Landscape, birds, monkeys, sloths and crocs: Choice of lenses for Costa Rica

[Asher Kelman]

For a trip to Costa Rica, what lenses would you take for Canon Eos Bodies. I have the 6D for the extra low light focus capability but plan to rent a 1Dx for the trip.

Weight is an issue. I might get someone to carry gear for me, as when the posh folk play golf, (part of the game I admit I admire). So I'll take the Ricoh GR for 28 and 21mm and then the 70-200 2.8L IS II with the 1.4X and 2X multipliers. but what to do to go longer?

Would you consider the new Tamron 150-600 mm. my instinct tells me it's too great a span of focal length and perhaps I should get the 300 2.8L IS or even the 300 f4.0 IS L with the 2X teleconverter.

I'm not sure what the most needed focal lengths might be in the rain forrest with monkeys and birds being the commonly promoted creatures of interest.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

I have never been to Costa Rica specifically, but in my limited experience with tropical forests the main problem was not focal length, it was light. They can be surprisingly dark even at noon. So whatever length you chose to bring needs to be fast, but that also means it will be heavy. Very long lenses are also limited in forests, because the plants obscure the view... and if the monkeys of Costa Rica are as adventurous as the ones in Asia, they may even come too close for your safety. I think that the 70-200 is already plenty in the forest.

This being said, birds taken on the shore of rivers or bodies of water may be out of reach at 200mm (but you have the 2x converter).

Some macro lens may be useful for lizards, insects and plants but maybe the Ricoh can do that.

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Asher,

Jerome is correct about the light limitations, depending on where you'll be shooting. Within the canopies, cloud forests, rain forests, etc., light is often at a premium. Other areas will be more wide open (I especially enjoy very productive River trips, where you can cover quite a lot of territory with no effort, and see a wide variety of wildlife).

On my trips, I rely on my Canon 600L/f4 IS, although it's too big and heavy for use within some of the rainforest and more closed locations. There I'll either use the 70-200L/f2.8 IS (with 1.4x or 2x teleconverters), or the Canon 100-400L/f4.5-5.6 IS. The 100-400 provides a very versatile focal length range, with its main limitation being its speed. But if you're shooting with cameras with good High ISO performance, you can get the shutter speeds you'll need that way.

I'm not familiar with the Tamron zoom, so can't comment on that. But several people on my trips have used the Canon 300L/f2.8 IS (with 1.4 or 2x teleconverters), and while on the heavy side, it's nowhere near the 600L/f4. I think that would be a very useful lens, providing a wide 2.8 aperture in low-light conditions, while putting on the 2x will give use a very serviceable 600mm at f/5.6 (while still providing very good image quality).

As for monopod/trip, that will depend on what lenses you'll be using, and where you'll be shooting, what you'll be shooting, etc. I have to have my tripod with the 600L/f4, but will sometimes use a monopod with the 100-400 or 70-200. Again, depending on the specific circumstances, sometimes hand-holding is more practical.

I hate to be vague, but so much depends on what you're shooting, where you're shooting, how much hiking is involved to get to the location, etc.

You can have a look at the many photos from the various trips I've taken to Costa Rica that I have on my website. For each shot, I indicate the focal length, the lens used, the shooting specs, etc., so that should give you some idea of what gear I have used to get the images I'm most interested in.

Feel free to follow-up with any additional questions, follow-ups on anything here, etc.

It's an awesome place to visit.

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

For a trip to Costa Rica, what lenses would you take for Canon Eos Bodies. I have the 6D for the extra low light focus capability but plan to rent a 1Dx for the trip.

Weight is an issue. I might get someone to carry gear for me, as when the posh folk play golf, (part of the game I admit I admire). So I'll take the Ricoh GR for 28 and 21mm and then the 70-200 2.8L IS II with the 1.4X and 2X multipliers. but what to do to go longer?

Would you consider the new Tamron 150-600 mm. my instinct tells me it's too great a span of focal length and perhaps I should get the 300 2.8L IS or even the 300 f4.0 IS L with the 2X teleconverter.

I'm not sure what the most needed focal lengths might be in the rain forrest with monkeys and birds being the commonly promoted creatures of interest.

