[biz-engineer]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

What lens for a K-M would you recommend for shooting birds and other widlife that you can't get close to?

At 200 yards, I'd recommend a 4000mm lens.

[ramseybuckeye]

The Buzzard was around 100-200 yards away and i was using a 28-200mm auto focus lens with a 2x Telemax. The manual focusing wasn't the issue just the lack of zoomage.

What lens for a K-M would you recommend for shooting birds and other widlife that you can't get close to?

Thanks

That's just too far away, and that is really not a sharp enough lens for wildlife. The 55-300 can do a good job with enough light, the DA*300 is a lot better, and the Sigma 50-500 is pretty good too. The only teleconverters that I have seen give decent results are expensive and are on fast expensive lenses.

Well, for a buzzard at a distance of 100 to 200 yards, none of the lens listed above will get you any decent photo, even a 800mm $10000 would not do it at all.
With a 1.5x crop sensor, you have to consider the size of your subject (S) covers 1/3rd of the frame, the distance from camera to subject (D), and the focal length (FL): FL[mm] = 6 x D [m] / S [m]

Example:
- for a 10 inches buzzard, at 10 yards, a 240mm lens is long enough
- for a 50 inches bear, at 100 yards, a 500mm lens is long enough

So basically, I suggest you change your technique first.

Good advice, and study the animal's habits

I'm pondering whether or not to get the 1.4 teleconverter and couple with my 55-300 or getting a sigma a 50-500 to gain the extra reach when dealing with wildlife photography. Thoughts on the merits of each would be welcome.

I know they say the TC works with the 55-300 but I would not waste my money, you won't get enough light unless you are shooting in very bright sunlight all the time. I have used the 50-500, I rented one for a few days, it's pretty good, but I ended up buying the DA*300.because it is faster and sharper. The 300 is obviously shorter so it's a tough decision. I did not have a problem handholding the 50-500, but the 300 is easier. I've carried both for sunrise to sunset days, with a few breaks.

[TER-OR]

The other thing you may start find at that distance is a bit of atmospheric haze. Just something to remember when you review images, they may be in focus but not as clear as you'd like.

[fwcetus]

The other thing you may start find at that distance is a bit of atmospheric haze. Just something to remember when you review images, they may be in focus but not as clear as you'd like.

And, besides the contrast-lowering effect of haze, there also can be the effect of atmospheric "shimmering", where, as the ground might be heating up, it can cause the air above it to be dynamically distorted.

[TER-OR]

And, besides the contrast-lowering effect of haze, there also can be the effect of atmospheric "shimmering", where, as the ground might be heating up, it can cause the air above it to be dynamically distorted.

That's interesting to see in video, even if your camera is stable and the subject is static.

Winter is nicer for these things, with the lower humidity.

[normhead]

Man I hate generalizations.

If you're intent on capturing good images of wildlife from far away, I have two recommendations:

1. Stay away from zooms of any sort.

Ignore this.

2. Stay away from teleconverters, especially cheap ones.

The image resolution improvement on your subject is 40% with a Pentax TC, the loss in detail is estimated by Pentax engineers is 3%, the net gain is 37% improvement in subject detail. Those are the actual facts.

All you're doing adding a teleconverter is adding a few pieces of glass to your lens. It used to have 9 elements , now it has 14. Unless you're going to argue a 9 element lens is always better than a 14 element lens, this really doesn't make any sense.

Even the Siggy and Tamron 150-600 zooms are not that hot at the long end. I'd much rather see you get into a prime telephoto and work with mastering that.

The DA 55-300 is strongest at the long end. Nikon Canon and Pentax all make good quality telephotos that work very well with TCs. Maybe the advice here should have been, if you plan to use a TC buy pro quality glass.

Re #2, there isn't a teleconverter made that doesn't degrade the image somehow, and you lose light on top of it. A teleconverter matched to your prime is a better option but still degrades, even if slightly.

There isn't a long lens made that isn't slightly less sharp than a shorter lens of the same quality. The issue here is you lose a slight bit of resolution as you go longer. As mentioned above, the TC is just another few elements for your lens, and the degradation of the image is no where near the gain in resolution through magnification.

But long story short, If I can shoot with my 70 macro from 10 feet away as opposed to a 600 ƒ4 at 100 feet away, the 70 macro image will be sharper.

If you want to do this on a budget, consider older manual focus primes. Optics are generally quite good and force you to learn manual focusing technique, which would always be handy even with your AF lenses (fine tuning AF results manually).

There is no free lunch in the wildlife shooting world. Get a prime, avoid teleconverters if at all possible, and work on your shooting technique. That's where you need to be for best results.

I have my DA*60-250 with TC and an A-400. Bottom line, 1000 keepers in my library taken at 350mm (60-250 at full reach with the TC) 406 taken with the A-400. The big issue with the A-400 is purple fringing in backlit situations especially with a TC, I recently threw out a whole 45 minute shooting session and ended up with the DA*60-250 and TC and less resolution because the A-400 images were un-useable, because of purple fringing that went beyond 10 pixels wide. The A-400 isn't pro quality glass, but old pro quality glass is just as expensive as new pro quality glass.

So my advice if you want to go cheap is get a 55-300 with a plan to sell it when you get better, that is simply your best option. It's the best consumer grade lens out there. But be warned, because of low light focusing capacity, don't plan to use a TC with one. With absolute glaring sunlight, I can use a TC with a 5.6 lens, the 1.4 TC, not the 1.7, but you are right on the edge of functional AF.

