[TDvN57]

I recommend the FA400, just a little less sharp than the FA*300, but not much. I hope you like using tripods more than I do or don't mind running up the ISO to get a faster shutter.

I have both the FA 400mm 5.6 and the FA 300mm* 4.0 and when I got the 300mm* I left the 400mm in the dry box for a long time. The other day I dug up some old pics I took on safari with the 400mm and found the sharpness beyond what I could remember it to be. So I did a couple of test shots on a building about 130m from my house and it has a brick pattern facade. What I found was that the 400mm was actually marginally sharper then the 300mm* but it has more CA. The 300mm* has markedly less CA, for just about the same sharpness.

A little about the tripod(s) I use, I know it slightly off topic, but sort of related: I have a Gimbal (Nest brand) mounted on a heavy duty beast (Leofoto brand, dont know the model) which I rarely carry with me these days and a lighter travel with (Rollei R364C), which works just as good. For the low shots I use a small Berlebach without a head, the camera screws directly onto the tripod's swivel top, if you choose to do so.

Because both the 300* and the 400 are not particularly heavy in comparison with the camera, I mount the camera on the gimbal and don't use the lens tripod mount. This causes a slight tension on the whole mount, which has a dampening effect on the vibrations. Made a huge difference when I accidentally discovered this.

So in conclusion I am truly torn between the 400mm and the 300mm* because the 400mm does give you that little bit extra reach for essentially the similar sharpness, whilst the additional CA is maybe not that much. I tried both of these lenses on the 1.4tc and the 2.0tc and I found it underwhelming.

Lenses I can recommend are the FA 150-300 zoom and the A* 600mm. I use the 600mm* on safari with a gimbal and monopod in the safari vehicle on the go as well. A bit clumsy in the beginning, but you soon get your rhythm.

The picture below was taken in 2016 with the 150-300 at 300mm with about a 30% crop 1/250 f8.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ivanvernon]

I have both the FA 400mm 5.6 and the FA 300mm* 4.0 and when I got the 300mm* I left the 400mm in the dry box for a long time. The other day I dug up some old pics I took on safari with the 400mm and found the sharpness beyond what I could remember it to be. So I did a couple of test shots on a building about 130m from my house and it has a brick pattern facade. What I found was that the 400mm was actually marginally sharper then the 300mm* but it has more CA. The 300mm* has markedly less CA, for just about the same sharpness.

A little about the tripod(s) I use, I know it slightly off topic, but sort of related: I have a Gimbal (Nest brand) mounted on a heavy duty beast (Leofoto brand, dont know the model) which I rarely carry with me these days and a lighter travel with (Rollei R364C), which works just as good. For the low shots I use a small Berlebach without a head, the camera screws directly onto the tripod's swivel top, if you choose to do so.

Because both the 300* and the 400 are not particularly heavy in comparison with the camera, I mount the camera on the gimbal and don't use the lens tripod mount. This causes a slight tension on the whole mount, which has a dampening effect on the vibrations. Made a huge difference when I accidentally discovered this.

So in conclusion I am truly torn between the 400mm and the 300mm* because the 400mm does give you that little bit extra reach for essentially the similar sharpness, whilst the additional CA is maybe not that much. I tried both of these lenses on the 1.4tc and the 2.0tc and I found it underwhelming.

Lenses I can recommend are the FA 150-300 zoom and the A* 600mm. I use the 600mm* on safari with a gimbal and monopod in the safari vehicle on the go as well. A bit clumsy in the beginning, but you soon get your rhythm.

The picture below was taken in 2016 with the 150-300 at 300mm with about a 30% crop 1/250 f8.

Thanks for your very informative response. You mentioned the FA150-300L. I just recently got a copy, and have not really tried it out yet, but I am enouraged to give it a shot. Great elephant shot. I took a number of safaris in Tanzania some years back,but now too old for the rigors of those roads!

[RICHARD L.]

The FA 150-300 mm f/5.6 is an excellent lens.
@ 150 mm f/11

@ 300 mm f/11

[SteveinSLC]

Bee and butterfly on lavender. 645Z and 120 Macro.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[barondla]

I recommend the FA400, just a little less sharp than the FA*300, but not much. I hope you like using tripods more than I do or don't mind running up the ISO to get a faster shutter.