Asher

LOL.... Asher, I'm surprised you ever asked others, as if you don't know your needs your self!

 

[Asher Kelman]

LOL.... Asher, I'm surprised you ever asked others, as if you don't know your needs your self!

Theodoros,

I'm glad you'd take me to task, as if we "should know" how to shoot in any circumstances. Of course, with any camera, we'd all do a grand job! But not necessarily exploit our opportunities to the fullest. But I knowingly make a point in asking my questions.

Knowing one's needs? I'm open, in my persona, for enough hesitation and humility to know the difference between "all knowing" and where others can offer sound counsel. Such openness is worth cultivating, Theodoros. Indeed, it's likely an essential part of creativity!

It's special guys like Don Cohen who can share practical limitations to approaches in any of the locations in Costa Rica that we'd think are reasonable or "good enough". In the rain or cloud forrest, "Good enough" might not work at all!

I hope my posing such "obvious" questions will encourage others to ask!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

I'll be just south of Jaco in a town called Playa Hermosa. I'd need a guide in the gem of Costa Rica's national park system, Manuel Antonio. It's about an hour or so south of Playa Hermosa. i've been told one can do this in a day if one has an early morning start.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I have never been to Costa Rica specifically, but in my limited experience with tropical forests the main problem was not focal length, it was light. They can be surprisingly dark even at noon. So whatever length you chose to bring needs to be fast, but that also means it will be heavy. Very long lenses are also limited in forests, because the plants obscure the view... and if the monkeys of Costa Rica are as adventurous as the ones in Asia, they may even come too close for your safety. I think that the 70-200 is already plenty in the forest.

This being said, birds taken on the shore of rivers or bodies of water may be out of reach at 200mm (but you have the 2x converter).

Some macro lens may be useful for lizards, insects and plants but maybe the Ricoh can do that.

Jerome,

Thanks for your input and the thought on a Macro lens! Great idea. I could take the take the Canon 100 mm IS or the 50mm GXR.

Yes, the 70-200 is likely to be the most used lens. But for further reach, can the Tamron 150-600 deliver in the dim light or do I need a 300 mm 2.8L IS with a 2x multiplier? So I think I should do a test!

I think I'll rent the 150-600mm Tamron on a 1DX and try to focus with it as dusk in Holmby Park and try to catch birds in low light deep in the tall trees. no monkeys, but could shoot dogs on their daily walks there!

Asher

 

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Theodoros,

I'm glad you'd take me to task, as if we "should know" how to shoot in any circumstances. Of course, with any camera, we'd all do a grand job! But not necessarily exploit our opportunities to the fullest. But I knowingly make a point in asking my questions.

Knowing one's needs? I'm open, in my persona, for enough hesitation and humility to know the difference between "all knowing" and where others can offer sound counsel. Such openness is worth cultivating, Theodoros. Indeed, it's likely an essential part of creativity!

It's special guys like Don Cohen who can share practical limitations to approaches in any of the locations in Costa Rica that we'd think are reasonable or "good enough". In the rain or cloud forrest, "Good enough" might not work at all!

I hope my posing such "obvious" questions will encourage others to ask!

Asher

In that case, I may tell what I would choose if I was in your place and needed to cover from UWA up to long tele and yet keep as much IQ as possible... 1. I would choose the less bulk possible 2. I would choose a sensor able to deliver up to 3200 Iso so that I can restrict bulk further by choosing slower lenses...
I guess my final choice would be a D800E camera body accompanied by my 17-35mmf2.8, a 60mm f2.8 micro and a Sigma 100-300mm f4 along with a compatible 1.4X TC (probably the Kenko DGX), an alternative would be to choose a 20mm f2.8, then the old 35-70 f2.8 and then an old 135mm f2.8 MF AI-s and a 300mm f4 prime along with the Kenko DG (it performs fine with the 135mm AI-s too)... Most probably would go for the second solution... If I had to use Canon, I would choose the Canon alternatives for lenses but still get a less bulky camera than the 1DX to use... mind you that I hate distortion and flare on glass more than anything... Possibly with Canon a good combination could be Canon's own 100-400mm along with the 16-35ii and a macro prime in between.... hope this helps.

