[boriscleto]

What is the big deal about the Minimum Focus Distance that everyone is bitching about?. A 560mm Fl lens does not lend itself to portrait work, nor is it practical for macro. It is more like for shooting surfers and such IMO.

It makes it pretty much worthless for getting close ups of small birds. But if that's your thing you can use a shorter lens and a blind.

[Pål Jensen]

It makes it pretty much worthless for getting close ups of small birds. But if that's your thing you can use a shorter lens and a blind.

..or a small extension tube. Most shooters of very small birds do...

[Ex Finn.]

It makes it pretty much worthless for getting close ups of small birds. But if that's your thing you can use a shorter lens and a blind.

OK, makes sense, but a wrong lens for that kind of an application, at F1:5.6 it would be too slow in dim canopy, where those subjects are most likely to hang out.

[Pål Jensen]

OK, makes sense, but a wrong lens for that kind of an application, at F1:5.6 it would be too slow in dim canopy, where those subjects are like to hang out.

Not with todays high ISO performers. Besides, if want the whole bird in focus at these close focusing distances you need to stop down below F:5.6. At 560mm F:5.6 give almost no DOF. The Sigma is half a stop faster; hardly significant. Surely you can increase ISO half a stop?

[Ex Finn.]

Surely you can increase ISO half a stop?

With the K-5, absolutely and then some. Maybe this lens will be good for birding on open fields and marshlands. For sure it is not in my budget.

[normhead]

For sure it is not in my budget.

And that's the issue right there... lenses I would like to have but don't, 15 ltd, 31 ltd, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 70-200 2.8 1.7, DA 77, Tamron 17-50 or DA* 16-50. I can buy all those lenses and I would still be saving up for the 560, and have nothing new for a few more years.

I thought I'd use the DA*60-250 a lot more. Owning it has made me really aware of how few opportunities I actually have to use a really long lens. At least with the 60-250, I get a lot of shots in the 60-150 range, so I get some use from it even when I don't use it at full reach very often.

[Ex Finn.]

lenses I would like to have but don't, 15 ltd,

Getting away from that overpriced, not yet tested telescope hybrid, with your location, and scenery, a 15 ltd should be a must have.

[normhead]

Yes, it's top of the list... I have many shots I took with the 10-17 that really need to be reshot with the 15.

[Ex Finn.]

It is not the sharpest lens in the drawer but it renders with pixie dust, I swear.

[normhead]

Actually from the photozone tests at it's best it has both great corner to corner sharpness and at teh next F-stop has great centre sharpness, which should be like having two lenses in one. You just have to remember what f-stop is good for what, at least that's what their tests showed. I guess real world results my differ.

[Ex Finn.]

Actually from the photozone tests at it's best it has both great corner to corner sharpness and at teh next F-stop has great centre sharpness, which should be like having two lenses in one. You just have to remember what f-stop is good for what, at least that's what their tests showed. I guess real world results my differ.

I find the 15 ltd joyful, it has almost the same colors as my SMC-A 50-F1:1.7 lenses.

[boriscleto]

Maybe this lens will be good for birding on open fields and marshlands. For sure it is not in my budget.

This might be an even better setup for that for a fraction of the cost...

[Ex Finn.]

This might be an even better setup for that for a fraction of the cost...

I like it.