[Marc Sabatella]

I'm told it's either a red-tailed or a Cooper's.

[Blue]

I'm told it's either a red-tailed or a Cooper's.

It's not a red-tailed hawk. It may be a Cooper's. It looks a lot like a sharp-shinned hawk to me though.

[Raybo]

I actually like mirror lenses.

I have two Russian MTO's a 500 and 1000mm.
The 500 is really a blessing, it's very light weight and small for its FL and is a breeze to use handheld, the 1000 is a PITA to focus unless the lighting is very good (i'm also using it on a K100DS) and a tripod is mandatory.

I do not currently have any images saved from the 500 but trust me, the are very pleasing. Here are a couple using the 1000, the Cardinal was 53 ft. from the front of the lens...........



Moon shot!



Both images are jpegs straight out of the camera (no PP what so ever)

[Blue]

I have always been intrigued with those Russian mirror lenses, especially the 5.6 500mm and the 1000mm. You aren't helping Raybo!

[Jewelltrail]

just1moredave: My mother-in-law liked the photos but refused to believe the story of how they were taken. [I may have occasionally told her a tall tale in the past.]

You have some serious company: you are neither the first son-in-law to modify the truth to his mother-in-law, nor the first one to have a mother-in-law doubt him. To be honest, it appears mother-in-laws excel in doubting their daughter's husband.

[Agnostic]

I haven't used the 50-200mm but based on a lot of image comparisons I went for a used F 70-210mm. I don't shoot much birds though.

[fwcetus]

Yes, that Hawk shot is particularly impressive. Do you know what kind of hawk this is Mark? Looks a bit like the RedTails we have back here in the East, but from underneath it is hard for me to discern.

I'm told it's either a red-tailed or a Cooper's.

It's not a red-tailed hawk. It may be a Cooper's. It looks a lot like a sharp-shinned hawk to me though.

Not a red-tail. Sharp-shinned is close, methinks, but I would suggest a Cooper's. Unfortunately, a couple of of distinguishing marks are the tail's shape and terminal markings (Cooper's is more rounded with a wider white terminal band, while sharp-shinned is more squared off with a narrower white terminal band), but the end of the tail is clipped off in the photo. (However, I'm not any sort of a hawk expert at all - Har! - so take this suggestion with the proverbial grain of salt.) Hawks can be tough...

[fwcetus]

DA 55~300, purchased solely to photograph college lacrosse games, is the only lens I have with any reach at all. It replaced my 50~200, which is a much better lens than many think, especially in good light. In my observations so far the 55~300 is the equal of the 200 in color, brightness and sharpness, although I haven't really exercised it yet.

I recently had a chance to start using a DA 55-300 (on a K20D) on my first whale watch of the season (April 5th). I've been using a Tokina AT-X 80-400 mostly the last couple of years for whale ID fluke shots, so this was my first attempt with the 55-300 in the field...





So far, it does seem promising...

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

...I have pretty much come to the conclusion that there is a special set of skills associated with good bird photos. It also helps to have cooperative birds. Like you, I have had reasonably good luck shooting birds at 200mm. I think I would have even better luck if I set up a feeder near several convenient perches...

Some faster bugs are just as difficult as birds I think.
I've read somewhere on the forum someone who recommended spraying water on the bugs to cool them down and slow them down...perhaps it would work on birds as well ... so get the garden hose or the fire extinguishers ... or maybe wet birds would not look as good as wet bugs?

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

- One other random thing I've realized: the extent to which I dislike carrying the camera with Sigma attached has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of any thoughts I might have entertained of getting the DA*50-135 for concert photography. It's uncomfortably close to the Sigma in weight. My lightweight primes make me so happy!

I'm not gona talk you out of primes since I favor primes myself, but you are overestimating the size of the DA*50-135. Get a DA*16-50 and you will soon realise that the 50-135 is not that heavy considering focal lengths and range. I've not yet used it for concerts, but I think it would do a very good job for that. I shot a lot of concerts in the past with the A50/1.7, A100/2.8 and A*135/1.8 combo and though nothing beats the A*135 if you stand at 135mm working distance and the stage is low light, the DA*50-135 must be a much more versatile tool, and not be heavier, but lighter, than most combo of three primes that would cover the same range.

It also can be used for birds, at least in doors

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm not gona talk you out of primes since I favor primes myself, but you are overestimating the size of the DA*50-135.

I've handled it some, and I thought it seemed uncomfortably large and heavy for regular use. The question in my mind was whether I'd get used to it. The Sigma 600/8 seems to be telling me that no, I'd probably continue to find it uncomfortable. But I'm an unabashed small lens junkie.

the DA*50-135 must be a much more versatile tool, and not be heavier, but lighter, than most combo of three primes that would cover the same range.

Actually, according to the specs, it is heavier than the combined weight of the *four* primes that I normally use to cover that range - the M135/3.5, M100/2.8, DA70/2.4, and DA40/2.8. That's a pretty impressive statement on behalf of the primes, actually.

And I don't normally use all four primes in that range - often I'll just use one or two of those, and virtually never have more than three of them with me. So I'm *way* under the weight of the 50-135. And even if the 50-135 were marginally lighter than the lenses I have with me (which it isn't!), it's not the combined weight that concerns me - it's the weight *on the camera*. No getting around the fact that the 50-135 is like having all four primes mounted at once, rather than one on the camera and the rest in the bag.

Anyhow, I could see it being useful in situations where I'm shooting professionally and under pressure to get certain shots and feeling the need for more than two primes and being slowed down by lenses changes. But under normal circumstances, I'd prefer the primes. If I won the lottery, I suspect I'd buy the 50-135, but leave it at home more often than not.

[Marc Sabatella]

Not a red-tail. Sharp-shinned is close, methinks, but I would suggest a Cooper's. Unfortunately, a couple of of distinguishing marks are the tail's shape and terminal markings (Cooper's is more rounded with a wider white terminal band, while sharp-shinned is more squared off with a narrower white terminal band), but the end of the tail is clipped off in the photo.

Does this help?

[danielchtong]

It also can be used for birds, at least in doors

Doug

One of the cutest images I saw for quite a little while
Absolutely adorable.
Rare that you focused on their eyes. Normally you can take them with mouths wide open.


Daniel

[danielchtong]

I've been enjoying photographing birds lately, which has awakened in me a new interest in telephoto lenses that emphasize length over speed (shooting concerts, my focus was always the other way around). But I'm nowhere near serious enough to be even considering something like the Bigma, both for price and size/weight reasons. .

As it was posing for me , I took chance of getting real close with a DA200mm .































Daniel, Toronto

[danielchtong]

[B]Pentax 67 200 f4 @ f11 cropped& another one with same lens @ f8

Wow. Never thought of 67 as a birdie lens. Did you have it on your tripod? Fentastic images

Daniel