 

[Don Cohen]

Don,

I'll be just south of Jaco in a town called Playa Hermosa. I'd need a guide in the gem of Costa Rica's national park system, Manuel Antonio. It's about an hour or so south of Playa Hermosa. i've been told one can do this in a day if one has an early morning start.

Asher

I PM'd you as well, but this is a good location, where I've stayed multiple times.

There's an excellent river trip available a little bit north, on the Tarcoles River. I've had great success shooting there, with minimal effort since the boat and water are doing most of the work!

Manuel Antonio is definitely worth a stop, and yes a day trip is very do-able.

Lastly, I would look into a stop at Carara National Park. I would do this as early morning as possible, since the heat can get bad late morning or mid-day.

I had forgot to mention a macro lens, and that is certainly a good idea. Many beautiful butterflies, interesting bugs, lizards, flowers/orchids, etc.

 

[Robert Watcher]

I PM'd you as well, but this is a good location, where I've stayed multiple times.

There's an excellent river trip available a little bit north, on the Tarcoles River. I've had great success shooting there, with minimal effort since the boat and water are doing most of the work!

Manuel Antonio is definitely worth a stop, and yes a day trip is very do-able.

Lastly, I would look into a stop at Carara National Park. I would do this as early morning as possible, since the heat can get bad late morning or mid-day.

I had forgot to mention a macro lens, and that is certainly a good idea. Many beautiful butterflies, interesting bugs, lizards, flowers/orchids, etc.

Asher - I think that with Don't experience in shooting in Costa Rica, he would be a wonderful resource to access being that he has offered. Enjoy your time and come back with some images that we can view and enjoy. This may be a once in a lifetime adventure for you - so it is good to have a wide range of focal length as has been mentioned - - - example macro, super wide angle to tele and super long tele.

I have personally found that a 600mm or longer tele lens is essential. I don't have the budget for a 600mm f4 nor do I have any interest in hauling around big heavy lenses. One year in Costa Rica I saw a guy with a big 600mm f4 on a pro body mounted to a huge Gitzo tripod - plus a couple of pro bodies with huge wide to normal zooms strapped to his body - - - climbing up and all over Poas volcano area at 9,000ft elevation (it hurt my lungs at times just walking without considering gear) and inclines going up and down 1,000ft for as much as 3 miles. It was crazy to me, and the couple of times I ran into him, he was panting and resting and not taking photographs - while I was taking many in a large variety of situations.

My option has been for the much smaller and lighter 140 to 600mm equivalent Olympus lens. Even with that focal length, many images have to be cropped. Yes it is dark in the jungles and forests, and you will be shooting at a higher ISO setting. Fact is that you aren't going to be having any speed demon for a long lens, regardless how much you spend (f4 is about the fastest for a 600mm). One year my friend used the Sigma 150-500 on a crop sensor Sony DLSR and had a little more reach than my lens - although it was a bigger and bulkier lens.

Personally I can't use a tripod for such shooting. They are bulky unwieldy and most of the time I am coming upon birds or animals where I would miss the photo, if I were to set up on a tripod. As well, I never came across many animals that were sitting right there in front of me. On the other hand - if you have lots of time and are intent on scoping out a few specific birds or animals and can come at different times and somehow get close enough to them - an anchored setup would definitely work.

It will all depend what type of shots you want of course. Playa Hermosa on it's own is kind of interesting - a pretty beach. It may be that off the beaten track, there is some jungle area with animal life and greenery.

As Don has mentioned, Manuel Antonio will provide some wonderful photos of up to 4 different kinds of monkeys and some smaller ground creatures.

I as well, really recommend Carara National Park (a little bit east of Jaco) if you and the kids want to be trilled by being close up to tons of wild Crocs. Amazing there also are Scarlet Macaws and a ton of small and unique birds - - - but shooting into the jungle roof does take a long lens. Even just seeing the crocs from the Tarcoles River Bridge, is pretty cool. But if you had the time to go down the Tarcoles River in a boat as Don mentions - would be awesome I'm sure.


