[UncleVanya]

Setup a blind and camp out and wait. It will take patience. As for what lens - what camera do you have? if crop then the 55-300 PLM is a good possible option on a budget but as several have indicated longer may be needed. The DA 560 is very expensive (and the Sigma 500 as well) but these lenses have more reach than the 300 and they are sharper. You could couple this with the 1.4x converter but you may then find you miss shots closer and need a second body as well. It can get very very expensive to play at this level. Another path is to look at another brand and the 100-600 lenses offered but these aren't available for Pentax today. The 100-600's will be inferior to the 560 and the 500 Sigma primes but they are very good. As someone else said superzoom compact cameras are another option as is the Pentax Q with a fast telephoto strapped to it but finding your target quickly and getting a shot will be complicated.

Really if it comes down to it - your looking at a massive investment in time and money to do this. If you feel compelled then as mentioned start by looking in the thread on the 300+ lenses and start asking folks how they are getting their shots and start asking locally for some help too.

[micromacro]

I ended up with DA*300 and x 1.4 TC, but always feel like it's not close enough for bald eagle nest in our area. If you can afford price and especially the weight of 500mm, it may be the best choice for that type of photography. I usually shoot hand held, and anything up to 500mm is too heavy for my hands.

[BrianR]

Setup a blind and camp out and wait. It will take patience..

When I was first getting serious about photography, I wanted to be a birder. I initially thought throwing $10k at a lens would be what I had to do. Eventually I realized that the best bird photographers threw anywhere from $1k to $10k at a lens, ~$100-300 on a blind (there's no beating close proximity!), countless hours learning about birds and their habits, and $???k on the patience required to wait for birds. I could not afford the patience aspect when it came to birds so now I mostly limit myself to tame backyard opportunities or random chance encounters.

[clickclick]

If you can afford it, the 150-450 would be my choice. It has the reach, great IQ, and the autofocus is very good, and I think you really want that for birds. I've also have a Takumar 500mm, and while it's a pretty sharp lens that just needs some CA cleanup in post, I just can't focus it fast enough for birds. If I had them in a nest, I could prefocus and probably get some shots, but nothing like the 150-450. If you can't afford the 150-450, go for the 55-300 PLM. I have that lens as well, and it's incredibly fast focusing and has very good IQ and can be had for a nice price.

[AggieDad]

Might I suggest a used Sigma 150-500mm or 50-500mm zoom? Can be bought for a reasonable price – about $650 - $750.

[SSGGeezer]

I shoot my Osprey with a Sigma 120-400, but took some good close up shots of some bald eagles with my FA 77 when they went for food very near me. Your case needs at least a 300mm and probably a TC.

[stihlmania]

I use my SMC A ☆ 400 F2.8 ED[IF] with Pentax F 1.7 AF adaptor [680mm with both] to get close or else only a blind and/or luck will do if you want a sharp image without a long telephoto lens. These golden eagle photos are about 150 yards away...I was blending in with a barbed wire fence post as my blind, the both images are cropped...

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[SSGGeezer]

Here is one with my FA77, heavily cropped but a recommendation to get the best quality of lens you can afford. So a good 300 over a poor older 400mm if you have to choose due to budget constraints.

[UncleVanya]

This calculator will solve these kinds of questions: Calculator to Find or Calculate Distance or Size of an Object in an Image

Essentially if I select the "Find the size of an object in Pixels" and plug in a size of 6-7 feet (wingspan if the eagle is grown and flying perpendicular to the camera) and I plug in 660' (1/8 mile) and I plug in various lens focal lengths I can determine the size of the object in my frame and then decide if I could crop and still retain enough detail.

Let's say we used 300, 420*, 560, and 784* (1.4x teleconverter) @660' and with a 6' target on an APSC 24mp sensor k-3 (4000 pixels high). We would get images of the following heights (in pixels):

300mm = 455 pixel height (a bit more than 1/10 the height of the frame...)

420mm = 636, still pretty small...

560mm = 848, less than1/4 the height of the frame but probably a crop could look nice enough.

784mm = 1187, just over 1/4 of the frame height. This seems viable cropped. It requires the DA 560 PLUS the 1.4x Teleconverter. And time and expertise and luck.

[RDP]

All of my bald eagle shots have been with either my Sigma 50-500, or my DA 55-300 if I need weather resistance. Nearly always fully zoomed in. Despite having a decently long lens, the 1.5x from the APS-C sensor, and 24 megapixels to crop from, I find myself constantly trying to get closer. Understanding animal behavior and having a blind or some other means of getting closer are probably more important than the finding the longest lens.

The adult was shot with the 55-300 while I was in the kayak, and the juvenile with the Sigma, both handheld (thank goodness for stabilization!). Both part of the same family group on Newbury Neck in Surry, Maine.

-Robin

[UncleVanya]

All of my bald eagle shots have been with either my Sigma 50-500, or my DA 55-300 if I need weather resistance. Nearly always fully zoomed in. Despite having a decently long lens, the 1.5x from the APS-C sensor, and 24 megapixels to crop from, I find myself constantly trying to get closer. Understanding animal behavior and having a blind or some other means of getting closer are probably more important than the finding the longest lens.

The adult was shot with the 55-300 while I was in the kayak, and the juvenile with the Sigma, both handheld (thank goodness for stabilization!).

-Robin

Great shots - any idea how far away you were for each shot?

[RDP]

Great shots - any idea how far away you were for each shot?

The adult was probably about 100 feet away, standing watch over a pair of juveniles who were feeding down on the rocky beach below, and the juvenile was in the top of a pine tree about 40 feet up. That one took a great deal of stealthy stalking, in order to find it and not spook it in the process. I hope to get more shots of this family next month, when I go visit my sister up there. The nesting site is only about a half mile up the coast, I think. I haven’t actually found the nest yet, but I am assuming it is close to the center of their activity.

-Robin

[SSGGeezer]

The adult was probably about 100 feet away, standing watch over a pair of juveniles who were feeding down on the rocky beach below, and the juvenile was in the top of a pine tree about 40 feet up. That one took a great deal of stealthy stalking, in order to find it and not spook it in the process. I hope to get more shots of this family next month, when I go visit my sister up there. The nesting site is only about a half mile up the coast, I think. I haven’t actually found the nest yet, but I am assuming it is close to the center of their activity.

-Robin

Look for cell towers and Power line poles, they seem to be popular with the raptors in my neighborhood up the coast a ways. Tall dead trees would be where I looked the hardest though.

[UncleVanya]

The adult was probably about 100 feet away, standing watch over a pair of juveniles who were feeding down on the rocky beach below, and the juvenile was in the top of a pine tree about 40 feet up. That one took a great deal of stealthy stalking, in order to find it and not spook it in the process. I hope to get more shots of this family next month, when I go visit my sister up there. The nesting site is only about a half mile up the coast, I think. I haven’t actually found the nest yet, but I am assuming it is close to the center of their activity.

-Robin

Assuming you used a K-3 or similar 24mp sensor, plugging rough values into the calculator agrees with your estimated distances so the calculator seems to work accurately. That's good confirmation that this approach works.

[boriscleto]

This calculator will solve these kinds of questions: Calculator to Find or Calculate Distance or Size of an Object in an Image

Essentially if I select the "Find the size of an object in Pixels" and plug in a size of 6-7 feet (wingspan if the eagle is grown and flying perpendicular to the camera) and I plug in 660' (1/8 mile) and I plug in various lens focal lengths I can determine the size of the object in my frame and then decide if I could crop and still retain enough detail.

Let's say we used 300, 420*, 560, and 784* (1.4x teleconverter) @660' and with a 6' target on an APSC 24mp sensor k-3 (4000 pixels high). We would get images of the following heights (in pixels):

300mm = 455 pixel height (a bit more than 1/10 the height of the frame...)

420mm = 636, still pretty small...

560mm = 848, less than1/4 the height of the frame but probably a crop could look nice enough.

784mm = 1187, just over 1/4 of the frame height. This seems viable cropped. It requires the DA 560 PLUS the 1.4x Teleconverter. And time and expertise and luck.

I estimate that the nest was 500-600+ feet from where I was standing.

Cropped from 24MP to ~1.38MP...All at 500mm with Sigma 150-500, where it is weakest...


2.28MP


4,73MP
, on Flickr

I was standing in a road in front of some camps (that's what we call cottages in Upstate NY, cabins for Canadians) the nest was on the other side of a bog in a split at the top of a pine tree.