If you do plan to go expensive, the DA*300 coupled with the 1.4 TC is the bargain. The 150-450 is the preferred, and the DA 560 ƒ5.6 is the goal.

Other lenses worth considering.. Sigma 500 ƒ4.5 and Sigma 300 ƒ2.8. Pentax FA* 250-600 or 600ƒ4.

Heres a 600 ƒ4 for you if you want to just go straight to the finish line.
That and a DA*200 2.8, and DA*60-250 and TC and you are so set for life.

If you stick to those lenses you're IQ is pretty much guaranteed to be pro-quality. And if you look at what you get for your money , the 55-300 is a steal.

Or you can of what I did, DA*60-250 with TC. I suffer in the long end, but infinitely more flexible. When I get really close to a bird, which happens sometimes, shorten the focal length, to maintain my preferred framing.

Remember what I said about closer is better. If you have a zoom, and your subject gets closer, you have an opportunity for a great image. If you have a prime, you have an opportunity for a head shot, or missed images while you change lenses.

[bargainguy]

All you're doing adding a teleconverter is adding a few pieces of glass to your lens. It used to have 9 elements , now it has 14. Unless you're going to argue a 9 element lens is always better than a 14 element lens, this really doesn't make any sense....

That's not all you're doing, you're losing light (typically 1 stop with a 1.4x, 2 stops with a 2x) and adding more elements, which generally means less contrast (more reflective surfaces) and more aberrations in the final image. No free lunch, and you generally increase your minimum focusing distance compared to the prime. That's why I recommend not using them. YMMV.

[normhead]

That's not all you're doing, you're losing light (typically 1 stop with a 1.4x, 2 stops with a 2x) and adding more elements, which generally means less contrast (more reflective surfaces) and more aberrations in the final image.

At this point I have to ask, what are you talking about? My A-400 is 5.6, my DA*60-250 with TC is ƒ5.6, so where is this light I'm losing? That is completely dependant on your lens combo, not some kind of edict handed down on high.

I don't see aberrations in my 60-250. 1.4x more aberrations? 1.4 times 0 is still zero.

I understand what you're recommending. I just don't think it's logical.

But you tell me. What primes do you need to cover 60-560 with primes like I do with a 60-250, A-400 and a TC? Can anyone even carry load like that. I'm not clear on exactly what your experience is here. Inquiring minds want to know?

The typical set up I see these days is a photographer with one big honking lens for really long, and a 100-400 type zoom underneath that, about 50% of the time a 70-200 with a 2x TC on a second body.



The lady on the left is pretty typical, a zoom on the camera, the big glass in case she can't get what she wants with the zoom. And if they don't have a big honking lens, they probably have a 100-400 type zoom like the one on the left.

You never see anyone these days traveling with just a prime. It's either a long prime and a zoom, or just a zoom. Except for one old school guy, I've seen traveling with nothing but a 200mm 2.8 on an old FF. And when he finds something he can actually photograph, he's really happy.

But I know. You're right, all these guys are wrong. I get it. We're all stupid. Or is it you're just more discriminating than us? You'd rather get nothing than one of our crappy zoom and TC pictures taken with less light and more aberrations?. Just what are you saying here?

[robthebloke]

The image resolution improvement on your subject is 40% with a Pentax TC, the loss in detail is estimated by Pentax engineers is 3%, the net gain is 37% improvement in subject detail. Those are the actual facts.

Maths pedant alert: to combine percentages you multiply...

1.4 x 0.97 = 1.358

So a 35.8% improvement. (I'm not disagreeing with you)

[normhead]

Maths pedant alert: to combine percentages you multiply...

1.4 x 0.97 = 1.358

So a 35.8% improvement. (I'm not disagreeing with you)

I still want it, despite the dramatic reduction.

[jeallen01]

I still want it, despite the dramatic reduction.

Also, IF you can find a good one, consider the now quite old Sigma 100-300 F4 (read the reviews on this forum) - pretty sharp wide open and works quite well with the dedicated Sigma 1.4 TC. However, be aware that it is out of support by sigma (few spare parts left!) for the Pentax version, and so needs to be checked carefully before buying.

Also note that there are two versions, and the early one does not autofocus as well as the later version.

Might be within a relatively limited budget though.

[bargainguy]

At this point I have to ask, what are you talking about? My A-400 is 5.6, my DA*60-250 with TC is ƒ5.6, so where is this light I'm losing?

LensRentals.com - Teleconverters 101

If you don't believe the above, try this. Meter your scene with your TC and without. See any difference in the meter reading?

[boriscleto]

LensRentals.com - Teleconverters 101

If you don't believe the above, try this. Meter your scene with your TC and without. See any difference in the meter reading?

The A 400 is F5.6

The 60-250 is F4. With the 1.4x TC it is F5.6.

The 55-300 on a $99 1.4X TC. Just awful...

[bargainguy]

Rather than list my experience, I'll just offer the following. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Whenever you bash someone publicly, you artificially inflate yourself and whatever you're doing. The implication is that you are superior, and by inference, the other party is inferior.

I have no need to bash anyone here. If your experience leads you in a certain direction, well and good. If you're not interested in listening to someone else's opinion with an open mind and are more intent on bashing, that conversation ends right here, at least for me.

I'm just offering up my experience, but I can tell it goes against the grain of what some here believe. So be it.

I'm interested in a best quality / best practice discussion, not a bashing. So I think it's time to bow out, because I can see where this is all heading. I have no need to bash or be bashed.

Thanks, and back to the discussion.

[boriscleto]

A new addition to the ignore list.