I currently find that even shooting with my 300mm focal length is limiting compared to my use of the 600mm. All of these shots below were taken at 600mm focal length. Photos below taken on the beach of Playa Hermosa, could have been shot with a 70-200 - but benefitted from my 140-600mm zoom (35mm equivalent) - mostly near the 600 end with these. Careful though - the longer the lens the more difficulties acquiring good focus - especially when the subjects are closer (shallower DOF).

My photograph of the feeding Red-legged Honeycreepers (male and female) that is being used in a environmental department at a Hawaii University, was taken shooting up into the jungle roof with a 600mm lens, but still required cropping to to the stage. Shows how content, outranks ultimate image quality as they were not able to find other photos of a pair together while eating their favourite fruit. Doing a Google Search, there are many "slick images" of this bird with nice setting and blurred out background - - - but none the way I took them, shooting handheld with my more limited gear: https://www.google.com/search?q=Red-legged+Honeycreepers&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=97xGU4HaMYiysQT574HgDw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1436&bih=766


The photo of the Black Igauna, also required a 600mm focal length to capture this skittish creature. Both of these were taken at Carara National Park.


All above stated - - - my purpose in photographing the scenery and wildlife, may be totally different that yours Asher. I am not shooting as a specialist in any of these areas. I am just someone who loves photography and wants to document my adventures with quality images of a wide range of content. I don't look at them as snapshots, but photographs that can be sold as prints, exhibited, and used in publication if the content is unique enough. But I'm not a pixel peeper or a photographer who has to have a perfectly setup blurred out background suitable only to the perfectionist.

​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Bob,

Your pictures are fabulous! That impressive content always trumps technique! Could you also post uncropped versions? That would be most helpful. My goals are similar to yours. I want to enjoy these special views for a long time back at home in LA!

So now I understand the need for wide apertures. My choice of a 1DX is to get the fastest and most accurate focus for whatever lens is mounted. My 6D has great low light capability, but in shooting into the trees, although my focus is accurate, it's sometimes very slow and the bird is now turned or gone! That's just at 400mm with the 70-200 2.8L IS and the Canon 2X.

So you think that the 150-500 Tamron will be simply not bright enough....even with Better Beamer flash?

I'll add up the weights of the Olympus at 600 mm and see what it comes too. I'll have a guide carry the heavy lens most of the time.

May sound crazy, but Grant Kernan, a highly skilled and accomplished professional photography, just went to Alaska with a bridge camera with an integral zoom lens reaching 600 mm or longer!!!

Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

May sound crazy, but Grant Kernan, a highly skilled and accomplished professional photography, just went to Alaska with a bridge camera with an integral zoom lens reaching 600 mm or longer!!!

I don't consider it crazy Asher. I'm very much considering getting hold of a new Olympus Stylus 1 with it's really nice fixed lens in the range of 28mm-300mm zoom, with a fast fixed aperture of f2.8 - - - just for speed, compactness and ease of use. The sensor is a smaller breed, but quite good image quality from independent samples.


Here is the uncropped version of the birds using a 600mm setting on my zoom lens:

Keep in mind that this was shot in 2008 with 2007 technology using an Olympus E-510. I required 800 ISO which was about the limit of usable low light ability with this camera. Also the tandem of the slow focusing E-510 and slow and searching-back-and-forth Olympus 70-300, was probably a lot worse for acquiring focus than anything you would have to use today.

BTW - the new micro 4/3 70-300 is significantly smaller and lighter than the 4/3 version that I had - and is sharper.

I can't see why the 150-600 Tamron wouldn't be a good lens to use for real long reach. I used to have a couple of Tamron lenses that were among my favourites in the film days. You may have seen this article with some bird pics, already : http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/4/


SLR lounge suggests that the Tamron beats out the Canon 300mm F/2.8 with 2x extender: http://www.slrlounge.com/new-tamron-150-600mm-wildlife-photographers-dream-lens

 

[Robert Watcher]

I found this image to show some of the challenges that I have experienced when shooting in the jungle areas of Costa Rica.

I came up on this deadly eye lash viper while walking along a path. This photograph was taken with the snake hanging from a branch no more than maybe 6 feet from me. This is the full frame from that distance using the 600mm focal length.

One of the biggest issues though is the settings that had to be used to get the shot. The fastest aperture that I have with that lens at the full length, is f5.6 and that is what I used. I was forced to use 2,000 ISO with my Olympus E-3 (which is about as high as I wanted to go with that camera) - - - which still resulted in a slow shutter speed of 1/125'th second.

