lens? digiscoping?

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Hi,<br>

I recently found the nest of the rare Hieraaetus fasciatus. The birds are now at the nest. I put my hide near and spend one all day in. Everything is ok with the birds. They dont care about me, or they dont even know I am there. <br />I have a 300mm f/2.8 and 2x converter for a 40d. That is not enough. The nest is too high, or too far. I dont have money to buy a bigger lens (like 600mm f/4).<br>

<br />My question is: should I go to digiscoping, or there are some big lenses (not too bright = not too expensive)? The brightness of the lens is not a big problem, because there is a lot of sunshine.<br />I could also try to do some "gardening" and cut some branches, to get a closer position, but that does not seems ethically correct to me.<br>

What to you think I should do? thank you.</p>

[denisgermain]

<p>Rent an 800mm for a week....</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Thank you Denis. The problem is that here, in Portugal, we cant rent that kind of material...</p>

[michael.gregory]

<p>Give consideration to a converter. a 1.4 can be had which is usually acceptably sharp an will increase magnification to 420 mm with minimal light loss at minimal cost. It will be much less trouble to tote around than a second lens. you can sometimes find 2x converters that are also sharp, but usually not as much. This would give you the 600mm equivalent. Again bang for the euro.</p>

[michael.gregory]

<p>Give consideration to a converter. a 1.4 can be had which is usually acceptably sharp an will increase magnification to 420 mm with minimal light loss at minimal cost. It will be much less trouble to tote around than a second lens. you can sometimes find 2x converters that are also sharp, but usually not as much. This would give you the 600mm equivalent. Again bang for the euro.</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

If you read carfully I have a 2x converter :)... not enough... (but really sharp enough, the quality of the Canon 300mm f/2.8 is amazing) my question was if there is available some alternatives, like some really long telelens that I did not know or should I go to digiscoping...</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Eduardo, IMO consider digiscoping only if you <strong>already</strong> have a good quality scope and the necessary adaptors/accessories that work with your camera. It doesn't hurt to experiment. However, even with that, moving birds will be trying. Will the bird(s) be nicely visible and nicely lit from your vantage point to make a reasonably good exposure and composition? Good luck!</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Thank you Mary,<br>

I think the scope could be a good choice, only for the bird in the nest. Outside the nest, I think I could get the birds with the lens I have. But I dont know the quality of the scops... I am searching about it...</p>

 

[Roger G]

<p>Eduardo I agree that manipulating the area by trimming branches etc is not appropriate. Results from digiscoping can be quite good if the subjects are stationary, the tripod is solid, light is good and the 'scope is of high quality. Lots of information and examples through google etc. Depending on the equipment and magnification you select you will probably end up with a focal length around 1200mm and fixed aperture around f11. In the US the best 'scopes cost around $2500.</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Thank you Roger,<br>

That said, I think it is better to have something like the Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 which is AF and have multiple f stops and I can add it (sometimes when needed really big focal length) a 2x converter. That way I end up with the same Focal Length as a scope, at around the same f-stop, without AF, but allways with various f-stops.<br>

The only downside could be the image quality: I know it would not be a very good IQ, of course, but I dont know compared with a good scope.<br>

Which should get better IQ: a good scope or a 500mm with 2x converter?<br>

</p>

[tamas_gaidosch]

<p>I tried the Swarowski STS80HD with the TLS-800 SLR adapter. This way you get an 800mm f10 lens - arguably amongst the best of the "cheap" alternatives to the big white guns. I really wanted this setup to work for bird photography so I used a very sturdy tripod, head, cable release, and also some ridiculously overpriced RRS rails and clamps. After shooting a few hundred frames I went so frustrated that I bought the 300/2,8 + converters and never looked back. Optically it was rather good; I would say on par with the 300/2,8 + 2x converter. So in theory there was a 200mm advantage with the Swarowski. But it was very difficult to focus it in field conditions.<br>

As an example take a look at this picture (Accipiter brevipes):<br>

http://www.pbase.com/xtam667/image/103230481<br>

I shot some 30 frames at it to get a few reasonably sharp ones.<br>

I tried the 2x converter with the Canon 100-400 and I was unhappy with the results. So I think you would be disappointed with the Tamron 200-500. A high quality scope should be better than that. However, based on a few test shots I would say the Canon 500/4 with the 2x converter is clearly better than the Swarowski. Which is an absolutely amazing scope by the way - its just not such a good and usable lens as the Canon primes.</p>

<p> </p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Thank you Tamas,<br>

I think that Canon f/2.8 or f/4 + converter is better than the scope...but I did not try the scope...<br />I saw your link and, honestly, I do have sharpest pictures with my 300mm f/2.8 with the x2 and the 1.4x converters attached together!<br />But you have pretty good pictures: are they made with the 300mm + converter?</p>

 

[tamas_gaidosch]

<p>Hi Eduardo,<br>

If you focus it well then the scope can yield better results than the picture posted. I tried it in ideal conditions on distant (boring) subjects and I got sharper pictures than the 300/2,8 and 2x and 1,4x converters stacked. It just happens that in the field there are no ideal conditions in 99% of cases.<br>

My other pictures were mostly taken with the 300/2,8 +1,4x converter. The hides I use do not require lenses much longer than that (on a crop camera).</p>

 

[greg s]

<p>Hi Eduardo,<br>

Can you stack teleconverters on that lens? I haven't done it myself but have seen some decent images from those who have, and I would think that a quality lens like the 300 f/2.8 could deal with it. With a good tripod and cable release you may be able to stack a 1.4x or even 2x into the mix you already have. Anyway, I would search for results from people who have stacked TC's and learn the 'how to'. My guess is that you already have a 2x and 1.4x, and if you don't have a 1.4x then it's a good investment.<br>

Yes, leaving the branches alone is a good idea. Cheers, -Greg-</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Tamas, are you saying that, in the same conditions, the scope as better IQ than the 300mm with 2 converters? Even only with solely one converter? I am not in doubt about you are saying, just trying to understand you well...<br />I use hides too (<a href="http://barrento.com">http://barrento.com</a>) but in the case of this nest I cant put the hide closer to the nest or I get to low, that is why I need longer lens...<br>

Greg, yes I do sometimes use two converters with the 300mm f/2.8. One 2x converter and a 1.4x converter. IQ suffers a bit, but not so much, I had some pictures published in NG using that kind of equipement... Stabilizing the lens is the key... Good tripod, cable release, and light: happily here in my country there is lot of sunshine :) By the way: sometimes AF works with two converters! slowly, but works...</p>