extender.

Also, which Canon camera body are you using?

Sorry for not being more specific. Canon 75-300mm lens with a Canon T2i body.

Your lens cannot be used with an extender, sorry.

The Rebel is giving you a 1.6x crop, which is like having a 1.6x extender built right in.

Seth mentioned the EF 100-400mm telephoto zoom. That lens, plus a 1.4x extender, plus your Rebel with its 1.6x crop, is essentially doubling the focal length, giving you the equivalent of a 200-800mm lens.

For more info, see https://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2015/07/21/canon-100-400-ii-with-1-4x-extender/

That lens can be rented at https://www.lenslenders.ca/rent_details.php?postalcode=S7H+0A8&requested_start_date=2019-08-16&requested_end_date=2019-08-19&sku=C100400F45LUSMISII&do_search=go -- it is available on the dates you need, and I'll bet they have the extender as well.

Oh okay thanks. Well even with the 1.6 crop, I still showed them the tests, and they said it wasn't close enough to the animals though.

For wildlife programs they commonly use 2/3" broadcast long zoom range zoom lenses with adapters, so that they can use them on large sensor cameras like RED, but still have the same angle of view as on the 2/3" cameras.

Also, technique and field craft is important, so that can get as close as possible. It can take a lot of time to get a good close up of a bird.

The T2i body is a budget entry level body from 2010 with an APS-C sensor and the Canon 75-300 lens is also a budget entry level lens with not very good reviews.

There are going to be limitations to the video quality that you get from a camera of that age, with limited recording time and none of the improvements that have been made over the nine years or so since it was introduced. There are also likely to be chromatic aberrations with the lens and loss of clarity on the edges of the image.

I wouldn't consider using that combination for my wedding work, let alone a serious wildlife shoot. You would get far better results for the level you seem to be working at, with something like a Panasonic G4 body and a micro4/3 IS lens. That combination would give you a much more up to date spec on the body with the addition of 4K filming ability and a stabilised lens which would help immensely with close up wild life images.

Just my opinion of course and others will have alternative ones.

Roger

Oh okay, well so far no one has complained about the camera quality. As for recording time, it can go for 15 minutes and none of my shots have lasted near that long, so I don't need that long of a recording time though.

Ryan, I admire your enthusiasm and quest for knowledge, but wonder if you may be over selling yourself. On one thread you are talking about directing a feature film with paid actors, audio people, dolly operators etc etc, but here you are talking about shooting a wildlife film for someone, using an old technology basic Canon Rebel, which is definitely not designed as a video camera and a cheap zoom lens that can be bought for less that $100 dollars with all the deficiencies that you can expect from a cheap lens.

You really must get out there and play with different equipment, rather than just asking endless questions that seem to be a substitute for gaining experience.

Roger

Oh well the documentary was a volunteer project I am doing for some people in the wildlife society where I live, for my own experience as well. But they said it was okay if I were to use my own camera, as oppose to me renting a DP who has a better one, which would be more money for them. They said they are happy with mine.

Shooting animals on telephoto is not my usual experience, but I have to do it this week, so I thought I would ask what lenses are best.

Okay thanks. I thought maybe I should get one that is also parfocal and constant aperture in case I have to adjust the zoom with the animal movements, during shooting.

However, are those lenses parfocal and constant aperture? I read about them online before but they didn't say if they were those specifically in the specs.
...Beyond those lenses cost and capability go up steeply as you get into the longer sports/wildlife lenses.
Check out Canon’s longer lenses, do some research. Yes, you can find faster lenses with constant apertures, be prepared for some serious sticker shock! As Chris mentioned, the way that working pros manage their gear is they RENT for projects, no one wants to own a lens they use once or twice a year.
...There's no good way to (zoom) with a still photo lens,* unless you have rails and rings for proper external lens control.

* -- one notable exception is the Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM, which is the only lens that will interface with the Canon power zoom adapter.
I recently read in a third-party review that the 18-135 nano USM also has electronic focus compensation through the zoom range - effectively, it’s corrected to parfocal! That wasn’t from Canon - Chris, can you confirm?

Oh ok. The rental store doesn't have that long of lens available for the shoot dates.. i can ask the client for an extension on those shots.

The 18-135 won't be long enough but maybe there is something else out there...

I recently read in a third-party review that the 18-135 nano USM also has electronic focus compensation through the zoom range - effectively, it’s corrected to parfocal! That wasn’t from Canon - Chris, can you confirm?