Fortunately my camera provides built-in Image Stabilization and the animal was motionless so that I could make the capture. Normally I would want to be shooting at at least 1,000'th of a second with a 600mm lens and if there had have been any subject movement, image stabilization would have been useless and the faster shutter speed would have been required.

Could I have benefitted from a faster lens aperture. Well, yes and no. Yes for a faster shutter speed of 1 to 2 stops. But no because, I really needed the aperture closed down even more to f8 or more to have more DOF (which would not have affected the blurred background significantly) as you can see the front and back edge of the snake are blurred. I managed to catch his front eye not too bad, so all was OK.


2 photographs show uncropped at 600mm setting and 300mm setting from standing roughly the same distance from the snake (bottom shot may have been a couple of feet farther away, but not that much). You can see why I like having at least a 600mm reach with me.

​

 

[Asher Kelman]

......f5.6 and that is what I used. I was forced to use 2,000 ISO with my Olympus E-3 --- slow shutter speed of 1/125'th second.


Could I have benefitted from a faster lens aperture? Well, yes and no. Yes for a faster shutter speed of 1 to 2 stops. But no because, I really needed the aperture closed down even more to f8 or more to have more DOF (which would not have affected the blurred background significantly) as you can see the front and back edge of the snake are blurred. I managed to catch his front eye not too bad, so all was OK.


2 photographs show uncropped at 600mm setting and 300mm setting from standing roughly the same distance from the snake (bottom shot may have been a couple of feet farther away, but not that much). You can see why I like having at least a 600mm reach with me.

​

I came up on this deadly eye lash viper while walking along a path. This photograph was taken with the snake hanging from a branch no more than maybe 6 feet from me. This is the full frame from that distance using the 600mm focal length.

I prefer the wider angle view with the snakes natural habitat! wonderful grab shot. How poisonous are they?

What lens did you use? And, imagine you advised me to buy an Olympus - then, what lens would be the very best for this kind of camera, (presumably the OMD E-1-M1), with higher ISO capability? When Zuiko specifies 100-300, presumably they mean 200-600 35mm equivalent?


Also, given the need for DOF, wouldn't the Canon 300mm f4.0 with a 1.4X or 2.4X extender get me in the ballpark with stellar optics?


Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

.............The fastest aperture that I have with that lens at the full length, is f5.6 and that is what I used. I was forced to use 2,000 ISO with my Olympus E-3 (which is about as high as I wanted to go with that camera) - - - which still resulted in a slow shutter speed of 1/125'th second...........

​

I really like the wide angle view as it gives the snake's habitat too.

I'm now totally convinced that 600mm cability is needed.

I could get Canon SX50 superzoom which is well regarded. But the 300 2.8L IS or the 300 f4.0 L IS with 1.4x or 2x extenders would get me into that ballpark with better optics and more modest weight.

However, the Olympus OMD-1 with a 75-100 Zuiko lens would be sweet.

DXO Ratings for 4/4 Telephoto Zoom Lenses​

However, the light sensitivity of the Olympus is very "iffy" compared to the Canon 300mm with extenders as one can routinely shoot at ISO 6400 or more on the Canon. Where would you put the limit on the latest Olympus OMD model?


Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

I really like the wide angle view as it gives the snake's habitat too.

"Wide Angle View" - that's funny. The shot was taken using a 300mm focal length from about 6 to 10 feet away. With the shots of the snake, of course it isn't one or the other. I want a story and so have closeups, and full lengths. of as many different parts of the snake and views as I can get.

If I had known how deadly this snake was, I wouldn't have been standing within striking range in the middle of no-where - as I was. Another reason for the 600mm + range.

I could get Canon SX50 superzoom which is well regarded. But the 300 2.8L IS or the 300 f4.0 L IS with 1.4x or 2x extenders would get me into that ballpark with better optics and more modest weight.

However, the Olympus OMD-1 with a 75-100 Zuiko lens would be sweet.

