Has anyone gone to shoot bears with the Nikon 200 f2? (I know you might have to get a little close). I was thinking that it would be good for low light but then I was reminded that it may really lack for depth of field.

Just wondered if anyone has tried it.

Thanks,

Rodney

Rodney - I haven't. But I will say that if you shoot bears with a 200, you are a braver man than me. I shoot softball and baseball with a 70-200, and would love a 300 to get a bit farther away but still be able to get close enough. A 200, in my opinion, is a bit too close...

Mike.

Rodney--Obviously it depends on the situation. For the bear trips I lead a 200f/2 would be pretty cool (the 300f/2.8 is very popular, as is the 200-400). As you mention though, you would get the benefit of some great low light shots but you'd need to be careful on DOF. The bears heads/faces are large so even to get from the tip of the nose to the eyes in focus can take f4 or more in some cases, so you probably wouldn't use f2 except when you really needed it or when the scene lined up so you wanted to isolate the eyes.--David

David
What is your impression of the 70-300 VR lens for such a situtation and as a wildlife lens if you have a clean back ground with the DOF at 5.6. Travel weight gets to be quite a problem any more.

dab--For the price & weight it's a great compromise lens. Particularly if you are on a package tour where you can't lug the extra photo gear we allow for on our safaris it is a "no-brainer" option. My wife & daughter use the Nikon & new Sigma (ultra-cheap but no VR & not as nice as the Nikon) versions a lot. No TC option, but with a DX sensor you're getting effectively 450mm which is pretty good for a hand-held.--David

Mike,

Good thoughts about being so close. I don't know what I was thinking!!

David,

Thanks for the thoughts on DOF. I know you have a lot of expericence on bear safaries. I am going with Laurie Excell in September to Katmai and I keep thinking I need a prime lens like a 500 or 600. I have a 200-400 and have been told that is a good lens for bears but some people keep telling me that a 500 or 600 prime lens is the way to go. Maybe I am just trying to find a way to justify the new 500 or 600 VR (if I could find one).

Thanks guys for all the advice. I hope some day I can contribute more. I can't tell you how much I have learn from all of you!!!

Rodney

Rodney,
If you were to go into Yellowstone, you'd run into different situations that might make you lean towards one lens or another. A few of the rangers are very, very strict about the 100 yard law. In other parts of the park, bears can be right beside the road and the rangers allowing photographers and tourists to be out of the cars and lined up along the road. In some areas, 600mm is not enough. In others the 200-400 is all you need. If you spend a lot of time in the Lamar Valley, you'd want a 600mm.

Good luck with your decision.

M. Jackson

Rodney--In this case I'd ask Laurie what the situation will (likely) be on her trip in Katmai. As Mike points out, conditions vary by place and of course there are "no guarantees." Anyone who claims to know what lens you should use for a particular animal without knowing the situation you'll be in is at least partially guessing.

Obviously even with the best planning conditions can change, but that gives you a good start.--David

Thanks M and David,

Might be a mute point as I can't find a 500 or a 600 VR.

Rodney

Rodney - Check http://www.lensrentals.com . I've used them for renting lenses, and they have fantastic service. I've used them for Canon lenses, but they do rent Nikon gear now too.

Mike.