[xenocide72]

Based on feedback here and some internet research I think I'm going to sell my sigma 150-500 and go with a Pentax 150-450 + 1.4 TC.

I was deciding between the Pentax 560, sigma 500 and Pentax 140-450. Not only is the 150-450 the least expensive it may have the best IQ of the three.

[derekkite]

Based on feedback here and some internet research I think I'm going to sell my sigma 150-500 and go with a Pentax 150-450 + 1.4 TC.

I was deciding between the Pentax 560, sigma 500 and Pentax 140-450. Not only is the 150-450 the least expensive it may have the best IQ of the three.

Great. Make sure you show us some work.

[audiobomber]

Based on feedback here and some internet research I think I'm going to sell my sigma 150-500 and go with a Pentax 150-450 + 1.4 TC.

I was deciding between the Pentax 560, sigma 500 and Pentax 140-450. Not only is the 150-450 the least expensive it may have the best IQ of the three.

I have no doubt the 150-450 will outresolve the 150-500, but I doubt it will beat the primes based on this test:
150-450mm versus DA*300/4 +1.4X (8 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It looks to me like the DA*300 with 1.4X @ f5.6 is as sharp as the 150-450 at 450mm and f8.

[normhead]

I have no doubt the 150-450 will outresolve the 150-500, but I doubt it will beat the primes based on this test:
150-450mm versus DA*300/4 +1.4X (8 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It looks to me like the DA*300 with 1.4X @ f5.6 is as sharp as the 150-450 at 450mm and f8.

But which is sharpest at 200mm?

The thing with the 150-450 is you need to carry at least two primes to cover it's range (three if you count the TC, which is like a double lens change.), then pray you have time for lens changes, which sometimes are going to cost you images. You don't expect a zoom to out-perform a prime, although sometimes the DA*60-250 does, the question is, is it close enough. It's a lot of flexibility to give up for the difference I see. Some of those images are identical over 80% of the frame.

[Lowell Goudge]

You know, one thing that has only lightly been touched upon here is the following bit of math

Image size = subject size x focal length / distance.

So if we consider a house sparrow at 150 mm high 30 meters away, with a 300mm lens we get an image 1.5 mm high. If you spend $5-6K you can get the sigma 500/4.5 or the Pentax 560/5.6 and get the image size up to 2.5mm. (Remember an APS sensor is 16x24mm)

But, if you spend just a little effort and move in to 15 meters you can get a 3mm image with your 300.

I would very strongly recommend a little patience and practice on technique. After all distance to subject is FREE

[normhead]

You know, one thing that has only lightly been touched upon here is the following bit of math

Image size = subject size x focal length / distance.

So if we consider a house sparrow at 150 mm high 30 meters away, with a 300mm lens we get an image 1.5 mm high. If you spend $5-6K you can get the sigma 500/4.5 or the Pentax 560/5.6 and get the image size up to 2.5mm. (Remember an APS sensor is 16x24mm)

But, if you spend just a little effort and move in to 15 meters you can get a 3mm image with your 300.

I would very strongly recommend a little patience and practice on technique. After all distance to subject is FREE

Absolutely. But even from 8 feet away, I still need my A-400 for Goldfinches

I spent ages building a platform and a deck to put my blind on and getting 8 feet aways from my feeder so I could get a gold finch filling the frame.



The end result of my success? I really like pictures like this with more context.


But I guess you have to do the extreme things sometimes so you can find to you don't really want that.

But, maybe 12 feet instead of 8 with the 60-250 and 1.4 would be good. The Boreal Chickadee I will print and sell. The Goldfinch, what do you do with an image like that. Who wants a picture of a 14 inch tall gold-finch?

OK< so not exactly on topic, and getting closer is really good. "If you don't like your pictures, move closer." Moving closer makes a better image than an image shot with a longer lens from further away. Use a really long lens, only when you have no other choice, and after winning the lottery.

[boriscleto]

Absolutely. But even from 8 feet away, I still need my A-400 for Goldfinches

I spent ages building a platform and a deck to put my blind on and getting 8 feet aways from my feeder so I could get a gold finch filling the frame.



The end result of my success? I really like pictures like this with more context.


But I guess you have to do the extreme things sometimes so you can find to you don't really want that.

But, maybe 12 feet instead of 8 with the 60-250 and 1.4 would be good. The Boreal Chickadee I will print and sell. The Goldfinch, what do you do with an image like that. Who wants a picture of a 14 inch tall gold-finch?

OK< so not exactly on topic, and getting closer is really good. "If you don't like your pictures, move closer." Moving closer makes a better image than an image shot with a longer lens from further away. Use a really long lens, only when you have no other choice, and after winning the lottery.