I'm in no way pushing Olympus cameras and lenses - just stating that that is what I have been using. For sure, use what gear and brands you already are invested in. Whether the quality will be that much better using a 300mm f2.8 and extender, may be debatable. Image quality wide open with lenses like my Olympus ones, is generally very good. Apparently the Panasonic 100-300 is very nice as well. But I'm sure there would be an edge to the 300mm prime, and if you have it or can access it easily for a system that you already own, then that may be the best option.

However, the light sensitivity of the Olympus is very "iffy" compared to the Canon 300mm with extenders as one can routinely shoot at ISO 6400 or more on the Canon. Where would you put the limit on the latest Olympus OMD model?

So a 300mm f2.8 will be f5.6 with 2 times extenders right? So not much different than the Oly/Pani f6.7/f5.6. True that the E-M1 even with its improvements - will not match a full frame body when it comes to low noise at high ISO settings.

Here is a nice little comparison write up that I found - comparing the Canon 6D that the fellow just bought, to his little Olympus Pen camera and system. I didn't find it to be unreasonable: http://blog.atmtxphoto.com/2013/10/30/how-does-the-canon-6d-compare-with-olympus-micro-43/

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I found this image to show some of the challenges that I have experienced when shooting in the jungle areas of Costa Rica.

I came up on this deadly eye lash viper while walking along a path.

Hi Robert,

That's a pretty looking viper. It's supposed to be not aggressive, but you are right to be careful because it's hard to know if it is feeling threatened.

This YouTube video researches if there is a relationship between venomous animals and warm climates. His YouTube channel touches on a lot more interesting scientific subjects.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Image quality wide open with lenses like my Olympus ones, is generally very good. Apparently the Panasonic 100-300 is very nice as well. But I'm sure there would be an edge to the 300mm prime, and if you have it or can access it easily for a system that you already own, then that may be the best option.

Rob,

The comparison link was really helpful!

From what i can see, the Panasonic choice at 100-300 plus the OMD body weigh just 2.23 lb to give a 35mm reach of 300-600mm focal length equivalent! That's pretty damn good, albeit with just 16MP. Also, incidentally, another advantage for the Olympus OMD: that camera has a maximum flash sync speed of 1/350 which is really fabulous for outdoor work to cut down ambient light. I can see myself getting one of these, just for street photography as it's so light and the reach is amazing!

Still, as you point out, I already own the Canon 6D so renting or buying the Tamron 150-600mm or the 300 4.0 prime with 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverters are good options.


300 f 4.0 L IS 2.6 lb

6D 1.4 lb

x 1.4 0.5 lb

TOTAL 4.5 lb

Better still would be the 500 f 4.0 or the 600 f 4.0, each with 4 stops of IS! Rental is a good possibility. With modern Canon lens-camera combinations, to get the best autofocus in accuracy and consistency one needs a 1DX or else a 5DIII plus one of the newest Canon lenses, like the 400, 500 or 600 f4.0. The 6D, although possessing a fabulous f2.8 central cross hair focus spot for very low light, unfortunately is not as fast or accurate as the 1D series and certainly left in the dust by the 5DII and 1DX.

If I go for one of the larger Canon prime II version IS lenses, I'll also rent a 1DX body with the more accurate focus and the higher battery power to move the lenses focus motors to get the most of the modern lenses.

I'll be posting my experiments with the 70-200 2.8L IS and a 2x shooting birds about 20-50 ft away.

Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

Hi Robert,

That's a pretty looking viper. It's supposed to be not aggressive, but you are right to be careful because it's hard to know if it is feeling threatened.

This YouTube video researches if there is a relationship between venomous animals and warm climates. His YouTube channel touches on a lot more interesting scientific subjects.

Cheers,
Bart

That is true although, it continues to state:

"but will not hesitate to strike if harassed." and another "Generally, eyelash vipers don't bite humans unless teased or trampled. They tend to have very long fangs and a bite can be very painful and even deadly."

For Anne and I it was the reality after the fact of how close we were to the viper - shooting stills and some video within a few feet of it. That it could have struck for whatever reason. We asked after, and found that there was anti-venom at the building at the entrance of the park, but that it might not be of much value in saving our life - being we were so far into the park - by the time we got back to that station to receive it.

