How much mm for rutting elk?

I'm not too far from where the deer and the antelope play, haha. I'd like to head up to the forests this fall when they're rutting like crazy, bugling and running all over, where there are also patches of meadow between the woods and not sure if my 5dIII would be enough with the say the 100-400mm II, or if I'd need a 7d/7dII or just a cheaper t3i or something for the resolution cropped to the center of the lens? I'm pretty fit so ready for a chase.

I guess a better question would be: crop or full frame on a 100-400mm?

Heya,

Depends on how much cropping you want to do and how close you can get.

Elk are not small animals, so you actually don't need supreme reach. More importantly is how low of light you're willing to get into, and it stresses the ISO & aperture of your system and tolerance for shutter speed. Having a supremely long lens will not be as important as having FPS, stable mount, image stabilization, etc. Capturing a specific stance, position of legs/feet, etc, comes from FPS. A stable mount with image stabilization and good ISO (5D3 is fine there) will let you tolerate less aperture while keeping a shutter speed that is low, but enough to get a sharp image on a standing animal. Obviously different if you're shooting them on the move.

The 100-400 II is a good start. Checks all the boxes. 400mm on full frame for a big animal is going to give you plenty of cropping room depending on how far/close you are to the subject.

A 150-600 flavor will give you some more room.

A 500 F4L will give you a 700mm F5.6, giving you tons of room and keep using that 5D3.

Otherwise, 7D2 + 100-400 or 150-600 or a 500 would be tons of reach.

You don't want to chase or disturb, your shots will be of their butts or in tree lines.
Get there early in the dark, stay low, keep low, and just camp out until they come out of the thick and do their thing.
A hide would be the most comfortable way, without looking like a predator in a meadow.

I'm comfortable taking a portable hide, my tipod & gimbal, a 150-600 with image stabilization and either an ancient 5Dc or my 7D for this kind of stuff. You should have it even easier with a 5D3.

You can always just use a 100-400 and take both a 5D3 and a general APS-C for instant reach without a TC if you find yourself reach limited. 7D2, 1DIV (APS-H), 80D, etc, unless you want to drop the budget, then just look for a 7D.

But I would stress having a hide or just getting there early and staying on the ground, and taking a stable mount system so that you can avoid hand holding if possible to be able to really get sharp images in lower light regardless of having a crop and super long lens, or even just having a full frame and short lens.

Very best,

Interesting, thanks. I guess the hide/blind is one way to do it, especially if the animals are known to congregate in a certain place at a certain time. The reason I'm choosing the rut is that I believe they're more active and its just a flat out foot chase. Granted that I can't outrun them but I can use trees, knolls, rocks, and other obscurement to close the gap as I pursue their bugles. Kind of like a hunter

The 500 f/4 is way out of my budget. Its either the 100-400mm II or the fixed 400mm f/5.6 but IDK why anyone on earth would chose that now given its lack of weather sealing and IS when the 100-400 II is now available. I guess I could look at the Sigma 150-600mm, but I also wanted the 100-400mm II as a backup to my 70-200mm f/2.8 II for weddings. 150-600mm is way too long for that role.

I have a friend with a T5 and she lusts for full frame. I should be able to trade her my 6D for a week. I guess I'll have to give her a few EF lenses so she doesn't put an EF-S lens onto the camera and *SMACK* goes that reflex mirror I probably don't need all the bells and whistles of a 7DII, but I'd better bring my Altura rain cover in case it pours. Obviously the ideal will be to use the 5dIII at 400mm or less and it will have to be a judgement call when to thro the 5dIII into the bag and slap on the T5 as to cropping a full frame sensor vs. reaching in with the comparatively lower IQ of an APS-C sensor.

Woohoo 4 stops of image stabilization on the 100-400mm II! Looking forward to setting Auto ISO to 1/125s.s., open the aperture up to f/5.6, and getting to focus on composition and not dropping my camera!

