[Marc Langille]

Hi Lee,

Obviously everyone has been providing a lot of good suggestions here and all are important considerations. Stretchers between the legs wouldn't hurt - that might be the deciding factor on your equipment choices(s) and that's where wildman's suggestions are excellent considerations.

My gear choices are based on light weight as possible, excellent rigidity and flexibility for travel. Unfortunately that usually means more expensive choices...

I'll echo Ben's comments: than Manfrotto head is an aid for support, not something you wish to lock down and rely on. The Wimberley head is capable of locking down and being free moving due to it's size/mass and area of contact - that's why I bought mine. It's flexibility is even better since I can also readily raise/lower the lens height with the gimbal head itself.

That filter is similar to the setup for the FA* versions of the 600/4, 300/2.8 and the 250-600/5.6: it's considered part of the optical formula.

Regards,
Marc

[dadipentak]

That filter is similar to the setup for the FA* versions of the 600/4, 300/2.8 and the 250-600/5.6: it's considered part of the optical formula.

Ok now you've piqued my interest: my A*400mm doesn't have a filter (that is, the filter holder is empty.) Should I have one? If so, how do I get one? Is a drop-in different from the kind you screw on? And, while we're on the subject, what about a CP--how do you manage orientation?

[Marc Langille]

Hi Dave,

Yes, the drop in filter holder is much different than a screw on filter. I suspect you should have one? The default filter in the holder is the SMC Pentax "Normal" on my FA* 300/2.8 and FA* 250-600/5.6. It threads into the drop in filter holder's frame.

See here for the FA* version of the CPL filter holder - note the knurled wheel on the outside:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-Star-250-600mm-F5.6-Power-Zoom-Lens.html

Regards,
Marc

[dadipentak]

Thanks Marc. I have the holder but there's no filter in it and I get the impression that it's an integral part of the optics. Any idea about how I would go about getting one?

[Marc Langille]

No problem Dave - glad to help where I can. What diameter is the filter that the holder accepts?

[dadipentak]

No problem Dave - glad to help where I can. What diameter is the filter that the holder accepts?

Dimitrov says 52mm.

[Marc Langille]

Hi Dave,

Isn't yours an A* 400mm F/2.8? It shows 49mm for the rear drop in filter here: A* 400/2.8 ED [IF]. The FA* drop in filter units are all 43mm for the lenses I mentioned in post 258.

I am not sure what option could be used for the filter. They do specify that a filter should be used for the F* 250-600/5.6 or FA* 250-600/5.6 but not any other prime FA* lenses...

Regards,
Marc

---

Last edited by Marc Langille; 02-21-2010 at 12:36 PM.

[dadipentak]

Dimitrov says 52mm.

Doh! Wrong--the 1000mm takes a 52mm (I don't have one of those, either.) You're right, of course, Marc: the A*400mm takes a 49mm.

[Ron Boggs]

Several thoughts...

Number one--as a favor to all other humans who may be near you on your photo excursions...turn off that blasted beeper on your camera! Can't think of any reason you'd want it...especially not tied to the focus indicator (it's in the function menu on most Pentax cameras).

Second, with "big guns" you should ignore the focus indicators as they'll be blinking in and out all the time. That's because you focus at open aperture which on your 2.8 lens plus the high magnification is a sliver of depth of field measured in millimeters. Those indicators have enough "fluff" that they can't see the eyelashes on a bird--they blink for focus on the beak, then not, then blink focus on the backfeathers, then not then light up on the perch etc. Unless you are using the center point only as a focusing aid then recomposing, you'll find that all subjects other than completely flat ones will blink all over the place as the subject's torso is at different range than the feet and different range than the head etc.

Third, learn to trust your eyes. Focus on the portion of the subject you want sharpest--generally the eyes--and shoot. The camera blinkies for focus aren't pertinent as stated above. Whether or not you are in focus is determined by your eyes when using telephoto lenses. I have owned the A*300/2.8, F*600/4, FA* 300/4.5, SMC 500/4.5 and currently shoot an FA*600/4 and an FA*250-600/5.6 so I speak from considerable experience. Actual wildlife subjects don't make good fodder for autofocus indicators. This is also why autofocus isn't always a great option--and I almost never use autofocus with telephoto lenses. Remember, our camera bodies are Pentax which means we really don't have much autofocus capability anyway. So don't worry over your 400/2.8 being manual focus. It's actually a non-issue.

Fourth, I blow a lot of shots by "hammering" the shutter button causing vibration or wiggle. You'll want to keep the shutter finger "tame".

Fifth, with that heavy and high magnification lens, you are in the "technique zone" where every tiny thing you do is critical for sharp shots. Your tripod is a bit light, but can work with great technique. My first year with the F*600--about 1994--was frustrating as my technique was subpar and my tripod a bit light. I shot very few publishable images that first year. I've sold hundreds since with better shooting technique and a ridiculous and heavy tripod.

Sixth, the body to lens joint has some slop in all camera systems. The amount of slop varies from lens to lens. Try to wiggle your camera body on the back of the lens. Notice how you can pull it down or push it up a millimeter or so? If you shoot with it torqued up, down or all around then all shots will be slightly out of focus--like the shots you've been getting. Pushing the camera into optimum position--meaning flat with the sensor parallel to the plane of focus and parallel to the front element of the lens--is critical. Thus the shooting position pushing against the camera to flatten it into place described by an earlier post.