That's news to me, although I have to admit it makes sense. Thanks for the tip about this. I'll see what I can find out.

My experience of wildlife stuff stems back to Anglia TV's survival series years and years ago - but my colleagues who still do it live a solitary life - shooting days worth of video and leaving the cameras running for extended times to catch the important shots. Will the client be making sure the animals appear at exactly the right moment? Will they actually be there? Very odd? Nature shoots are rarely short term, and they're impossible to plan, content wise - animals are the worst actors. That frog will suddenly bellow it's chest out and go "ribbit' - and you won't be able to predict when. I cannot imagine a 15 minute limit being useful whatsoever - more like an hour or two!

I assume at least the footage will be mute, and somebody else is compiling the audio?

I've still got my Vinten head and legs from that period, and they cost a lot of money for something that doesn't move when it's supposed to be steady. Wildlife often means fixed focal length lenses - so the requirement to stay in focus is much less important - but I currently have no lenses, and that includes the ones with 2X extenders , that are much use for wildlife.

Confused on hiring kit. I have no hire companies within 100 miles - and I just call up my favourites and the items appear next day courier? surely this happens in your country.

I could try the courier then, thanks!

Yes, i know i would shoot a lot more than 15 minutes, but what i meant is, i won't have to record more than 15 at a time. If nothing interesting is happening i can just stop recording and then turn it back on, so i wont run over 15 minutes at a time, is what i meant.

I was going to get the audio as well but is that a problem?

I think they mean you never know WHEN the interesting thing you were waiting for 3 hours to happen will happen..it could be just as you stop and restart recording. You won't know until it's happening and you're blowing it.

They used to shoot the natural history programs on 16mm film, with a limit of 10 mins per mag, so 15 mins is manageable, it's the battery changes on DSLR cameras that can take the time. Just be ready to shoot at any moment.

Which animals? Where? How close? What time of day? What weather? I think there could be a big difference shooting snow leopards for NatGeo and wombats for YouTube. If you've got daylight and YouTube you might be just as well off with a $200 50X small sensor camcorder. (Disclaimer: I do have a wombat on YouTube, won't bore you with the link).

They want different kinds of birds, squirrels and deer so far. The deer I think will be the toughest to find. And yes I'll be try to ready to hit record at any moment, when changing batteries, and when the camera needs a recording break every 15 minutes.

What kind of style should I do for this corporate video?

I am doing a corporate video that is a wildlife documentary corporate video, for the wildlife society where I live.

It has interviews with people in and a narrator, but also shots of animals and landscapes. Normally these videos are done in 16:9, but I was thinking of making this one in 2.39:1 perhaps.

Or is that not a good idea, and corporate video customers prefer something around 16:9, even if they don't realize it?

For the interviews, usually these types of interviews are just a medium close up of people speaking done from a diagonal angle on them, with a wide lens, but what if I were to do the interviews from a more frontal perspective medium close up with a long lens making it more intimate and feeling tight, for the wildlife subject matter... Or do you think this is maybe too weird, and that the traditional diagonal angle, is more relaxed, and relaxed interviews is what the viewers want for corporate videos?

Normally these videos are done in 16:9, but I was thinking of making this one in 2.39:1 perhaps.

Sorry, but "perhaps" is not a good enough reason to break an established pattern.

Your client doesn't seem to think that 16:9 is broken. Therefore, you should not try to fix it.

If you do, you'll be known as the guy they hired that one time "who gave us something that had black bars above and below," instead of filling the screen as they expected.

Think about it. This piece is going to be viewed on a smartphone, a laptop, or an HDTV... so why on earth would you want to letter-box it?

Shoot in 16:9 and fill the screen. Make the client happy.

Oh okay, I thought quite a few people like the wide scope look though, especially for landscape scenery videos, but if it's not a good idea, I won't do it :).

Ok, Ryan, buddy. Now we’re in a different realm where these decisions/choices are concerned

Whereas on your own film you can do whatever you want, when doing client work it’s all about what THEY want.

Yes of course youre a creative, an artist, blah blah blah but when working for someone else it’s all about THEIR wants/desires/needs/requirements

Sometimes they literally do not know what they want, and you have to show them examples and give them options. They might have no idea what 16:9 or 2.39:1 is. They just know “the way it looks on tv”/the way we’ve done it before”/etc. You can always present options of your alternative ideas if you can find an example somewhere but definitely dont just do something different without checking in with them at every step. They may not know what they want but they will know what they DON’T want when they see it.

