Lens for birding/wildlife

OrenMc · 04-30-2008, 05:15 AM

Thanks for being so helpful ivoire and palmor.
I think I have a case of LBA

but I am hoping when I get the ranges I want covered that will go away.

I have the Sigma 17-70 that I'm happy with ( surely not the Pentax 16-50 sharpness and on wishlist ) so I want to cover 70-200 and then the 400 to 500 range.
The shots with the Sigma 70-200 w/tc seem to work pretty good palmor. I will have to keep that one in mind.

Last edited by OrenMc; 04-30-2008 at 05:35 AM.

Abbazz · 04-30-2008, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I would be extremely surprised if yo can get an f2.8 300mm anything for double your budget.

I bought my Tamron Adaptall 2 SP 300/2.8 from Keh for $450. A very good lens, highly recommendable. Of course, my Pentax F* 300/4.5 is sharper and it has autofocus too, but it's also 2x more expensive. And the Tamron is 1.5 stop faster, which counts a lot in low light or to shoot those magazine portraits with soft blurred backgrounds (the bokeh of the Pentax is not always that good). The Tamron is also the king of teleconverters. I get very good results with my Kenko 3X Teleplus Pro 300 converter (on a sturdy tripod): a whopping 900mm F/8 lens

.

Here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 on my K10d (no sharpening):

100% crop from preceding picture:

Here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 + Pentax 2X-S Rear Converter (600/5.6 equivalent) on my K10d (no sharpening):

100% crop from preceding picture:

And here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 + Kenko 3X Teleplus Pro 300 converter (900mm F/8 equivalent) on my K10d (no sharpening):

100% crop from preceding picture:

Cheers!

Abbazz

OrenMc · 04-30-2008, 06:48 AM

I already have the tamron adapatll 1.4 x tc so that helps there. I'm looking at the 300 2.8 as an option. If I could pick one up for the price you payed then thats probably it.

**Ron Boggs** · 04-30-2008, 09:18 AM

I've grudgingly had to resort to autofocus on flight shots, just to keep up. Since most static shots don't necessarily line up the bird's eye(s) with an autofocus sensor, you will likely prefer manual focus for "less active" shots. Remember, if the eyes are out of focus, the shot is a throw away in most instances. Eyes with a catchlight are greatly preferable to "dull" eyes without catchlights. Large wading birds have great plumage--especially during breading season, but the body is several inches out of focus plane with eyes requiring a smaller f stop for more depth of field. That makes light a premium...just throwing a few variables at you...

palmor · 04-30-2008, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Ron Boggs

I've grudgingly had to resort to autofocus on flight shots, just to keep up. Since most static shots don't necessarily line up the bird's eye(s) with an autofocus sensor, you will likely prefer manual focus for "less active"

I tend to use the user selected autofocus points to frame the photos more to my liking without having to resort to manual focus. That usually gets at least 95% there then I can crop the small amount to get the framing right. Just another way of doing it

John

**Ron Boggs** · 04-30-2008, 10:44 AM

You can't always get what you want, as Mick Jagger sings, but sometimes an interim step may kind of work for a while.

This shot was made with the now discontinued Sigma 300/4 APO. It was shot through double pane window glass, thus the low contrast--the bird, a hairy woodpecker, was on a tree outside my living room. This image was uncharacteristically taken handheld--just a grab shot.

Lenses like this Sigma are inexpensive on the used market, heck I'd sell mine, and with a 1.4x these type of lenses can get the job done fairly well. For about the same money, you can look at 300/4 and 400/5.6 as mentioned in an earlier post.

Both 300/4 and 400/5.6 don't really qualify as bird lenses, but until you can entertain ideas for the big glass, this category of lenses might have to suffice.

ivoire · 05-01-2008, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by OrenMc

Thanks for being so helpful ivoire and palmor.
I think I have a case of LBA

but I am hoping when I get the ranges I want covered that will go away.

I have the Sigma 17-70 that I'm happy with ( surely not the Pentax 16-50 sharpness and on wishlist ) so I want to cover 70-200 and then the 400 to 500 range.
The shots with the Sigma 70-200 w/tc seem to work pretty good palmor. I will have to keep that one in mind.

OrenMc, since none of us mentioned it, the trick to birding is to get close, have plenty of light (or a f2.8 lens) and patience (pick a spot and wait a while to see what arrives). a long lens makes it so much easier (a 500mm sigma, 600mm pentax etc would be the ideal), but if you work on your stealth technique you can get excellent results with shorter lenses. just buy the best quality you can for your money or wait, save a few more $s and get the lens you really want. i like the 300mm length as i can get within a reasonable distance for a shot and then when birds fly at you, you can still get the shot. i'm working my way towards a 300mm f2.8 as my ideal lens with a 500mm prime (probably sigma) as well. its just gonna be a while.