Anyway - all was fine and without incident. Far more potential threat from the powerful earthquake that hit us yesterday afternoon - where in a small city very close to where we live, 23 people received minor injuries from falling ceilings, beams and walls and over 100 homes were damaged. It was over in seconds although with no damage to us.

So to explore, can't worry too much - - - - but good to know the risks. It was a beautiful little creature.

Thanks so much for including the link to the Youtube Video Clip with that additional information. Very useful too, to have that information on how to react to a venomous bite. Whether I could stay calm, might be a different issue - but under the circumstances, that would be the best choice.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rob and Don,

When you travel in these National Parks, is it generally in a Landrover type vehicle, a car or folk mainly walk. I'm wondering as far as taking 4-6 year olds on one of the trips. Presumably on a boat, they have safety gear for children if one tells the travel guide in advance. I'm wondering about the dynamics as this effects what one carries.

Thanks for sharing,

Asher

Thanks,

Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

Rob and Don,

When you travel in these National Parks, is it generally in a Landrover type vehicle, a car or folk mainly walk. I'm wondering as far as taking 4-6 year olds on one of the trips. Presumably on a boat, they have safety gear for children if one tells the travel guide in advance. I'm wondering about the dynamics as this effects what one carries.

Thanks for sharing,

Asher

Thanks,

Asher

I can only speak for what I have done in Costa Rica Asher - - - and that is walk. These National Parks don't resemble American National Parks. As an example at Carera National Park, is a long dirt road that runs along the river. There is a gravelled area by the main road where you can park your car if you have one. You pay the guy standing there a few colones to watch it for you. Likewise, Manuel Antonio is a long walk on a dirt path, back in to the cove. There is no vehicle access to either that I am aware of. same with Monteverde National Park, where you can get a bus ride to the entrance and then you walk the lengthy paths.

Don would have to speak to the safety standards of the river tours he has been on.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Is this the kind of picture that you want to bring back from your trip, Asher?

I mean: I am the first one to be in awe in front of Robert's pictures of the Nicaragua people. And, as to this snake picture, there is nothing wrong with it: Robert is certainly happy to have it and show around to tell the story about the poisonous snake. But is this what you want to take back from your trip?

 

[Jerome Marot]

When you travel in these National Parks, is it generally in a Landrover type vehicle, a car or folk mainly walk.

That is quite an amusing question. You have lived in the USA for too long.

 

[Robert Watcher]

I mean: I am the first one to be in awe in front of Robert's pictures of the Nicaragua people. And, as to this snake picture, there is nothing wrong with it: Robert is certainly happy to have it and show around to tell the story about the poisonous snake. But is this what you want to take back from your trip?

Please don't take the posting of this image out of context Jerome. I posted this uncropped, unprocessed photo - not as an image that he should emulate - but strictly to give Asher an idea of the limitations of a 300mm focal length when you might presume that will get you really closeup, and as well the challenges of having to use high ISO with slow shutter speeds in such jungle conditions that might not be anticipated.


This might be more along the lines of what I would be contented with for a final print of this snake in its natural environment (same image as above but processed the way I would normally do):

 

[Jerome Marot]

Please don't take the posting of this image out of context Jerome. I posted this uncropped, unprocessed photo - not as an image that he should emulate - but strictly to give Asher an idea of the limitations of a 300mm focal length when you might presume that will get you really closeup, and as well the challenges of having to use high ISO with slow shutter speeds in such jungle conditions that might not be anticipated.

I am not criticising your picture, but pointing the limitations of trying to take pictures of the wildlife of an unknown tropical country.

 

[Robert Watcher]

I am not criticising your picture, but pointing the limitations of trying to take pictures of the wildlife of an unknown tropical country.

I agree with you Jerome - - - it is a huge challenge and many photographers have delusions of what they can expect to capture when traveling to an unknown location - much of it based on images they may see in books and on the web where photographers may focus on one creature over a period of days or more and may even be using setup areas to capture their stunning images.

The reality is often much different and can be disappointing - especially if one goes out and purchases or rents new or expensive gear - or trudges through jungles or rivers with loads of heavy gear and misses the experience - - - in hopes that they will come back with the same kind of images. I am not a wildlife specialist by any means, so am not concerned with criticism of my images - - - just wanted to point out the context and reason why I posted these shots in this particular thread.