The real trick is getting to 8 feet from a warbler...without a blind or bait



I do need to look into fill flash though...

[normhead]

My buddy keeps asking if we can drive down to point Pelee for the spring migration, which I would think would get me close to lots of birds, maybe not 8 feet but maybe 20-30. But we also do an Ice Out trip, and the migration always seems to fall during ICE OUT. One of these years I'll get down there.

[boriscleto]

My buddy keep asking if we can drive down to point Pelee for the spring migration, which I would think would get me close to lots of birds, maybe not 8 feet but maybe 20-30. But we also do an Ice Out trip, and the migration always seems to fall during ICE OUT. One of these years I'll get down there.

And one day I'll get to Magee Marsh

Until then I'll walk down a narrow path surrounded by vegetation loaded with Lyme disease carrying ticks and hope to get a few good shots of common birds.

[goubejp]

Pentax 150 + 450 + TC ? Forget IQ at 630. Even if the zoom is good, I wouldn't bet a penny on this combo at the long end/ I have already seen some shots on the french forum...

[Lowell Goudge]

The real trick is getting to 8 feet from a warbler...without a blind or bait


I do need to look into fill flash though...

The problem is that many people expect to be able to walk up and get a shot pro's take from a blind and believe throwing more dollars as opposed to spending a few more minutes stalking

[biz-engineer]

Pentax 150 + 450 + TC ? Forget IQ at 630. Even if the zoom is good, I wouldn't bet a penny on this combo at the long end/ I have already seen some shots on the french forum...

+ AF perf and clarity of viewfinder taking a hit @630; f8

[goubejp]

The problem is that many people expect to be able to walk up and get a shot pro's take from a blind and believe throwing more dollars as opposed to spending a few more minutes stalking

Right, and as I explained and tried to illustrate above, even if you are getting close, you'll have very unnatural behaviour from bird which is in alert cause of you. The warbler is a good example, without any affense : he is looking at you and is about to fly away. And the use of fill-in flash will not makes him more relaxed. My idea in bird photography is to capture very natural, picture of birds, in their everyday behaviour. Capture tenderness, sorrow, etc..
See below the attitude of the mother looking to his baby which looks bad (shot with the 600f4 from a blind)

[goubejp]

+ AF perf and clarity of viewfinder taking a hit @630; f8

Right, and you can't rely on the AF at F8; even at f4 I check where the AF has matched,.

[reh321]

I hear you.

First of all a "bird", here in Eastern N. America, can be anything from a Ruby Throated Hummer (L 3.75", WS 4.5", WT 0.1 oz) to a White Pelican (L 62", WS 108", WT 17 lb).
By far the most common birds we will actually see will be small, nervous, fast moving woodland and grassland passerines about 1/3 the size of a man's fist - a house sparrow size for instance (L 6.0", WS 9.0", WT 1.0 oz).

So first of all, for the purposes of birding, forget about thinking in relative terms like focal length and use the absolute term magnification. After all apparent magnification is what we are really ultimately after. I use the term "magnification" in the same same sense we use 8x or 10x "magnification" with binoculars.

It's been my experience when chasing after small woodland birds that their comfort zone is in the 30 to 40 foot range Get beyond 30 feet, set up, settle down and the birds will eventually accept your presence - no hide needed.

Assuming you define enough magnification at 35 feet so that a House Sparrow will take up about 1/3 the area of a frame you need about 40x magnification.
So doing the math we find the following FL needed by sensor size for 40x magnification:

Full Frame - 1720mm
APS-C ------ 1100mm (BTW a 500mm on a APS-C sensor gives you about 18x mag.)
4/3 ----------- 864mm
1" ------------- 635mm
1/1.7 (Q7) -- 380mm
1/2/3 (Q) ---- 306mm

I think the implications of these numbers are obvious - except for the Q sensors getting the magnification needed for most birds, is impractical for most of us on this forum - Too big, too heavy and too expensive. In a word - impractical.

Final conclusion - there is no free lunch when it comes to bird photography.

BTW go here (on this forum) if you want to see my bird pics taken with a Q-S1 and a 560mm scope at 60x magnification (over-kill but it's all I got right now) ......

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3307819

Yes, I agree with you 100%, which is why my "budget" birding kit {all I can fit into my current budget} is a Q-7 + Sigma 70-30mm lens. I bought the Q-7 specifically for that reason. I know that more money would give me better detail {and I would love autofocus!!}, but this is what I've been willing to pay for, and it provides the mobility I need. The pictures below were all taken in town, but they were practice for times when I go on birding walks with my wife, and mobility is also an important characteristic.