There’s also the sticky issue that sometimes clients have objectively bad ideas. You will have to learn to know when this is happening and either say “well this is on them” or push back and try to show them better alternatives and WHY those alternatives are better. What can really help is sussing out WHY they are so hot for the bad idea, i.e what are they specifically trying to accomplish, and try to figure out what might be a better way that will still make them happy. This comes with experience and many people (me included) still struggle with it. The problem with simply doing what they want in these cases where it’s objectively terrible and taking their money (not in this case, I know you said it was volunteer) is that even though you followed their orders they might still end up hating it or their audience hates it etc. and you get blamed and arent rehired. Even though all you did was exactly what they wanted!

The above paragraph is a huge tangent and what’s relevant here is that youre basically doing freelance client work and its a job and how it should look is ultimately up to them. Just ask them if they want what youre doing to be consistent with the older stuff, or if they want something different and do what they say. This is their project, not yours. Not like your movie.

...if it's not a good idea, I won't do it :).

It's not a good idea. Don't do it.

I have three resources that you might want to look through for some ideas and guidance.

The first is a Vimeo channel for DV Info Net's wildlife filmmaking contest (the Under Water / Over Land Challenge, which is hosted on our forum at https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/uwol-challenge/). There are a couple hundred short-form pieces on this channel that were created by your fellow forum members. Please check out as many of them as you can:

https://vimeo.com/user8310268

Next, we have a dedicated forum for the topic of wildlife filmmaking which should be of help to you. In fact, I'll be moving this discussion to that forum since that's where it really belongs. I'll leave a re-direct so you can find it.

https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/under-water-over-land/

Finally, here's a 30-min. broadcast series about the Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife which is produced very well. Pick any episode to watch for some inspiration:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TexasParksWildlife/videos

Hope this helps,

I still think some resources about how to do deal with clients, specifically in this field, are in order.

Oh okay thanks, I will research it.

The clients probably have no reason to need a surround sound mix, and stereo is probably fine, or better?

Don't get too fancy with corporate videos, chances are they're going to be viewed on an old laptop, not in a home theatre. You don't seem to be thinking about your audience and where they'll be viewing the video. It's primary purpose is to present the client's products/services in a manner that doesn't have their customers switching off the video. Good ones are entertaining and informative, bad ones are dull and tell you nothing or even worse, are annoying.

Commercials (especially high end ones) you can go to town on, but you still need to meet the brief from the clients. That means you can't shoot 2.39 unless it's cleared by the creatives at the ad agency and they will have discussed it with their client.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that shooting 2.39 is automatically cinematic, that's just the same as thinking shooting on 35mm film has the same effect. There's more to it than that.

The first thing you MUST learn is that wildlife video, and long lenses means there will be NO sound. A feeding deer nat 300m distance, filling the frame makes zero sound, so you need to create it. People try crazy long shotgun mics, parabolic and pre-planted zooms in popular repeated feeding spots, but the sound you hear on TV and movies is by and large created in a Foley like process, and you have no way enough time to do it - so think sound effects sources. Wild tracks, generic outside noises, etc - but if you are shooting a deer munching grass, that CD with the sound of cows munching grass will convince everyone, apart from the experts who identify the sound as NOT being a particular breed of deer!

on your 15 minute thing. What happens when the really good stuff starts at 14:30 on the clock? Proper gear for proper results, and DSLRs, especially those with limits may not be a sensible choice.

Maybe a conventional video camera, with long lenses and extenders could be better? Remember that clients would often judge success by what is in the frame, not how many pixels are in use!

You seem to get clients who pay little, and expect an awful lot. Do they do this with everyone, or are you becoming known as Ryan - that fella who always says yes and we get away with paying peanuts and can boss him around!

It does seem they demand professional results but won't even cover the costs of doing it properly.

Said it was volunteer earlier which I assume means its a freebie.

* -- one notable exception is the Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM, which is the only lens that will interface with the Canon power zoom adapter.

Thanks for pointing out that lens, Chris. I spent last night searching online for EF or EF-S lenses which might be a bit more suited to video (with the EF mount on the BMPCC 6K) and I missed this one! This lens is now my leading contender.

Oh okay thanks. Well even with the 1.6 crop, I still showed them the tests, and they said it wasn't close enough to the animals though.