 

[Don Cohen]

Rob and Don,

When you travel in these National Parks, is it generally in a Landrover type vehicle, a car or folk mainly walk. I'm wondering as far as taking 4-6 year olds on one of the trips. Presumably on a boat, they have safety gear for children if one tells the travel guide in advance. I'm wondering about the dynamics as this effects what one carries.

Thanks for sharing,

Asher

Thanks,

Asher

Asher, I would address these questions to my friend John Aspinall, who I've mentioned in my PM's to you on this subject. I like working through someone like him, in large measure because of the safety issues you raise.

Generally I would consider shooting in Costa Rica to be fairly safe, but problems do occur at times (as they do anywhere, including the US). On my trips, we have small groups (definite safety in numbers), and have a full-time guide, as well as a full-time driver who stays with the bus, and perhaps more importantly, they know which areas to avoid.

A very public place like Manuel Antonio is not likely to see security problems, but having a local guide is likely to decrease this even further. The Tarcoles River trip is also what I would consider safe. I'm pretty sure there are life jackets and such available (the river is quite tame, so chances of problems are pretty minimal in that regard), but again I would confirm with John.

Carara does not see the traffic that Manuel Antonio does, so in that sense, there might be more potential for problems (though I would still consider this a low-probability concern).

Having a local guide with you not only increases your security (though obviously not 100%), but their skill in finding the wildlife you want to see and shoot can make a huge difference in your experience there.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, I would address these questions to my friend John Aspinall, who I've mentioned in my PM's to you on this subject. I like working through someone like him, in large measure because of the safety issues you raise.

Don,

Thanks so much for the connection to your friend John Aspinall. I'll make contact with him ASAP and find out what is realistic for my itinerary. It seems that this trip should be my introduction to Costa Rica, just the first taste of this South American country's human and eco-landscape.

Frankly, if I stayed in one town and photographed people, I'd already be very happy. Still, the diverse eco-treasures of the rain forrest and the existence of sloths, (prehistoric relatives of which I've seen in skeletons recovered from The La Brea Tar Pits close by my home) and so many colorful birds, make the Costa Rican National Parks such an allure to me.

I appreciate your kind sharing of your hard won experience!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

The reality is often much different and can be disappointing - especially if one goes out and purchases or rents new or expensive gear - or trudges through jungles or rivers with loads of heavy gear and misses the experience - - - in hopes that they will come back with the same kind of images.

This is exactly what I wanted to say. Considering that Asher already has a 400m f/5.6 lens with his zoom + x2 focal extender, is it worth acquiring and carrying around another lens?

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is exactly what I wanted to say. Considering that Asher already has a 400m f/5.6 lens with his zoom + x2 focal extender, is it worth acquiring and carrying around another lens?

Jerome,

The 6D with the 70-200 L IS and 2x extender is already enough for me to carry, LOL. The 100mmm macro for butterflies, lizard, flowers and the like and I'm almost maxed out. I could just supplement it with the Ricoh GR, (21mm and 28mm)!

However, I can also have the guide carry extra gear for further reach in the forrest. So that means one other body and perhaps the Canon 300, 400 or 500mm f4.0 and the x 1.4 extender.

I have the Canon 7D, (1.8lb, 816 gm), so it just means renting the lens with greater reach.

1. Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS, 3.4lb, 1.38Kg, (160-640mm reach on the 7D)
   
2. Canon 300 mm f4.0L IS, 2.62lb, 1.9Kg, (480mm or 768mm with x1.4 extender on the 7D)
   
3. Canon 400 5.6 L (no IS) 2.75lb, (640mm reach on the 7D but no IS!)
   
4. Tamron 150 600 mm, 5.6-6.3), 4.3lb 1.95Kg

Of these choices, the 400 5.6 seems to be the most favored by birders for use with the 7D, followed by the 300 f4 L IS and a x1.4 convertor.

So that's where I'm at now and in the midst of arranging the photo-trips just for myself and then for the rest of the gang with 3 kids 4-6, LOL!! We're only there for 8 days, still I plan to have at least 1 day river trip and one 2 day shoots in the jungle just for photography.

Asher