Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2008, 05:23 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Abbazz Quote
135mm is usually too short for birds in the wild, except they are entangled in a net -- and probably dead.
In terms of the general comment, I would agree, 135 is usually too short, but I disagree that the only time it is possible is if the bird is dead, please see the attached, shot with a 28-105
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/182066-post33.html

or the warbler below
QuoteQuote:
200-300mm would be the minimum for birds accustomed to man or when shooting behind a blind, and 500-600mm when stalking up on wild birds.

Cheers!

Abbazz
while I agree that there is an advantage to having a long lens, any lens can work. Both these were in the wild. Clearly the hawk had something more interesting to think about than me, but the warbler was just sitting there as I walked past on a trail in the woods.

I have also many shots, especially bigger birds at 300 mm.

While I don't disagree that longer is easier to get photos, length is really more a question of ease vs patience. Yes a blind can help, but I don't use one.


Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 03-28-2011 at 11:30 AM.
05-02-2008, 06:14 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Myanmar
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
In terms of the general comment, I would agree, 135 is usually too short, but I disagree that the only time it is possible is if the bird is dead
I agree Lowell. I was specifically referring to the picture attached to 247nino's post, where the bird looks very much like dead. Of course it is possible to shoot wild birds with a 135mm -- and your great pictures prove it -- but it requires a lot of practice.

Everyone tends to speaks for himself, so I stated what was obvious for me, considering my shooting habits and the particularities of the fauna around where I live. A person shooting gulls gathering near a fishing boat will certainly not need such a long lens as when I shoot hornbills perched on the highest branch of a 50m high tree in the rainforest of Borneo.

Here's a (heavily cropped) picture of two kingfishers taken last week-end with the Pentax F* 300/4.5. It's not great, but I had to wait for quite a while to take it. I regretted not to have brought any longer lens on that day:


Cheers!

Abbazz

Last edited by Abbazz; 05-02-2008 at 07:25 AM.
05-02-2008, 07:14 AM   #33
Pentaxian
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,356
EASE VS. PATIENCE...... couldn't have said it better, Lowell. Whatever the lens, get the best you can for your budget and enjoy.
05-02-2008, 07:21 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Abbazz Quote
I agree Lowell. I was specifically referring to the picture attached to 247nino's post, where the bird looks very much like dead. Of course it is possible to shoot wild birds with a 135mm -- and your great pictures prove it -- but it requires a lot of practice.
snip....Cheers!

Abbazz
I think you need to also consider luck. Both my shots were taken when the 28-105 was all I had with me. In fact I was not going out to take bird pictures when I got these shots.

While it is clear my Hawk was very distracted by his lunch, the shot of the warbler is (with the exception of resizing) exactly what came from the camera.

The hawk is about 2 feet tall, which makes him an easy target. the warbler is about 2 inches tall!

I will not accept any praise for skill / practice / patience on that one, it was pure luck.

05-02-2008, 07:23 AM   #35
Veteran Member
palmor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA
Posts: 798
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I will not accept any praise for skill / practice / patience on that one, it was pure luck.
It doesn't matter, you could have a 900mm f/2.8 lens and you still need some luck to get wildlife shots I think the longer the glass lets you have a little bit "less" luck hehe



John
05-02-2008, 10:58 AM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kalmar
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 127
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I would think that $695 for a manual focus manual apature lens is at least double perhaps tripple what it is worth.

for under $1000 you can get a bigma, or a 70-200 F2.8 and a teleconverter (either 1.4x or 2x)

both options i mention are autofocus.
Thanks for your anwser!
The price for a bigma here in Sweden will be about 1'622 USD :P (And I prefer to just go Pentax eq, dunno why, but it feels right)

What do you think about a DA-star 200 or 300 and a converter?
What will be the max aperture wit ha 1.4x converter on the DA 300/4?
05-02-2008, 11:56 AM   #37
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
.

Curious, how would the F* 300 f/4.5 rate for birding, anyone use one of those, and how much would I expect to pay?


.
05-02-2008, 12:41 PM   #38
Pentaxian
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,356
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

Curious, how would the F* 300 f/4.5 rate for birding, anyone use one of those, and how much would I expect to pay?


