Good Minolta AF birding lens?

I was talking with one of my patients at the office today, and he

told me about some neat opportunities up here to get some good bird

shots this spring/summer. Obviously I might need something longer

than the 70-210mm. Are there any birders on this forum? What's the

standard recommendation in the Maxxum lineup?

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

Don't know about the Maxxum lineup, but I have seen some nice photos taken with the Sigma Big Birtha. I think it is a 170-500mm lens and the results were really sharp. Tamron have a similar one. The Sigma gets rave ratings in the Fred Miranda site. I'll probably be getting the Sigma next month for my trip to Kakadu National Park here in Australia. Dynax.com rates all these lens too. Good luck with your bird shots, I look forward to seeing the photos posted.

Here's a link showing photos taken with the Sigma.

 

http://www.treknature.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=367

Thanks, Tim. Those are pretty good. I've never been much of a bird shooter - just some eagles and stuff in trees up here. But the way this guy was talking made it sound really fun. He takes a notebook, and stakes out an area, and lists all the species he's got and/or needs to get. It's kind of a game or challenge of sorts. Seems like it would add another twist to a general nature/landscape photography outing.<BR>

I will certainly look into that lens. I suppose a Minolta lens in the same league would be cost prohibitive? :-)<BR>

Jed

That 400 f/4.5 looks tasty, if you could manage to locate one.

The bigger the better but how much money do you have ?

 

Go to the Nature Forum and check out the archives there as those people know what it is all about.

 

WARNING - it can become addictive.

I have the Sigma 170-500mm and find the AF to slow for a birding lens. Look for a 400, 500 or 600mm prime (but it wont be cheap)

I'm not exactly a "birder", but for birding (or wildlife in general) I have never heard of anyone complaining to have a lens too long. I think a 300mm lens on a APS-C camera, or maybe a 400mm lens on a 35mm cam would be the minimum. So from the maxxum lineup that would make it the 300/4, 300/2.8, 400/4.5, 600/4.5, or one of the longer zooms (the first version of the 70-300, the 100-300 APO, or the 100-400 APO). As for third party lenses, the Tamron 200-500 for example has good reputation, and I've seen some stunning images taken with it (and it's quite cheap too). I'm sure there's many other options as well.

Right now I'm working with the Minolta 300mm f/4.0 HS G APO and a 1.4x Teleconvertor. Worked well the other day on some waterfowl but I do need more range. I'd love the 400 or 600 but can't justify the cost right now. With the 600 you also enter another realm of photography due to such a long focal range. I was actually able to get decent shots handholding the 300/teleconvertor setup with my 7D. In the past though I used my Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO as my main birding lens.<div></div>

Another bird shot:<div></div>

Final image with the 300mm lens. Shot through a window so glare caused some issues. I'm not sure what the weird bokeh is from as it is not the norm from this lens.<div></div>

I have a 300 2.8 and both TC's. I use it with the 7 & 7D. Very nice lens. But it always seems like you need more. I looked for a long time for the 600 4 lens. But they are hard to come by, so I bought a Nikon F4s and a manual focus 600 f4 lens. Still trying to dial it in. I sure miss the Minolta 7. But Nikon gear is more plentiful. Since you have Minolta, I would a least get a 400 that has been recommended. Birding is fun. But you have to do alot of research on the birds you want to photograph & have patience. There has been days I would go out and not photograph a thing.

Birding is a plague unleashed upon the wallets of the unwary!

 

There are a couple of paths to follow.

 

I've recently added a used Tokina 400/5.6 ATX SD APO lens - a bit slow but convenient, handholdable in many circumstances and pretty good for getting close flying birds - under $200. But the good "inexpensive" prime market is rather slim these days. Many of these were quite a bit pricier when released, one of the advantages of the value drop for 3rd party lenses - the first buyer takes the big hit. Zooms apparently are much more popular and saleable now for the makers. But there are a variety of used lenses out there and I'd expect if you don't find it interesting, you could probably resell for a reasonable amount as well.

 

Then there is the Bigma - the Sigma 50-500 and the Tamron 200-500, these will run awfully close to $1000. There are some other less expensive zooms from both with similar ranges but my impression is that they don't match up to these two and the prices reflect that. the 100-300 and 100-400 KM APO (D) lenses are odd birds, not as "fast" as the competition, but less expensive and pretty good. I like my 100-300.