Last edited by ivoire; 05-01-2008 at 07:02 AM.

palmor · 05-01-2008, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by ivoire

i'm working my way towards a 300mm f2.8 as my ideal lens with a 500mm prime (probably sigma) as well. its just gonna be a while.

I'm right there with you about the 500mm prime (the Sigma f/4.5). Although it will take me a little bit to save the cash (can't justify putting that much on a CC) I still want to see what is up Pentax's sleeve with new bodies before I put down $4k on a lens

John

ivoire · 05-01-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by palmor

I'm right there with you about the 500mm prime (the Sigma f/4.5). Although it will take me a little bit to save the cash (can't justify putting that much on a CC) I still want to see what is up Pentax's sleeve with new bodies before I put down $4k on a lens

John

am also waiting as i'm in no hurry to drop $3800. has there been any word on a 400mm or 500mm from pentax? Anyone?

OrenMc · 05-01-2008, 05:41 PM

Since the Sigma 70-200 2.8 + tc was mentioned I've looked at the Tokina ATX 80-200 2.8 and was wondering if anyone has some thoughts on that lens. I could kill two birds with one stone having the range up to 200mm covered and with the tc that would give me the 400mm.

No way can I drop 4k on a prime so I have to make do. But I do want to get as good quality as possible.

code4code5 · 05-01-2008, 09:44 PM

I captured these yesterday with my el-cheapo Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 non APO. Not too bad, but I did have to forgo auto focus in favor of manual.

247nino · 05-01-2008, 11:45 PM

just a sample
a little 50-135 impromptu, under a bridge...

from today

Abbazz · 05-02-2008, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by 247nino

just a sample
a little 50-135 impromptu, under a bridge...

135mm is usually too short for birds in the wild, except they are entangled in a net -- and probably dead.

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

Sebbe_J · 05-02-2008, 02:39 AM

Hello.
Just a quick question: Which focal lenght would be recommended for larger wild animals, like deers and roe deers?

I've thought about the SMC-M 400/5.6 which I can get for about 695$ in very good condition. I have no idea of what it is worth, so is this an acceptable price?

/S

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-02-2008, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Sebbe_J

Hello.
Just a quick question: Which focal lenght would be recommended for larger wild animals, like deers and roe deers?

I've thought about the SMC-M 400/5.6 which I can get for about 695$ in very good condition. I have no idea of what it is worth, so is this an acceptable price?

/S

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.

04-30-2008, 10:44 AM	#21
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	Interim Lenses You can't always get what you want, as Mick Jagger sings, but sometimes an interim step may kind of work for a while. This shot was made with the now discontinued Sigma 300/4 APO. It was shot through double pane window glass, thus the low contrast--the bird, a hairy woodpecker, was on a tree outside my living room. This image was uncharacteristically taken handheld--just a grab shot. Lenses like this Sigma are inexpensive on the used market, heck I'd sell mine, and with a 1.4x these type of lenses can get the job done fairly well. For about the same money, you can look at 300/4 and 400/5.6 as mentioned in an earlier post. Both 300/4 and 400/5.6 don't really qualify as bird lenses, but until you can entertain ideas for the big glass, this category of lenses might have to suffice. Attached Images

05-01-2008, 09:44 PM	#26
code4code5 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 438	I captured these yesterday with my el-cheapo Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 non APO. Not too bad, but I did have to forgo auto focus in favor of manual. Last edited by code4code5; 06-08-2008 at 11:16 PM.

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

04-30-2008, 05:15 AM	#16
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901 Original Poster	Thanks for being so helpful ivoire and palmor. I think I have a case of LBA but I am hoping when I get the ranges I want covered that will go away. I have the Sigma 17-70 that I'm happy with ( surely not the Pentax 16-50 sharpness and on wishlist ) so I want to cover 70-200 and then the 400 to 500 range. The shots with the Sigma 70-200 w/tc seem to work pretty good palmor. I will have to keep that one in mind. Last edited by OrenMc; 04-30-2008 at 05:35 AM.

04-30-2008, 06:21 AM	#17
Abbazz Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 667	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I would be extremely surprised if yo can get an f2.8 300mm anything for double your budget. I bought my Tamron Adaptall 2 SP 300/2.8 from Keh for $450. A very good lens, highly recommendable. Of course, my Pentax F* 300/4.5 is sharper and it has autofocus too, but it's also 2x more expensive. And the Tamron is 1.5 stop faster, which counts a lot in low light or to shoot those magazine portraits with soft blurred backgrounds (the bokeh of the Pentax is not always that good). The Tamron is also the king of teleconverters. I get very good results with my Kenko 3X Teleplus Pro 300 converter (on a sturdy tripod): a whopping 900mm F/8 lens . Here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 on my K10d (no sharpening): 100% crop from preceding picture: Here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 + Pentax 2X-S Rear Converter (600/5.6 equivalent) on my K10d (no sharpening): 100% crop from preceding picture: And here's a sample taken wide open with the Tamron 300/2.8 + Kenko 3X Teleplus Pro 300 converter (900mm F/8 equivalent) on my K10d (no sharpening): 100% crop from preceding picture: Cheers! Abbazz

04-30-2008, 06:48 AM	#18
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901 Original Poster	I already have the tamron adapatll 1.4 x tc so that helps there. I'm looking at the 300 2.8 as an option. If I could pick one up for the price you payed then thats probably it.