Focal length needed depends on the size of the subject, distance, and resulting image size. Nothing substitutes for getting close. I would ask, though, with all the available stock footage would it make more sense to use stock in your corporate production?

Okay thanks. I thought I would have to create the sound in post, and I'm okay with that.

As for using stock footage, they want me to shoot a certain forest area, and they might be able to tell if it doesn't match in the stock footage. Plus they are going to go hiking in the video, some people, which I will need to match the area with in the shots of animals, so I might need to shoot it all, so it matches, but I can try it and see.

One filmmaker I talked to, said since it's a wildlife video, that I should shoot it in 30 or 60fps, instead of 24, since 30-60 is the standard for wildlife videos, he said, but is that a big deal though, compared to 24?

There is no reason to shoot at 24 fps second unless you're shooting a TV drama for international distribution or a theatrical release. For a video intended for other purposes, the standard broadcast frame rates should apply.

24 fps is the exception, not the rule, you may get artifacts on the pans etc when it's being shown at a standard North American broadcast frame rate. Also, it you're doing shots to go into another video, chances are it won't be filmed at 24 fps. So, it may cause complications in post because their project now has a mixed frame rate.

Oh okay, well the plan was likely to have it be all my footage. However, my camera only shoots 30 and 24, not 60, unless you want to go to SD format. What is the standard broadcast 30 or 60?

So I could do 30, just not use to it. Is there a problem with artifacts in panning shots? I see them in movies all the time at 24, and no one seems to notice, unless I'm wrong?

If you see the artifacts on North American television they are wrong, you don't get them on European TV, which uses 25fps.

Use the 30 fps setting, it's the standard for broadcast HD..

Oh okay, what do you mean by artifacts exactly? It's just in the past if I used 30, others said it didn't look as cinematic and looked like a more made for TV look though, and that I should go for 24, but were they wrong in saying that?

They probably associate the 3:2 pull down with being cinematic, because every feature film is shot at 24 fps and uses it when being shown on North American TV. If you watch a film being projected in a cinema , you don't have that artifact. To European eyes it's annoying, although it's not as bad these days, but it's still there if you watch a US DVD. In Europe yon don't have the need for a 3:2 pull down because it uses 25 fps.

Since you're doing a standard video, I would use 30 fps.

Thanks for pointing out that lens, Chris. I spent last night searching online for EF or EF-S lenses which might be a bit more suited to video (with the EF mount on the BMPCC 6K) and I missed this one! This lens is now my leading contender.

My pleasure, David. You will not be disappointed with the EF-S 18-135 IS nano + Power Zoom Adapter.

My fear is that Canon just did a one-off with the PZA interface, and we may never see it again on any other lens. If you ask me, they should put it on everything!

If you choose to go that route, EF-S 18-135 nano + PZA, then there is another lens that will make an ideal companion to it, and that is the EF-S 10-18mm IS.

It is a steal for $300 and it's one of the best-kept secrets in the Canon line. If the field of view was any wider, it could see in back of you. There's no noticeable barrel distortion at all; it's surprisingly rectilinear. STM for silent focus during video. And having IS on an ultra-wide is like a dream come true. The only thing that would make it better would be to add that PZA interface. The only bad thing about it is that it's a daylight lens; f/4.5 to 5.6 -- but did I mention it's only $300?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801/BI/2855/KBID/3801)

All of the booth interviews we've shot at NAB over the last couple of years have been done with an EOS 70D plus the EF-S 10-18mm. See https://www.dvinfo.net/video-report and all video clips there except the very first were shot with that lens.

NuGen Audio on Vimeo

There's also my other favorite, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, lots written about that one already though.

I'll be very interested to find out how that camera does for you.

My pleasure, David. You will not be disappointed with the EF-S 18-135 IS nano + Power Zoom Adapter.
I'm very glad that you said that, Chris, because I bought the lens from B&H 20 minutes after I posted that! I bought it second-hand (B&H rated it as 9.0 condition) and the saving will allow me to buy the PZA . Although I want to check out the PZA at a local dealer first, because I saw a review on B&H where the guy complained that it kept falling off and he was now on his 3rd PZA. So I'm curious as to how to keep it stable and attached.


... there is another lens that will make an ideal companion to it, and that is the EF-S 10-18mm IS.
It is a steal for $300 and it's one of the best-kept secrets in the Canon line. If the field of view was any wider, it could see in back of you. There's no noticeable barrel distortion at all; it's surprisingly rectilinear.