 

Then for KM about the only other options are getting into the good, fast primes, there are some KMs (if you can find them) and a few 3rd parties as well. These can run from the 4 figures into the "If you have to ask...." range.

 

The 400/5.6 and to some limited extent the two big zooms mentioned, can be handheld, for some subjects and lighting conditions. After that you are getting into serious tripod and head territory. The lenses get heavy and the need for real rigidity becomes crucial for stationary subjects, and the addition of gimbal systems to support and allow tracking of moving subjects begins to get pricey as well.

 

Arguments will abound over the use of TCs from the quality standpoint and then there is the issue of compatibility because there are a number of lenses or TCs which aren't generally compatible with each other due to placement of either lens or TC elements.

I like the wallet attack correlation. I can see birding could be an expensive path in photography! I'll have to jus keep my eyes pealed for a bargain, then, and use what I've got until then. Wonder how much I'd use a big prime (400?) for anything else...one of those bigger zooms look more useful, but I've never had anything over 300mm, so can't really comment on an option I never had before.<BR>

Do you constantly find yourself maxing out the lens? If so, it sounds like the longer the better...

Jedidiah - I would expect you to find plenty of uses for a 400mm. While shooting wildlife of any sort it has been my most used lens. I've shot birds, squirrels, deer, mountain goats, moose, etc with it. It's also seen use as a sports lens for soccer, football, and softball games. I've even used it to shoot flowers believe it or not.<div></div>

Cameta Camera on EBay, Adorama and B&H have the Sigma 170-500 for somewhere between $600-700 when they have their specials. At the 500mm end on a 7D you'd be shooting at 750mm which is very useful. A small beanbag can come in handy for birding. $600-$700 is still quite pricey for some, but with that you get a new lens with case. Being a zoom means you can use it for other things too if need be but it won't be as sharp as a prime, actually I don't think any zoom is. Slow AF, might be the case with some examples. The one I looked at seemed OKay.

Have to agree with Craig on most of what he says and I have also added the same Tokina 400 and am also very happy with it ( still looking for one of their 100-300 f4s but seems a fruitless search so far ).

 

Also agree with Jim - there are many uses for a 400.

 

If you start to take birding seriously then you will increasingly find that even 400 is limiting and you either invest heavily in a 600 or you go the TC route and develop your manual focusing skills ( fortunately the improved quality of the faster films helps out on this ).

 

I repeat my point that a visit to the Nature Forum would be advisable if you are serious about this and not just dabbling.

Check out the attached picture and you can make a size comparision of the 300 vs the 400. Just keep in mind that the 400 is a good bit lighter than the faster 300.<div></div>

Here's my setup....

 

km400f4.5,

tokina400mm5.6,

km300mmf4,

kenko1.4x,

KM 1.4x,

Bushhawk shouldermount,

gitzo1325+sidekick

 

the km400 is an excellent lens but it is very hard to find. Highly recommend the tokina as it is light, sharp, and great value. Mounted on the bushhawk it is an awesome lens for flight shots in well lit conditions. It is also a good lens for travelling with. I find myself taking it over the 300mm or km400mm whenever i'm travelling by plane given the weight difference.

 

If you don't want to spend a bundle the tokina is you best bet imo. If you want to spend a bit more get the km300f4+1.4conv. You can still handhold the 300mm on the 7D and get high quality results. Finally, check into the bushhawk -I just got one and have been really impressed with it for flight shots.

Wow, those are some killer lenses. I can only imagine the added bulk and weight to my pack already! :-)<BR>

I'm semi-serious about this birding thing. Never having done it, I don't really know, but this patient of mine said he'd take me on a couple Saturday outings about a month from now, and we might see some good shots. After reading your posts, I realize the 210mm isn't going to be enough. The Tokina 400mm does look to be a relative bargain for its performance - I've owned Tokina AT-X lenses in the past, and have been quite impressed with their build.<BR>

I suppose even the weight difference alone from prime vs zoom at this kind of mm range would be enough to seriously think about a prime here.<BR>

Jed

My dad used a Sigma 135-400mm to good effect in Sri Lanka taking pictures of Elephants and Birds. You do need a steady tripod or monopod if you want to avoid camera shake at the long end though!