Heya,

So just for reference, I was 20 feet or so from some small deer today. With my 7D and 300mm, I was basically doing headshots only. So to put that into perspective, perhaps, I could have been 40 feet away with a 600mm for the same frame up. Or, I could have gotten a whole body shot at maybe 120~150 feet away, give or take, but without much room for the environment, so probably a lot more like 180~200 feet would be ideal, at 600mm on APS-C for something this size. These were small deer mind you. Maybe a third the size of a big bull elk. So really, you'd need even more distance with APS-C & 600mm, probably something like 400 feet, to be able to get a creative composition with some environment in it, maybe even a bit more than that even. Dare I say 600 feet would be a good distance for a lot of room for environment and the full size bull elk?

Example of how close I got with an old 7D and a 300mm F4L IS (this is about 20 feet away; boring shot, but shows how close you can get):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JJdL​oR

In general I'm not worried about being too close, haha. Even though its the rut if I wind up photographing later in the breeding period than I expect I may spook the harem of cows if the bulls are no longer sparring, which is what I'd REALLY love to get on camera

Thinking it through more clearly I'm guessing 300-400mm is the farthest I could probably shoot in these forests anyway, assuming I want to compose some meaningful environmental context.

The 100-400 II is of course an awesome lens. If it fits into more than one category for you, then it sounds about right. Very general lens and good at most things. A mount will still be very important if you are in lower light though, to allow for a slower shutter speed. If you just want images of the elk, you can do it from any distance. If you want to use the environment, pick the direction the light will come from and be there, etc, then I think you will do well with a 400mm even on full frame. You can always get a refurb 70D for quite cheap these days if you want more pixel density to add to the mix.

Though I cannot help but remind you that the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS is in that price range. That's a killer wildlife lens. F2.8 at 300mm, awesome, and can take a TC and is sharp with them too, having a 600 F5.6 with stabilization to boot. Really great lens. Heavy and big. Not going to be a wedding lens. Depends how dedicated you want to be.

Very best,

Malveaux, is there a portable blind that you would recommend? Sonething that packs down like a backpacking tent that I can carry on a hike with me?

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18082302
Malveaux, is there a portable blind that you would recommend? Sonething that packs down like a backpacking tent that I can carry on a hike with me?

I used an Ameristep out house style pop-up blind for a long time, folds down like a reflector does.
Other wise, a few poles and a big pattern cloth is what I use these days because it can be lower to the ground.

Edit: also I'm using the pattern cloth with wind holes because it's literally 100 degrees F here from sun up to near sun down this time of year... anything to get a breeze..

Very best,

Heya,

I was coming home from the coast and had my gear with me and thought about this today. I don't have a lot of large mammals roaming around Florida that are interesting. But we do have a lot of cows, horses, mules, goats & pigs. Domestic farm stuff. Cows being the bigger mammals. Cows in Florida are to large game shooters, as ducks & gulls are to birder shooters. Common in terms of subject matter and not particularly interesting without some major features, like long horns--which domestics mostly lack. But, a cow would serve the purpose.

I pulled over and dropped down below the fence line to peak over. I was about 500 feet away, guestimating it. This is a only a minimal crop of the original. But the idea was the framing with this angle of view (300mm on APS-C; full frame equivalent is 480mm on full frame for the same angle of view). The idea was at this distance, with such a large mammal, I could use the environment to add to it, to make a composition and not just an image of an animal mostly. With this distance, I could have used a 600mm and gotten twice the pixel count on the cow and still had room to crop a bit for composition. I was thinking to my previous comment of about 400 feet with a 600mm being a good distance to get both detail on the subject and environment to make an interesting composition, and having stopped to do this, I think that was about right. Here, we have a 300mm on APS-C field of view and cropped it down. To get more detail on the moomoo I would have used my 600mm at the same distance. 400 feet is pretty far, but it's a big mammal. I imagine an elk with big horns would be similar, taller likely, so 600mm on APS-C at 400 feet would give a good chance to get the shot with environment. Closer, and you can get more detailed images of the mammal. Full frame and a 600mm would only give marginally more detail than 480mm on equivalent sensor, so for a full frame to get similar reach, you'd need a 1000mm, or an 800 & 1.4x TC. Kind of nuts. Or simply massive resolution to crop from (like 5DSR level, to have similar pixel density as a crop, so you could have full frame and still get detail at the same distance with the equivalent lens as a cropper).

