Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2011, 05:03 PM   #16
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by fredok1 Quote
The new setup also has a 1.5 crop factor. In addition, the 200-400mm f/4 will autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter for an effective focal length of 840mm at the long end. The fact that Pentax does not make a 1.4x converter to autofocus with the DA* 300mm and DA* 60-250mm zoom is what made me switch. Otherwise I would have hung in there until Pentax gave us a new super telephoto like their roadmap indicated a couple of years ago.
There never was a super telephoto on the road map. It was another 300mm lens of some sort. It was just wishful thinking on some folks that wanted to see that.

01-06-2011, 05:06 PM   #17
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Kruger Quote
It is a misconception that "pro" wildlife photographers all use super-telephotos. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject the better the shot. People who don't know anything about wildlife think they need 1000mm to get shots of wild critters. Those who take a professional approach, learn how to get close.
I saw a documentary about the best Nat Geo shots from the past decade, and every one of the wildlife shots featured were taken with lenses shorter that 50mm (mostly film, not crop sensors). I've been selling outdoor images for over 3 decades, and the longest lens I have is a 200mm.
Good luck getting close enough to certain small critters and birds. A rhino will come to you. Certain vireos will not.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I think the point is that you think you need 400mm to do wildlife work, while most of the wildlife pros don't need or use it.

Did I make it clearer for you?
I think that is a generalization. I would say as many or more have some long glass than those that don't. I would also say that there is a portion of those that don't would like to have long glass but that $8500 price tag on the FA* 600/4 is an issue.
01-06-2011, 07:00 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
Then theres the A* 200/4 macro, anyone ever shoot any wildlife with it?
I for one, would sure like to try.
01-06-2011, 07:58 PM - 1 Like   #19
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,442
QuoteQuote:
No. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens.
Yeah, we know. I'm sure that is why he included "effective" and we all know what he means.

01-06-2011, 08:04 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Good luck getting close enough to certain small critters and birds. A rhino will come to you. Certain vireos will not.
they'll all "come to you," if you go where they want to be, hide and be patient. As I said, I don't own a lens longer than 200mm and I've shot a great many critters with it, even with my 100mm and a few with my 35mm macro. Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter.
The most challenging critter I've ever tried to fill frame with is a coyote.
And Bill: the A* 200/4 will work for wildlife, but because most opportunities at real wildlife come during low light situations, I find the f-2.8 of my 200 very useful. Sometimes I wish I had something even faster. Unless it is a controlled environment, most wildlife don't pose for you in full sunlight. For maximum IQ, I shoot mostly at 100 ISO, never over 400 ISO with my K20D. I'm hoping to get a K5 to extend the f-2.8 further into the shadows with its higher ISO capabilities.
01-06-2011, 08:06 PM   #21
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by BillM Quote
Then theres the A* 200/4 macro, anyone ever shoot any wildlife with it?
I for one, would sure like to try.
There are a few people on here with it and the FA* 200mm/4 macro. Marc L'Angille has the latter. Those 2 are a couple of the best macro lenses in that class ever made.
01-07-2011, 01:40 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ferguson, Mo.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Kruger Quote
they'll all "come to you," if you go where they want to be, hide and be patient. As I said, I don't own a lens longer than 200mm and I've shot a great many critters with it, even with my 100mm and a few with my 35mm macro. Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter.
The most challenging critter I've ever tried to fill frame with is a coyote.
And Bill: the A* 200/4 will work for wildlife, but because most opportunities at real wildlife come during low light situations, I find the f-2.8 of my 200 very useful. Sometimes I wish I had something even faster. Unless it is a controlled environment, most wildlife don't pose for you in full sunlight. For maximum IQ, I shoot mostly at 100 ISO, never over 400 ISO with my K20D. I'm hoping to get a K5 to extend the f-2.8 further into the shadows with its higher ISO capabilities.
Was with thoughts of K5 that I brought that mac into it Ron. Agree whole-heartedly
regarding lighting, was able to pick up 2 K200/2.5's, for less than DA*200
had I not been able to, no doubt, I would be shooting DA*200 also, do feel its
superior in every aspect, not by much in IQ, but ED glass wins hands down.
and its not a comfortable feeling when the weather gets heavy.
Been covering some swans lately and until duck/geese season is over we're
all forced to stand off or get a stamp and get in a blind with the hunters.
(once shootin starts,kiss your shot good bye)
"A" and "M" 400/5.6's I have are are nice right now, once hunting season is
over, Im just like you, those 200's are going right back on. Instead of 200
meters, 20 or 30 be just fine.
All due respect to canon and nikons, they're looking up when it comes to
(F)A*200/4 macro, dont believe there's ever been better,by anyone.
01-07-2011, 03:49 AM   #23
Veteran Member
borno's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: md-usa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,580
I guess nobody told these guys they really need an old MF macro lens for wildlife.



