[Nass]

Negotiations didn't go well.

[csa]

Sorry to hear that; I was looking forward to see what you had decided on.

Since I don't have the money for top of the line lenses, I simply crop; and the results are pleasing to me.

[Mikesul]

Sorry to hear that. You have been such a helpful contributor on macro issues I was hoping you would be able to get into tele too. Patience may reward you.

[normhead]

The problem is always the "affordable" part.

Obvious solutions would be the 600 ƒ4 with 1.7x TC.
Sigma 500 ƒ4.5 with 1.7x TC
560 5.6 with 1.4 TC

I'm not going to propose going to a sensor smaller than a 1 inch, which leaves out my Q and XG-1. There is a noticeable loss of IQ.

750 APS-c is almost 1200 FF ( there is a 1200mm lens for K-mount.

The only camera I'd actually recommend from bridge cameras would be the Sony RX10 III of IV and they are half the length you want. I wouldn't go smaller than a 1 inch sensor.

But I'd also say try one of the Sony cameras and see if it will do. I'm happy with my Tamron 300 macro with the 1.7x on the K-3 or Tamron 2x on the K-1. The problem with cheaper options is image quality. The problem with smaller sensors is difraction causing problems with image quality.

With a camera like a K-1 or a K-3 you can crop to sizes that get you close to what you want.

Heres an image with the K-1 and 55-300 PLM in crop mode reduced from 15 MP to 9 MP. This at a distance of close to 75 meters. My K-3 would have done better.



I'd be seriously considering dropping the 750mm requirement. On APS-c I rarely shoot over 510mm.


There's no cheap way to get this kind of reach with acceptably sharp images.

[lesmore49]

I have the Sigma 150-500 and it actually works well for me. But, I am careful with my settings. It likes, sunny days. I usually use my K5 as the regular body. I set the ISO @ 1600 or higher, the F stop, usually around F 10, I disable the Sigma shake reduction and use the Pentax SR and I like to shoot above 1/1500th of a second...I try to avoid going below 1/1000th...remember long, heavy lens.

I also focus on the eye of the particular wildlife I'm taking a picture of...and I've practised this a lot. I have spent a fair amount of time taking pics of fast moving, acrobatic Chickadees at bird feeders over the years with both my 55-300 and 150-500. I'm certainly not 100 %, but I'm much better than I used to be...with me it's practice and more practice and gradually I've improved.

I mostly take pics of large birds...raptors like owls, eagles, pileated Woodpeckers, GB Herons, etc . and after Chickadees...these large, slower moving birds are a piece of cake (all relative) .

Anyways I would give your Sigma 150-500 another shot...it's not a bad lens I find, as long as I stick with my settings and try to nail the eye as my focus point.

[Lowell Goudge]

Adam is spot on about the 500mm f4.5. Can be found in M42 or K mount. Usually cheaper in M42, just add an adapter. It works great with a crop sensor camera and the HD DA 1.4. You will find that at those long focal lengths that any shake is hugely magnified. Also any heat makes lots of distortion at any distance. Dust and haze can be a real bummer as well. If you refine your skill at longer distance then birding distance will come somewhat easy.

The issue with this is the minimum focus distance, as I recall about 50 feet.

I use a k300/4 with the 1.7x AF converter. Result is a 500/6.9 with range specific AF and about total lens weight of 1300 grams. This can focus to about 3.5 meters (11 feet)

I have also a Tamron 200-500/5.6 but it is a 2.6 kilo tripod bound monster. But it can focus to 2.5 meters, For super reach I have a celestron C90 1000/F11 whIch can focus to 1 meter

The celestron lacks contrast, and both it and the Tamron Ned a really good tripod and gimbal head

All of these cost less than 600 CDN

[Kerrowdown]

K 500mm F4.5? It's really sharp

+1 and these can be picked up reasonably inexpensively too, but they do have a bit of learning curve on how to use 'em... in terms of getting 'em steady.

[Wasp]

Maybe forget the ILC and get a coolpix 1000 bridge camera?

Birds with my P1000: Nikon Coolpix Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

From what I have heard, it is not very sharp at the long end.

[normhead]

From what I have heard, it is not very sharp at the long end.

Here's the thing. It would seem these cameras are diffraction limited somewhere between ƒ2.8 and ƒ4. After my experience with my XG-1 I wouldn't even by one of these cameras that wasn't constant ƒ2.8

With my XG-1 at 24mm equivalent, it's quite sharp at ƒ2.8. At about 800 mm equivalent and ƒ6.3. the diffraction is noticeable..



Also at 1200mm equivalent and ƒ7.3 it's still nice picture, but not as nice as a ILC camera with a good lens.


I like this image enough to include it in a photo book. But the IQ is such that would be problematic. But, I don't have a 1200mm lens (or even a 600mm lens) so what are my options? I'm just really happy to have the image.

24mm equivalent and macro wide open at ƒ2.8, it's much better, but still not what I'd expect from my K-3 and a macro lens.


A 1 inch sensor will give you APS.c or FF sharpness, but I don't think you can find a zoom on a camera with a 1 inch sensor more than 600mm equivalent.

If your just trying to capture the moment, not a stunning razor sharp image of the moment, smaller sensors are fine.

[Wasp]

Here's the thing. It would seem these cameras are diffraction limited somewhere between ƒ2.8 and ƒ4. After my experience with my XG-1 I wouldn't even by one of these cameras that wasn't constant ƒ2.8

Interesting. One can't get around the physics of a smaller sensor.

[UncleVanya]

Interesting. One can't get around the physics of a smaller sensor.

True. My LX7 has a q sized sensor but the lens is f1.4-2.3 which is meaningful not only due to the poor iso capability of the sensor but also for sharp images at the long end.

[normhead]

I made my last post a "project" new thoughts keep popping up. My apologies to those who have already responded.

[UncleVanya]

I made my last post a "project" new thoughts keep popping up. My apologies to those who have already responded.

Your perspective is always worth reading. I don't always agree (mostly I do) but the content is almost always well thought out and worth reading.

Nice example pics too!

[climbmountainway]

The newer version HSM APO OS 150-500mm Sigma with a Tamron 1.4X contacts-carriage teleconverter would work in good light (the lens is averaging $650 now, not manufactured for several years. the teleconverter, not manufactured for over a decade goes for around $200 in good condition). The APS-C sensor crops the lens to about 750mm without the converter. See user reviews on both. Most say that a photo editor crop does slightly better than the lens with teleconverter combo.

FYI, I did a user review of this lens, and compared it in my own original long lens search with your earlier version. I bought a good copy later version. Also there is no Pentaprism interference on APS-C bodies, the AF and OS work well, but take about one second to jell. Results when supported properly or using the proper in lens stabilization (with the body SR off) are outstanding. So, sell your old, and buy the newer version; user reviews show it qualifies as an upgrade (handling, image quality, sharpness, color fidelity -- all noticeably better!).

[SpecialK]

I post this for giggles. It is a 4-element, 2-section, 800mm "tuber".

I bought it used and sold it for less.

New owner said it was sharper than his (unknown) mirror, and thanks.

Never really got above "fairly poor" images.