I used to hate tripods. Then, many years ago, used a proper ball head on Gitzo legs. Now I almost always have a tripod with me. I have tripods that consider the 645 and 400mm as toys. Don't know yet if I'd need that much reach with 645, or if using the K-1makes more sense.


---------- Post added 06-11-20 at 12:09 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

What sort of backpack are you looking for? And I'd love to know what you think of that 300...I have an A* 300, but it needs a separate support since that lens does not have a foot. I rarely use tele, but got a great deal on it. I'm thinking the built in foot on the FA 300 f5.6 and the AF might get me to use it a bit more....and yes, the DFA 35 and 55 lenses are comparable and excellent.

I've only had the FA 645 300 5.6 for about a week and have only taken it out once. Work is supposed to slow down in a few weeks, allowing more shooting time. This lens does not have a tripod foot. But it is so light, one may not be needed. The FA 645 80-160 zoom weighs more than this lens. It seems sharp wide open at F5.6. Appears to do even better at F8. With more use I'll write a proper review. It is surprisingly easy to use handheld.

The Mindshift Firstlight 30l is the backpack most recommended. I'll probably try it. I just find backpacks great for carrying equipment and terrible to work out of.


---------- Post added 06-11-20 at 12:13 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

I have both the FA 400mm 5.6 and the FA 300mm* 4.0 and when I got the 300mm* I left the 400mm in the dry box for a long time. The other day I dug up some old pics I took on safari with the 400mm and found the sharpness beyond what I could remember it to be. So I did a couple of test shots on a building about 130m from my house and it has a brick pattern facade. What I found was tnjhat the 400mm was actually marginally sharper then the 300mm* but it has more CA. The 300mm* has markedly less CA, for just about the same sharpness.

A little about the tripod(s) I use, I know it slightly off topic, but sort of related: I have a Gimbal (Nest brand) mounted on a heavy duty beast (Leofoto brand, dont know the model) which I rarely carry with me these days and a lighter travel with (Rollei R364C), which works just as good. For the low shots I use a small Berlebach without a head, the camera screws directly onto the tripod's swivel top, if you choose to do so.

Because both the 300* and the 400 are not particularly heavy in comparison with the camera, I mount the camera on the gimbal and don't use the lens tripod mount. This causes a slight tension on the whole mount, which has a dampening effect on the vibrations. Made a huge difference when I accidentally discovered this.

So in conclusion I am truly torn between the 400mm and the 300mm* because the 400mm does give you that little bit extra reach for essentially the similar sharpness, whilst the additional CA is maybe not that much. I tried both of these lenses on the 1.4tc and the 2.0tc and I found it underwhelming.

Lenses I can recommend are the FA 150-300 zoom and the A* 600mm. I use the 600mm* on safari with a gimbal and monopod in the safari vehicle on the go as well. A bit clumsy in the beginning, but you soon get your rhythm.

The picture below was taken in 2016 with the 150-300 at 300mm with about a 30% crop 1/250 f8.

Awe inspiring image.
Thanks,
barondla

[texandrews]

I've only had the FA 645 300 5.6 for about a week and have only taken it out once. Work is supposed to slow down in a few weeks, allowing more shooting time. This lens does not have a tripod foot. But it is so light, one may not be needed. The FA 645 80-160 zoom weighs more than this lens. It seems sharp wide open at F5.6. Appears to do even better at F8. With more use I'll write a proper review. It is surprisingly easy to use handheld.

The Mindshift Firstlight 30l is the backpack most recommended. I'll probably try it. I just find backpacks great for carrying equipment and terrible to work out of.

Hmmmm....photos I've seen of this lens show a foot---I know the f4 has a foot, but even on the ricoh site I'm pretty sure it shows a foot....

I asked about the backpack because I felt as you do, hated to work from one. But also there's backpacks for walks and backpacks for hiking in rough areas. I'm so happy with my Mindshift Ultralight 36L that I bought a second one to store away when I heard they were being discontinued. It has been really great, and several things i love about it are that it's the lightest bag of its size, it is airline acceptable (although it doesn't look it, looks bigger), it's very comfortable with 30+ pounds of gear, and extremely durable. When it's fully loaded it's a chunk to pick up, but once on and adjusted, it's like some of the best camping packs---it's something I used to love about Lowe packs as well. But it can be deployed as a sling for access to the bottom section, although not quite as easily as sling packs. and that bottom section can be removed as a separate case. Highly recommended if you can find one! We can discuss it more if you like...