That looked fantastic! I didn't notice any distortion. I think the 10-18 will be perfect for this first side project in November. It's mostly set in a restaurant kitchen and I suspect that there might be a few occasions where I'll be filming the actors at very close quarters. Although I won't buy that lens just yet, because I have to pick up a Tascam DR-70D tomorrow (it's on special) to use with the BMPCC 6K. It records 4 audio tracks and there'll be 4 actors, so it'll be perfect.


There's also my other favorite, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Yes, a faster lens is a good idea! Thanks very much for all of your research, Chris. It's really saved me a lot of time that I can now spend learning how to use Resolve (which I downloaded tonight).


I'll be very interested to find out how that camera does for you.
Yes, I think I'd better stop hijacking Ryan's thread and put any further traffic in the BM forum.

Thanks, again!

...I saw a review on B&H where the guy complained that it kept falling off and he was now on his 3rd PZA. So I'm curious as to how to keep it stable and attached.
The PZA is a little tricky to attach the first few times, but based on my experience he was doing it wrong. Mine has never come close to falling off except maybe the 2nd time I used it, when I hadn't really got it attached properly.

I own these overlapping focal length lenses:
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 AF
Canon 10-18mm variable AF/IS
Canon 18-135mm variable AF/IS with Power Zoom Adapter
Canon 17-55mm f2.8 AF/IS

These lenses duplicate each other in many ways. But I have 4 lenses where I should have two, because I just can't lose the f2.8 constant aperture pair when I want better low light or shallower DoF.

Many aren't aware of the Tokina 11-16. It's solid, an early performer for DSLR video that is still making great images on EF mount.

Sorry to continue the hijack - I'm not a reader of the BM forum! But the new BMPCC 6k EF looks pretty good ;-)

Ryan - have you seen the BBC's Blue Planet? 16:9 and amazingly cinematic, in the real vista sense. You're still thinking that 16:9 is NOT cinematic, no matter what the frame has in it, and that 24fps is somehow magical. It's just historical. UK TV has been 25fps for a very long time, and 39.97/30 for the US markets. We could always tell 525 from 625, but I don't think many people can spot 25-30 differences less they really know what they're looking at.

For wildlife - the real issues are light - so with long lenses, squeezing as much light as you can will probably impact on shutter speeds. Wildlife is also one of the few subjects that you can mess with shutter speeds - making a bird's takeoff more slow than real life, or making a gentle run a bit more urgent. As sound is not really sync, you can take liberties. Would motion blur help or hinder? Faster shutter speeds might not be required.

Oh ok i considered faster shutter speed or i could just do a 1/60 shutter speed and use nd filters as well.

What's a 3:2 pull down exactly? I dont mind recording the sound separately but its hard to get the mic close cause animals are afraid to come close to me. Unless i plant the mic and then walk away, but then i cannot aim the mic properly at them to get sharper sound.

I can't give you the utlra techy explanation but 3:2 pulldown is how something shot at 24fps is broadcast at 29.97. REdestributes the 24 frames into 30 in some fancy way to maintain the speed and motion cadence.

Google is your friend with questions. There are loads of explanations regarding 3:2 pulldown online.

Oh okay, I looked it up, I see, thanks.

So the point of 30 frames per second is that wildlife just looks better movement wise? It has nothing to do with how the product is played back technically speaking, as to why they want 30 fps specifically?

30 fps is the video standard in your country, there is no reason to shoot 24fps for a standard video that's going no where else (eg theatrical release). There is a small improvement in temporal resolution. at 30 fps, it fits with the 60 Hz mains frequency of your country, which is the historical reason, just as Europe has 25fps.

We explained the sound thing already. Your camera mic will capture the local ambience. Animals simply don't make the noises you are expecting, so for most of them, sound effects or Foley work so much better. Remember that as Brian said earlier - this stuff was often 16mm with with either sepmag, or no audio at all. wildlife is also about cheating. The usual techniques always edit together footage that is non-sequential. The deer exits the frame left. A long shot then shows it wandering up a hill, then we see a closeup of grazing. It might not even be the same deer, and could be a same species shot from the summer before, and the wandering up a hill shot could have been shot on your holiday in a different country. HUGE scope for editing material - and another reason to stick with the common aspect ratio and not be silly or adventurous.