04-30-2008, 09:18 AM	#19
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	I've grudgingly had to resort to autofocus on flight shots, just to keep up. Since most static shots don't necessarily line up the bird's eye(s) with an autofocus sensor, you will likely prefer manual focus for "less active" shots. Remember, if the eyes are out of focus, the shot is a throw away in most instances. Eyes with a catchlight are greatly preferable to "dull" eyes without catchlights. Large wading birds have great plumage--especially during breading season, but the body is several inches out of focus plane with eyes requiring a smaller f stop for more depth of field. That makes light a premium...just throwing a few variables at you...

04-30-2008, 09:27 AM	#20
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by Ron Boggs I've grudgingly had to resort to autofocus on flight shots, just to keep up. Since most static shots don't necessarily line up the bird's eye(s) with an autofocus sensor, you will likely prefer manual focus for "less active" I tend to use the user selected autofocus points to frame the photos more to my liking without having to resort to manual focus. That usually gets at least 95% there then I can crop the small amount to get the framing right. Just another way of doing it John

05-01-2008, 06:44 AM	#22
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Originally posted by OrenMc Thanks for being so helpful ivoire and palmor. I think I have a case of LBA but I am hoping when I get the ranges I want covered that will go away. I have the Sigma 17-70 that I'm happy with ( surely not the Pentax 16-50 sharpness and on wishlist ) so I want to cover 70-200 and then the 400 to 500 range. The shots with the Sigma 70-200 w/tc seem to work pretty good palmor. I will have to keep that one in mind. OrenMc, since none of us mentioned it, the trick to birding is to get close, have plenty of light (or a f2.8 lens) and patience (pick a spot and wait a while to see what arrives). a long lens makes it so much easier (a 500mm sigma, 600mm pentax etc would be the ideal), but if you work on your stealth technique you can get excellent results with shorter lenses. just buy the best quality you can for your money or wait, save a few more $s and get the lens you really want. i like the 300mm length as i can get within a reasonable distance for a shot and then when birds fly at you, you can still get the shot. i'm working my way towards a 300mm f2.8 as my ideal lens with a 500mm prime (probably sigma) as well. its just gonna be a while. Last edited by ivoire; 05-01-2008 at 07:02 AM.

05-01-2008, 08:01 AM	#23
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by ivoire i'm working my way towards a 300mm f2.8 as my ideal lens with a 500mm prime (probably sigma) as well. its just gonna be a while. I'm right there with you about the 500mm prime (the Sigma f/4.5). Although it will take me a little bit to save the cash (can't justify putting that much on a CC) I still want to see what is up Pentax's sleeve with new bodies before I put down $4k on a lens John

05-01-2008, 09:31 AM	#24
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Originally posted by palmor I'm right there with you about the 500mm prime (the Sigma f/4.5). Although it will take me a little bit to save the cash (can't justify putting that much on a CC) I still want to see what is up Pentax's sleeve with new bodies before I put down $4k on a lens John am also waiting as i'm in no hurry to drop $3800. has there been any word on a 400mm or 500mm from pentax? Anyone?

05-01-2008, 05:41 PM	#25
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901 Original Poster	Since the Sigma 70-200 2.8 + tc was mentioned I've looked at the Tokina ATX 80-200 2.8 and was wondering if anyone has some thoughts on that lens. I could kill two birds with one stone having the range up to 200mm covered and with the tc that would give me the 400mm. No way can I drop 4k on a prime so I have to make do. But I do want to get as good quality as possible.

05-01-2008, 11:45 PM	#27
247nino Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sunnyvale, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 302	just a sample a little 50-135 impromptu, under a bridge... from today

05-02-2008, 01:51 AM	#28
Abbazz Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 667	Originally posted by 247nino just a sample a little 50-135 impromptu, under a bridge... 135mm is usually too short for birds in the wild, except they are entangled in a net -- and probably dead. 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

05-02-2008, 02:39 AM	#29
Sebbe_J Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Växjö Photos: Gallery Posts: 127	Hello. Just a quick question: Which focal lenght would be recommended for larger wild animals, like deers and roe deers? I've thought about the SMC-M 400/5.6 which I can get for about 695$ in very good condition. I have no idea of what it is worth, so is this an acceptable price? /S

05-02-2008, 05:10 AM	#30
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by Sebbe_J Hello. Just a quick question: Which focal lenght would be recommended for larger wild animals, like deers and roe deers? I've thought about the SMC-M 400/5.6 which I can get for about 695$ in very good condition. I have no idea of what it is worth, so is this an acceptable price? /S 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.