.
I have that lens and it is fantastic. It cost me $730 on ebay a year ago, but usually goes for $1100-1200. you can check my site for waterbird pics shot with this lens if interested:

Art by Michael Wolf - RedBubble

05-02-2008, 03:40 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Myanmar
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Curious, how would the F* 300 f/4.5 rate for birding, anyone use one of those, and how much would I expect to pay?
This is a superb lens, tack sharp and with very good control of aberrations, thanks to the use of special glass. It's small and light for a 300mm lens, making it very easy to handhold. This is the kind of lens you can carry in your bag "just in case" when you don't plan to shoot wildlife. I find it a bit too short for small birds though and more suited to large animals. As it's not very fast, I don't use it much with teleconverters. When I plan to do birding, I take the big Tamron 300/2.8, which is much more bulky but works very well with all kinds of teleconverters.

Optically, the only drawback of the 300/4.5 is the bokeh, which is not always as soft as it should be (see the picture in my previous post).

As stated by Ivoire, the price seems to be around $1100. It might decrease a bit thanks to the release of the new DA 300.

Cheers!

Abbazz
05-05-2008, 06:46 AM   #40
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Original Poster
Any comments on the Tokina AT X 80-200 2.8 would be appreciated. Also preformance with a good tc if any.
05-05-2008, 08:25 AM   #41
Pentaxian
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,356
FYI: Pentax F* (star) 300mm f/4.5 telephoto prime lens LOVE! - eBay (item 290228134317 end time May-11-08 16:29:23 PDT)
05-05-2008, 09:32 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Sebbe_J Quote
Thanks for your anwser!
The price for a bigma here in Sweden will be about 1'622 USD :P (And I prefer to just go Pentax eq, dunno why, but it feels right)

What do you think about a DA-star 200 or 300 and a converter?
What will be the max aperture wit ha 1.4x converter on the DA 300/4?
I don't have either so I cannot answer specifically to that point, but with respect to a teleconverter, a good quality one shoud give you good results.

I have attached two shots here, one from each of my favourite long lens (read this as birding) setups.

the first is shot with an *istD and SMC 300mm F4 plus 1.7x AF TC and AF500FTZ flash. (I use the *istD because it is TTL capable) Note, the second shot in this post (blue jay) is done with K10D and sigma 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4x TC wide open at 1/30 of a second (shake reduction does help somewhat)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/106132-post4.html

the next post, is with my Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX and 2x Teleconverter

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/187646-post19.html

The chickadee is slightly cropped (about 10% at most) the Merlin is right out of the camera just resized.

Note that while I proved earlier that you only need a 105mm to get bird shots, as others have stated, you get a lot more with longer lenses.
05-06-2008, 05:34 AM   #43
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Original Poster
Much thanks,
The price will probably run as high as the new DA though. If I could get one for a few hundred less then maybe.

Is there more than one model of the A 300 f4? I mean is there a plain A and a A*?
05-10-2008, 05:04 PM   #44
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Original Poster
I think I have narrowed to the Sigma 100-300 f/4. Looks like it is comparable to the new
DA* 300. I like the range and if the IQ is that good. I hope I can order next week. I hope to be able to find a Tamron 1.4x to pair with it.

There is no responce in reference to the A 300. Looking at that also.
Once again, is there a plain A 300 or just the A* ?

Last edited by OrenMc; 05-10-2008 at 07:04 PM.
05-10-2008, 05:21 PM   #45
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by OrenMc Quote
I think I have narrowed to the Sigma 100-300 f/4. Looks kike it is comparable to the new
DA* 300. I like the range and if the IQ is that good. I hope I can order next week. I hope to be able to find a Tamron 1.4x to pair with it.

There is no responce in reference to the A 300. Looking at that also.
Once again, is there a plain A 300 or just the A* ?
if you are going for a sigma zoom, why not the sigma 1.4x

I have it as well as the 2 x they are both very good TC's Just that they , by design, hae a front element that sticks out, and may only work with certain other lenses

that never bothered me, as I only use the TCs with my 70-200f2.8
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 lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommended Lens For Birding & Wildlife? seachunk2 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 55 07-22-2011 05:35 AM
Nature Perfect Birding lens... FA 50mm f1.4... icywarm Post Your Photos! 5 06-18-2010 03:09 AM
Nature Birding with a macro lens.... scott-devon Post Your Photos! 1 02-24-2010 07:42 PM
Next lens? For birding? sweet bay Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 02-12-2009 09:39 AM
Birding with the K20D-80-320mm lens trumpyman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 07-25-2008 04:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 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