[TDvN57]

Hmmmm....photos I've seen of this lens show a foot---I know the f4 has a foot, but even on the ricoh site I'm pretty sure it shows a foot....

I asked about the backpack because I felt as you do, hated to work from one. But also there's backpacks for walks and backpacks for hiking in rough areas. I'm so happy with my Mindshift Ultralight 36L that I bought a second one to store away when I heard they were being discontinued. It has been really great, and several things i love about it are that it's the lightest bag of its size, it is airline acceptable (although it doesn't look it, looks bigger), it's very comfortable with 30+ pounds of gear, and extremely durable. When it's fully loaded it's a chunk to pick up, but once on and adjusted, it's like some of the best camping packs---it's something I used to love about Lowe packs as well. But it can be deployed as a sling for access to the bottom section, although not quite as easily as sling packs. and that bottom section can be removed as a separate case. Highly recommended if you can find one! We can discuss it more if you like...

Here is a picture of both the 400 and the 300*. I added the tape measure for good luck :-) Both have tripod feet, however I find they are both too light and I get better results with the camera on the tripod, or just handheld.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ivanvernon]

Here is a picture of both the 400 and the 300*. I added the tape measure for good luck :-) Both have tripod feet, however I find they are both too light and I get better results with the camera on the tripod, or just handheld.

Confirming that my FA* 300/4.0 and FA 400/5.6 both have feet. Interestingly, however, my FA 150-300/5.6 does not have a foot.

[TDvN57]

Some pics I took a while ago. Hope you enjoy these.

I live in Hong Kong and contrary to being one of the highest populations per sq km, it is surprisingly green and has numerous protected green zones (abt 80%). During the winter months we get migrating birds either stopping over or camping out here for the winter (Nov-Jan). One day I was out looking for an eagle that regularly comes to an island, close to one of our waterside villages. So together with many other enthusiasts we setup our tripods on a public pier with all sorts and varieties of long lenses and paraphernalia.

I was there with my 645z and 600mm A* and a heavy tripod and gimbal. Got some pictures of the eagle as it returned from its hunting, but nothing exciting. The distance is a long way +/- 400m and a 100% crop gives a decent view, but nothing spectacular. Towards sunset I decided to pack up and go home and just as I was about to remove my kit from the tripod, I saw the eagle, first I thought it was a buzzard, of which we have many in HK, I think we have more buzzards than pigeons in HK.

I swung the lens around and took another look.Indeed it was the eagle, much closer, about 200m away, chasing a prey. And I got some nice pics of it catching it, and then releasing it again as the eating was not to its liking.... (These are all 100% crops BTW).

Enjoy the series.....

[dbs]

Some pics I took a while ago. Hope you enjoy these.

I live in Hong Kong and contrary to being one of the highest populations per sq km, it is surprisingly green and has numerous protected green zones (abt 80%). During the winter months we get migrating birds either stopping over or camping out here for the winter (Nov-Jan). One day I was out looking for an eagle that regularly comes to an island, close to one of our waterside villages. So together with many other enthusiasts we setup our tripods on a public pier with all sorts and varieties of long lenses and paraphernalia.

I was there with my 645z and 600mm A* and a heavy tripod and gimbal. Got some pictures of the eagle as it returned from its hunting, but nothing exciting. The distance is a long way +/- 400m and a 100% crop gives a decent view, but nothing spectacular. Towards sunset I decided to pack up and go home and just as I was about to remove my kit from the tripod, I saw the eagle, first I thought it was a buzzard, of which we have many in HK, I think we have more buzzards than pigeons in HK.

I swung the lens around and took another look.Indeed it was the eagle, much closer, about 200m away, chasing a prey. And I got some nice pics of it catching it, and then releasing it again as the eating was not to its liking.... (These are all 100% crops BTW).

Enjoy the series.....