So, 600mm as mentioned on this subject would have given twice the pixels on target, or if I did it at 200 feet I would get the same effect. I think that would have been optimal for distance to get enough pixels on subject for more detail. I think I would have wanted 150~200 feet with a 300mm on APS-C, or 120~150 feet with 600mm on full frame for similar frame up.

So, thinking back.

400 feet with 600mm on APS-C would have given plenty of detail on subject and still lots of environmental detail. Twice the detail than the attached image.
200 feet with 600mm on APS-C would have given twice as much detail. So 4 times as much detail as the attached image.

With a 400mm, and full frame, you'll probably want to get within 100~150 feet, probably closer to 100 feet maybe. So pretty close.

Considering that, you may want to think about how close you're going to get with a full frame, so a 150-600 might be the better choice depending on how close you'll get. 150 feet is pretty close to be moving and running and chasing things. You will be spotted, smelled and heard by them without any effort on their part. This cow spotted me and locked on, and seeing people for her is common. Imagine an elk that rarely see's humans walking and running around. And this was again around 400 feet.

A common moo cow, the attached image mentioned above.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KDZW​Dq

I didn't read all the other replies, hope I'm not repeating something here. I also don't want to sound like a geek, but there's an equation to estimate reqired focal length; Focal Length = Sensor Width x Distance / Scene Width

Larry Johnson wrote in post #18083095
I didn't read all the other replies, hope I'm not repeating something here. I also don't want to sound like a geek, but there's an equation to estimate reqired focal length; Focal Length = Sensor Width x Distance / Scene Width

Good point, makes me want to look for a range finder or whatever can measure distance through an optic to get an idea. I always have to just guess in terms of football fields or in terms of groupings of 40~60 feet as I'm used to 15~20 yards with a bow.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18083059
So, thinking back.

400 feet with 600mm on APS-C would have given plenty of detail on subject and still lots of environmental detail. Twice the detail than the attached image.
200 feet with 600mm on APS-C would have given twice as much detail. So 4 times as much detail as the attached image.

With a 400mm, and full frame, you'll probably want to get within 100~150 feet, probably closer to 100 feet maybe. So pretty close.

Considering that, you may want to think about how close you're going to get with a full frame, so a 150-600 might be the better choice depending on how close you'll get. 150 feet is pretty close to be moving and running and chasing things. You will be spotted, smelled and heard by them without any effort on their part. This cow spotted me and locked on, and seeing people for her is common. Imagine an elk that rarely see's humans walking and running around. And this was again around 400 feet.

Wow that story sounds like Ansel Adams photographing Hernandez Moonrise! kinda..

I definitely want detail. It would be nice to be able to make a quality print or two from the trip. I'll keep my eye out for a 150-600mm Sigma Sport if one hits the local CL but I'd have to be able to snag it at a price low enough that I can resell it after the trip with no loss. The 'Sport' is the more expensive, weather sealed one, no?

Maybe I'll call the wildlife department and find out when its best to be out there. if the harems have already formed I think they ladies will be far more pragmatically minded than the teenage boys aka the love struck bull elk. If I understand them correct the female are only receptive ("in heat") for a day or so whilst the bulls are fired up for weeks on end. My goal is to get the fellers locking antlers. A bunch of cows getting pushed around by a bull are already going to be edgy and may bust if I'm wielding a big white lens around.

As an alternative, you could always rent a 500 F4L IS or something. Depends how often you'll actually go out and do this.

Also, you can always camo wrap your lens. I wouldn't worry about color.

The Sigma 600 sport is a good lens, sharp, good image stabilization. But remember it's F6.3. You will definitely want a tripod/gimbal setup or similar and you'll be at higher ISO, especially if you want to get images of horns locked in battle where a high shutter speed is necessary. You'll easily be at ISO 1600+ even in day light if you want to freeze action. You can get away with slower shutter & less ISO if they're just walking around and trumpeting.

Action is where those F2.8 and F4 lenses really shine, giving you more light.

Very best,

hmm. ok. I've never rented a lens before. I prefer to buy and then resell once done with it. Made a small profit a few times

I'm pretty sure a tripod is off the table. I want to run around and not be static.