For owls in very low light, is a longer slower lens better than a shorter faster lens?

Asked 10/24/2020

3 views

2 answers

0

I’m photographing owls at dusk with a Nikon D500. In one recent shot I used 200mm at f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 25600, and the image was still underexposed and very noisy. The owl is also quite small in the frame, so I have to crop heavily and lose detail.

I also own a 300mm f/4 and a 500mm f/5.6. Assuming I can’t get closer or find the owl earlier in better light, which lens gives the best image quality in this situation? I’m trying to maximize detail on a distant, often stationary subject in extreme low light.

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

3

Have you considered flash? A cobra-head zooming flash going to 200mm tends to have a guide number of about 70 at that length. Its reach at F2.8 and ISO25600 would be 400m. For full exposure.

When working with a 200mm lens, 400m is actually quite a distance. Though you would want to work with a dark background and a lit subject, so you'll likely reduce exposure time to your flash duration (typically 1/200s) and possibly dial down ISO a bit.

Birds of prey can sit still a lot better than photographers so you could use longer exposure times, too, but particularly with the longer lenses that would require use of a tripod.

As you can see, with 1/50s and the fastest lens, your best is a washed-out silhouette against a noisy backdrop.

There are of course a number of disadvantages for a flash shot, too: probably the worst is that with a shy subject at a good distance you get to have exactly one shot per opportunity. Another is that structures such as pylons might be equipped with reflectors or reflective signs that basically halve the distance to the camera. While you can edit them out in post, they will mess with any metering (like TTL).

Also autofocus is not going to do an overly convincing job.

And there will be the red-eye equivalent of birds' eyes, and particularly eyes with good nocturnal vision will be affected.

Originally by user95069. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user95069

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

If the owl is stationary, the 500mm is usually the best choice. Even though it’s slower than f/2.8, it makes the subject much larger in frame, so you need far less cropping. That often gives better final detail than a wider, faster lens with a tiny subject.

The tradeoff is light: going from f/2.8 to f/5.6 loses 2 stops, so you’ll need either a longer shutter speed, higher ISO, or support. Because owls often sit still, a tripod and longer exposures can work well; take many frames and keep the sharpest one.

If you must handhold and keep shutter speed up, the 200mm f/2.8 may gather more light, but heavy cropping will still limit detail.

A flash can also help at surprisingly long distances, though that brings practical and ethical considerations with wildlife.

So, in general:

  • stationary owl + tripod/longer exposure: use the 500mm
  • handheld or moving owl: the faster lens may be easier, but detail will still suffer from cropping

Realistically, the biggest improvements come from more light, less distance, and less cropping.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer