Advice for novice re zoom / telephoto lenses

I have a Minolta Maxxum QTsi with a standard 28-80 lense. I have

really gotten into nature photography recently. I fish and hunt with

my husband and the oppurtunities for a great photo is always there

but alot of the time, the subject is just too far away. My question

is, what would be the best zoom / telephoto lense for a beginner that

would also not break the bank ? I am looking for a lense that would

be able to zoom onto a subject that is 300 to 400 yards away. Any

advice would be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU .

300 to 400 YARDS? 3 to 4 FOOTBALL FIELDS? That's a huge distance for photography! A moose at that distance with a 600 mm lens would probably be just barely identifiable (maybe).

 

You have to get closer & lenses for this kind of work will break the bank, especially since you'd probably have to give up your Minolta besides.

 

Maybe some of the locals here who actually do large charismatic mammal photography can be more specific.

Just as an example, I have a photo of a pony on Assateague island that fills the frame, taken with a 300 mm lens. I was approximately (if memory serves) 60 feet away. With a 600 mm (a monster of a lens both in size and price) I could have gotten the same image at 120 feet away. 300-400 yards just is not feasible with any kind of lens. You have to get MUCH closer.

I agree with Frank. Practice stalking closer to your subject, and buy a longer lense. Big glass is deffinately expensive, but it is worth it. I'm still saving money to buy a 600f4 for my bird photography, but I know it will be well worth the investment. Good Luck!

Forget about 300 yards, you will have to get close, as the others mentioned. I would suggest a 300mm f/4 lens for the following reasons:

<ul>

<li>It is the shortest focal length useable for animals in the wild.

<li>It is the longest focal length useable for a beginner. At 400mm and above, you will not only need a big, heavy and expensive tripod/head, but you will need <em>a lot of practice</em> before getting consistently good shots.

<li>It is versatile, being useful both for animals, landscapes and portraits.

<li>It is light and small enough for you to carry without hassles.

<li>It does not break the bank. The only other telephoto not breaking the bank is a 400mm f/5.6, but I would not recommend it for a first telephoto.

</ul>

I would definitely recommend the Minolta lens which is probably very good, I think there is a sigma one, but it is only a little cheaper, and probably much inferior.<P>

If you live close to a zoo, you might want to get there and practice both the camera/lens handling, but also learn animal behavior. This practice will be welcome when you have only a few seconds to make a shot in the wild. And you can definitely get close to animals in a zoo.<P>

And don't forget to get a decent support. Tripod/head is the best, but you can also do a lot with a monopod.

I think I know what you're talkin' about. Depending on weight you want to deal with, an 80-200 or 28-200 is very versatile. They are good workhorse lenses. If you want to spend a little more a 70-300 or 100-300 lense is nice to.

 

If you carry a small bag with you, get the 70-300 with a tele-extender (1.5/2.0 whatever you prefer)as you already have the 28-80. I've heard knocks against Sigma but my 70-300mm is one of the best buys ever. Work horse! I own the Minolta 600si--love it--soon to get the 7 to go with it.

 

Of course the more serious you get, you'll have to own a tripod, if not, at the very least a monopod. Then the filters will come along.., and on and on

It depends on a number of things. How much you want to spend, to carry, what kind of film, and how you intend to display the final photo. If you want to start slowly and see how your interests develop, then you might try Minolta's 100-300/4.5-5.6 APO zoom. This lens is about $450 at B&H in NY and weighs just under 1 lb. You might be satisfied with the non-APO version depending on how much you will make enlargements. 300mm is long enough for some situations.

 

Beyond this, it starts to get heavy, expensive, and obsessive. I thought the 300/4 suggestion plus a 1.4x teleconverter might be a logical next notch up. At this point though, you begin to wonder, should you stay with Minolta or consider some of the image stabilized lenses offered in other systems. Or should you ...???

 

As soon as it all starts to cost as much as your husband's hunting paraphenalia, then you will probably start hearing more of his advice. As for me, I'm sorry I even tried to offer any advice and all I can say is: take your time!

Adapt your camera to a small portable spotting scope, fixed power or zoom

Take a look at Tokina 100-300/4. It is heavy and expensive but very good.

... not forgetting the Sigma 170-500, granted a few stops darker than the lenses already listed, but it is adaptable and produces very acceptabe images if stepped down a notch or two.

Others said it, you need to get closer! A "long" lens is only half the cure. I suggested you get a good 100-300 zoom for starters and to learn to use these focal settings (the Minolta 100-300 APO is excellent!!).

Only if your interest in photography keeps increasing/intensifying, I would buy a fix focal length lens.

 

I just upgraded my setup, follow this link for further reading:

 

http://www.euro-photo.net/cgi-bin/epn/showthread.asp?Thread=717

 

By the way, there are rumors that Minolta will come out soon with a version of IS/VR as well, so don't dump your camera too fast.

HSM/USM etc. are a slight advantage, but it is much overrated in MY opinion! Minolta has a very strong built-in motor in the camera, the best/fastest in the latest "7" body.

 

May THE LIGHT be with you...