[Thekillerqueen]

Hi all,
I am really keen on shooting wildlife (photo shooting obvisouly!) , and I am finding that my lens just doesn't cut it. I took several shots of a Buzzard flying from a tree , to the field below and back, and the photos just show as brown marks with lots of background.

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

[jatrax]

SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

---------- Post added 02-08-16 at 10:30 AM ----------

But to be honest the best way is still to get close. With your 2x TC you are pushing 400mm already and nothing is going to get you a lot closer than that except a 600mm or the 250-600mm zoom. Lots of things will get better, just not closer.

The 150-450 might be the best zoom available at this time in Pentax glass. There is also the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses but I've no experience with those.

Once you move beyond 200mm you enter another world in both technique and glass and expense.

[Thekillerqueen]

Thanks for the respsonse. I thought it would involve spending a hell of a lot of money! I shall develop my stealth technique and also start saving!

[bargainguy]

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.

2. Stay away from teleconverters, especially cheap ones.

Now I know this will sound like heresy to some here. But hear me out.

Re #1, telephoto zooms are often at their worst on the long end. Sharpness suffers, field curvature and CA tend to be rampant at the long end. So where you are likely to use that telephoto zoom the most is where it's least likely to work for you.

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.

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.

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.

[jatrax]

One lens that would improve things without being too expensive is the: HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I would think it would be noticeably better than your 28-200. I used it for years with good results. It does have an annoying habit of tracking the focus all the way out and back if you miss focus but then I suppose your 28-200 does the same.

But no matter what lens you use, if you shoot a buzzard with a 400mm lens and it is just a tiny brown mark then you simply are not close enough. Most wildlife shooters are going to be cropping a lot even with very long glass. Unfortunately your k-m does not have a lot of pixels to crop from compared to the 36mp cameras being used today.

Shooting wildlife causally is often an exercise in frustration. I watched a local TV show about a wildlife photographer where they showed him in full camo with a camo net crawling slowly into position. it took him 3 hours to move into position and get one shot with a 600mm f/4 lens.

[marcusBMG]

Have a browse through the 300mm plus lens club.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ng-lenses.html

There are regular contributors using the lenses mentioned, (and +1 for the 55-300mm as having excellent price/performance) but most of them are rather more top end lenses with prices to match! You get what you pay for of course and if you become a dedicated birder or wildlifer then that's an investment that is made. However I and others have chipped in with a variety of other lenses including bargain basement presets, mirror lenses etc. Acquiring and using these is instructive and means that there isn't a bank account damaging immediate outlay. Click on search this thread at the right hand end of the red bar then advanced search and search for my posts. See also the lens reviews.

[csa]

1. Stay away from zooms of any sort.

I have been quite pleased with the results of my wildlife photos taken with a 55-300 Pentax. Many times I cannot adjust my position without alarming the subject; so a zoom is very handy. I had a 400mm lens that I sold specifically for this reason.

[fwcetus]

One lens that would improve things without being too expensive is the: HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I would think it would be noticeably better than your 28-200.

Agreed. I think that the HD DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR, or the optically identical (except for coatings) SMC DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED (an even better bargain, as a used lens) would be significantly more effective than any 28-200 zoom.

And then you can also work on your technique some more...

[jatrax]

I have been quite pleased with the results of my wildlife photos taken with a 55-300 Pentax. Many times I cannot adjust my position without alarming the subject; so a zoom is very handy. I had a 400mm lens that I sold specifically for this reason.

I don't think anyone would argue that a prime of good quality will produce better results than a zoom and usually at a lower weight penalty. But for most wildlife shooters the zoom is far too handy to be neglected. I also sold off my 400mm prime and replaced it with the 150-450 because while 400mm is great, if you need 250mm you are out of luck. If you are shooting a building and find yourself too close you can move back. I've not found much wildlife that will wait around while you pack up and move 100 feet back.

[savoche]

From what I see it is hard to tell apart the DA*300 and the DFA 150-450 at 300mm. Not all zooms are bad.

And for the price (and size!), I think nothing beats the 55-300.

[bargainguy]

Ah, I knew I would stir up some controversy with my remark on avoiding zooms.

Sure, you can get acceptable results with one. And it's more convenient than repositioning yourself and disturbing your subject, as CSA noted.

But any zoom is a compromise. Most have pincushion distortion at the short end and barrel distortion at the long end. CA is often visible at the long end. Sharpness tends to fall off there too. And for the most part, they let in less light because zoom designs are more complex, with more elements than a prime. There's also more that can go wrong, everything else being equal.

That's why I'd recommend starting with a prime and work on shooting technique. One way to do this: Go find a freeway overpass (at a safe spot only please, don't risk being hurt) and manually follow focus and pan vehicles at freeway speeds.

For best quality, I'd take a manual focus prime telephoto to an AF zoom telephoto any day. One of the reasons I just sold my FA 100-300. Just didn't use it enough to warrant keeping it. I have enough primes to keep me happy for a long, long time.

Now, on with the discussion.

[biz-engineer]

The Buzzard was around 100-200 yards away and i was using a 28-200mm auto focus lens with a 2x Telemax.

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

but for a 10 inches buzzard at between 100 and 200 yards, you need a zoom lens that covers 2400mm to 4800mm, hardly possible except with a very small sensor and rock solid tripod fixing.

The cheapest way to get wildlife image of excellent quality is to get closer by hiding yourself into a blind, this is also called "hide photography" where you can get as close as a few yards from wild animals and get excellent images with a cheap lens (for example, this site here HidePhotography.com , this guy shot with a 300mm lens).

So basically, I suggest you change your technique first.

[MountainMan]

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.

[TER-OR]

Also be careful, those longer lenses get hard to shoot hand-held. Make sure you keep your shutter speed high enough to compensate. Even with the IBIS vibration reduction your hand-held sniping might be tricky. And panning makes the matter worse, I've noticed my K3II is worse panning with the VR than the K5 was.

[boriscleto]

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.

First welcome to the forum.

I used the 55-300 with a much less expensive Vivitar Series 1 1.4x TC. The combination was workable as lomg as there was sufficient light. Unfortunately the Vivitar is no longer available in K-mount new.

I currently use the Sigma 150-500, also no longer available new in K-mount. IQ is slightly improved over the 55-300 + TC, but there is also a large increase in size and weight. The silent autofocus is a bonus.