Hi


The drone pilot was a bit slow to bring it back ...... whoops....

Well captured you and the eagle.

Dave

[texandrews]

Confirming that my FA* 300/4.0 and FA 400/5.6 both have feet. Interestingly, however, my FA 150-300/5.6 does not have a foot.

Thanks, that's what I have seen. The f5.6 must come in 2 flavors....

[barondla]

Some pics I took a while ago. Hope you enjoy these.

I live in Hong Kong and contrary to being one of the highest populations per sq km, it is surprisingly green and has numerous protected green zones (abt 80%). During the winter months we get migrating birds either stopping over or camping out here for the winter (Nov-Jan). One day I was out looking for an eagle that regularly comes to an island, close to one of our waterside villages. So together with many other enthusiasts we setup our tripods on a public pier with all sorts and varieties of long lenses and paraphernalia.

I was there with my 645z and 600mm A* and a heavy tripod and gimbal. Got some pictures of the eagle as it returned from its hunting, but nothing exciting. The distance is a long way +/- 400m and a 100% crop gives a decent view, but nothing spectacular. Towards sunset I decided to pack up and go home and just as I was about to remove my kit from the tripod, I saw the eagle, first I thought it was a buzzard, of which we have many in HK, I think we have more buzzards than pigeons in HK.

I swung the lens around and took another look.Indeed it was the eagle, much closer, about 200m away, chasing a prey. And I got some nice pics of it catching it, and then releasing it again as the eating was not to its liking.... (These are all 100% crops BTW).

Enjoy the series.....

Amazing capture by you and the eagle. No wonder he didn't care for the meal.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

[Jonathan Mac]

Some pics I took a while ago. Hope you enjoy these.

I live in Hong Kong and contrary to being one of the highest populations per sq km, it is surprisingly green and has numerous protected green zones (abt 80%). During the winter months we get migrating birds either stopping over or camping out here for the winter (Nov-Jan). One day I was out looking for an eagle that regularly comes to an island, close to one of our waterside villages. So together with many other enthusiasts we setup our tripods on a public pier with all sorts and varieties of long lenses and paraphernalia.

I was there with my 645z and 600mm A* and a heavy tripod and gimbal. Got some pictures of the eagle as it returned from its hunting, but nothing exciting. The distance is a long way +/- 400m and a 100% crop gives a decent view, but nothing spectacular. Towards sunset I decided to pack up and go home and just as I was about to remove my kit from the tripod, I saw the eagle, first I thought it was a buzzard, of which we have many in HK, I think we have more buzzards than pigeons in HK.

I swung the lens around and took another look.Indeed it was the eagle, much closer, about 200m away, chasing a prey. And I got some nice pics of it catching it, and then releasing it again as the eating was not to its liking.... (These are all 100% crops BTW).

Enjoy the series.....

I think in the Netherlands they have trained birds of prey (not sure if they're eagles) to capture errant drones in airspace illegally, though I think they ended the project, not sure why.

[Franc]

they were eagles but there was a discussion about the safety of the birds. Also the cost were too high and build in geo-fencing is more effective

[texandrews]

barondla, here are several pics of that Mindshift Ultralight bag and what I can put in it. The first image shows the Z with the 55 attached in one part of the bottom removable insert, with the FA150 standing up on the other part of the insert. The second image shows the 150 placed on top of the Z. The other section has the FA 45-85 and the DFA 35. Obviously that can all be rearranged, but you get the idea.

The last photo shows a Lowepro insert that I use for the top of the bag, which is otherwise unpadded. Other inserts work as well. The lenses are the 25, 28-45, 35, 45-85, 90, 150, and the 200, with the 55 on the camera--it's a kit I have for work purposes and happened to be packed in the bag. But the 25, 28-45 and 90 are all big lenses, so this is a good example of how much will go into the bag. That's my Gossen spot meter also. The top "lid" compartment has a blower, a couple of polarizers and an adapter, a shutter release & etc, and there's still room inside for my laptop and on top of the insert plenty of room for a raincoat and lunch. So, a whole lot of stuff. This bag is 5 years old? 4? I got it when it first came out and I retired my old Kata.

Sorry everyone to post this here, but private messaging doesn't seem to support attachments....