Seventh, Telephotos don't resolve like fast 50mm lenses. Every shot you make through a telephoto is less sharp than every shot you make through more "ordinary" focal lengths. A $20 used 50mm lens will pretty much always outresolve that several thousand dollar tele. Be careful you don't pixel peep yourself into frustration! In the film days, critical focus for publication quality images was typically analyzed through an 8x loupe. If it stood up to that magnification it was sellable. I often use 8x or 10x on the camera zoom of the LDC screen to "rough" analyze my shots. If it holds up at that magnification, then I can submit it for sale (so it may be worth keeping and post processing). If the subject's eye isn't in focus at 8x, the image is a throw away. Way over 50% of your shots will be throw aways when dealing with moving targets and tight tolerances. I recently had 91 keepers (based on focus) out of 412 bird shots made from a blind with perfect stability etc. An unbelievably high success rate for me. When further edited for composition and comparative excellence for potential sale, less than a dozen were worth keeping. Since I did that in just an hour and 45 minutes, I consider nearly a dozen to be a great session! So don't expect unrealistic success ratios!

Sorry for the novel, I'll save the rest for another day...

[monochrome]

Ron: That is an awesome Reply - that Reply is an entire specialized photography lesson, and alone is worth the entire year of support for this Forum.

[Ron Boggs]

Geez, I thought I just talked too much! Thanks Mono...glad you found the info useful.

Didn't even get to the extra support section--I have both Bogen Long-Lens Support and Really Right Stuff Long Lens Support System. Bogen isn't perfect for moving targets, but workable partially loosened. RRS system is killer but haven't used it with 600/4 as it balances quite well. Highly recommend it for 250-600 or otherwise wiggly or vibration prone situations. I ALWAYS use the Bogen when shooting through the M*400/4 with my 67 system, but that's static landscape stuff not animals.

Catchlight in the eye is almost a requirement. I usually throw away any shots without a catchlight.

I sold a tripod with leg braces to my buddy when he bought the F*600 from me. Gosh it's funny watching him try to use it in the field. Really hard to use braced 'pods out in the bush. I warned him before the sale, but in lieu of well over $1200 for a decent big gun tripod, he figured he could live with it...well barely.

For the 49mm drop-in I highly recommend getting a Pentax SMC filter. For one, you need the drop-in in place. I think my A*300 was a bit off without a filter if I remember right. The Pentax brand filter places the filter glass at the precise orientation for this lens where newer filters or other brands may have the glass a fraction forward or back of the Pentax placement. You'll have to go used to find this filter and I recommend going with the Pentax Skylight which is slightly pinkish and will help with a slight color cast difference in the A* lenses from the FA* lenses. With film, I always use Pentax Cloudy, but for digi it's not needed as color cast can be done with white balance or post processing. So I use the Pentax Normal in the big lenses now, but Pentax didn't make many "clear" 49mm filters and it would be a miracle to find one. Note that it won't be called "normal" as that term was only used for the 43mm drop-in filters that shipped with F* and FA* big guns.

When tightening everything down to minimize vibrations, don't forget the tripod collar on the lens as well as every possible spot on the tripod and head. I've found the tripod collar can dampen vibrations a bit when tightened, not as much as a bean bag, but vibrations are visible through the viewfinder when using long lenses with loose tripod collar.

[Ron Boggs]

Oh yeah, the clear Pentax filters are labeled PF which means "protective front". Actually, the 150mm PF filters are slightly pink "skylight" color as are the 112mm PF's I think. As I recall, from 82mm on down the PF's are clear. You could also use a Pentax 49mm UV. Make sure the filter is labeled SMC as the earlier non-SMC are prone to ghosting and flare.

Be patient! If shooting a 400/2.8 was easy then everyone would do it! It is a highly technical and very persnickity endeavor to shoot high quality images through mondo teles. Like most things in life, the more time you spend practicing and working through the "issues" the better you'll get at doing it! Have Fun!

[wildman]

Ron,
I pretty much agree without exception.

I'm very much old school having cut my teeth on the ground glass of a Rolleiflex back in the mid 1950s.

I don't understand the younger photographers reliance on AF so much especially for wildlife photography. There is no way a chip can be programmed to understand the complex 3d space of a bird lurking in dense brush for instance.

For speed I focus on the flanks rather than the eyes. The flanks give me more area with more detail for the eye to work with. For me, at least, it's much more obvious when the flanks are in focus than the eyes. Shot this way the eyes are rarely out of focus. After all the "thin" DOF of a long glass is mainly relative. A 600mm that fills the frame with the body of a sparrow at F/8 is going to give you a similar DOF of a 60m at F/8 that also fills the frame. The difference is distance.

I know what you mean by "hammering the shutter". I slowly trained myself to use the forth finger rather than the first one. My forth finger has a much lighter, sensitive, touch than my second finger and the release is much more controlled using it.

Good post.

" Trust your eyes" - indeed, it's the most important piece of gear you have.

[Ben_Edict]

Doh! Wrong--the 1000mm takes a 52mm (I don't have one of those, either.) You're right, of course, Marc: the A*400mm takes a 49mm.

Be careful with the filter. Best would be, if another owner of the A 400/2.8 could chime in and measure the glass thickness. This is the all important parameter. For instance my Tamron 300/2.8 needs a 1mm thin glass. That was hard to find, as these internal filters are not available here in Germany (and postage from the US would be three times the filter price). So I called B+W and Hama and I even bought one or two additional filters, until I got a Hama HTMC modell, which is that thin.

May be Pentax used their standard SMC filters here, but do we know?

Ben

[dadipentak]

Geez, I thought I just talked too much!

Not at all--this is great stuff! Your comments on focusing tends to validate my "focus & shoot several, re-focus and shoot several more" approach. I take the focus confirm to indicate I'm in the ball park but don't take it (or my aging eyes, for that matter) as gospel. I thought I was just being sloppy: now I know I'm being sloppy with a method. ;~)

But, wow, getting the filter looks like it's going to be even more difficult than I imagined.