01-07-2011, 04:12 AM   #24
Veteran Member
timh's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 445
I'm never going to be in the market for anything remotely like that, but don't Sigma do some decent fast long lenses in Pentax mount? 500mm f4.5 prime, a few zooms..

That said, with the price of these things the expense of another body becomes a minor consideration.
01-07-2011, 04:25 AM   #25
Banned




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 218
QuoteOriginally posted by fredok1 Quote
So what's your point?
I would have thought the point was obvious,it is the photographer that makes the shots that sell,not the equipment and the proof is the sales or recognition as a Pro as opposed to a pic shooter to post on flickr.
01-07-2011, 05:55 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hampton Roads
Photos: Albums
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by borno Quote
I guess nobody told these guys they really need an old MF macro lens for wildlife.
With monster lenses and heavy tripods, these guys cannot go very far, so Ron's strategy of getting close to critters is out of question. They essentially have to shoot from a parking lot.

With a smaller, hand-holdable lens you are free to go anywhere.
01-07-2011, 07:37 AM   #27
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Kruger Quote
they'll all "come to you," if you go where they want to be, hide and be patient. As I said, I don't own a lens longer than 200mm and I've shot a great many critters with it, even with my 100mm and a few with my 35mm macro. Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter.
The most challenging critter I've ever tried to fill frame with is a coyote.
And Bill: the A* 200/4 will work for wildlife, but because most opportunities at real wildlife come during low light situations, I find the f-2.8 of my 200 very useful. Sometimes I wish I had something even faster. Unless it is a controlled environment, most wildlife don't pose for you in full sunlight. For maximum IQ, I shoot mostly at 100 ISO, never over 400 ISO with my K20D. I'm hoping to get a K5 to extend the f-2.8 further into the shadows with its higher ISO capabilities.
Ron, I'm a professional biologist. Even if "they come to you," vireos are very shy and tiny birds. Photo shelters aren't the answer to every biological organism out there. Coyotes, big old herons and racoons are simple. Vireo's and red cockaded woodpeckers are another matter. Furthermore, even with a big FA* 600mm or 250-600mm f5.6, the photographer is generally from an "ambush" position due to the size and tripod requirements.

Last edited by Blue; 01-07-2011 at 07:45 AM.
01-07-2011, 07:46 AM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Kammerer Quote
With monster lenses and heavy tripods, these guys cannot go very far, so Ron's strategy of getting close to critters is out of question. They essentially have to shoot from a parking lot.

With a smaller, hand-holdable lens you are free to go anywhere.
Strategy should be based on the biology, behavior and size of the organism in question.
01-07-2011, 08:17 AM   #29
Veteran Member
borno's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: md-usa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,580
QuoteOriginally posted by Kammerer Quote
With monster lenses and heavy tripods, these guys cannot go very far, so Ron's strategy of getting close to critters is out of question. They essentially have to shoot from a parking lot.

With a smaller, hand-holdable lens you are free to go anywhere.
That's why I like a 300mm f2.8 and TC (or not) or a 400mm f5.6

01-07-2011, 08:34 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
the Sigma 300 2.8 is compatible with the 1.4 and 2.0 x Tele-converter
that gives you Effectively a 300 2.8 a 420 f4 and a 600 f5.6 for less than the price of a 500 f4.5
Even if you shot canikon given the price of the big lenses from them you'd likely start looking at the Sigma alternatives
and if you take into account aps-c crop factors a 300 2.8 is the equivalent of a 450 2.8 on a FF or Film body a lens I don't think exists anywhere
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
which lens for wildlife/birds? axl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 09-06-2009 08:22 PM
What is the BEST wildlife lens? Leo Miyanaga Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 08-30-2009 10:36 AM
Lens for wildlife?? Pic_Colo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-22-2008 03:42 PM
Lens for birding/wildlife OrenMc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 111 06-01-2008 07:15 PM
Best wildlife lens? ronald_durst Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-30-2007 09:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top