Long(ish) telephoto

[peter_sanders2]

<p>@M.E. Humming birds are far from my main intention. It is really a general purpose lens for things of relative distance. For instance, the 80-200/4 @ 200/4, with 1/500 of a second put the bird too far away, but the 500mm wouldn't focus close enough and wasn't fast enough.<br>

See image below.</p><div></div>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>a general purpose lens for things of relative distance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter,<br>

I guess my brain is having a tough time figuring out what your telephoto needs are. If it is for commercial sales of wildlife (or sports) shots, then plan on spending several thousand$ on lenses and a new high-end body or two. A 500mm f8 mirror lens ain't gonna cut it on a reliable basis. The bokeh of mirror lenses can induce dizziness not to mention the limited choices in managing DOF.</p>

<p>Most shooters of birds and sport have an insatiable need for longer and faster and sharper telephoto coverage. The question is whether the cost to achieve that is reasonable to one's budget, the returns, frequency of use and personal satisfaction.</p>

<p>But if you are aiming to sell your work, I'd focus on more on technique than tools at this point in time. Your example shot has more prominent issues than ISO 800 noise or grain.</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[peter_sanders2]

<p>People apparently don't have very high standards. Someone saw that picture I posted above and asked me if I could donate a copy of it to the silent auction that supports local schools. It sold for $42. That's more than I thought it would go for. $20 at the very most (i.e., a really extravagant blind person) most was what I thought. I have never fancied myself a $40/good photo photographer, but tourists here apparently do. Primarily I shoot for myself. If someone approaches me with an offer, I take it. In this case they paid for the prints to be made and the matting. I know of all the issues there. That is why I thought that it was unlikely to break even at 10.39 for matting and 8x10 print.<br /> I never have intended to sell anything unless someone else (the eventual retailer/customer) proposes it to me. Then I sell it to them for the first offer that breaks even. Once again, I think myself practically an insult to photography.</p>

<p>That shot was taken when I was strolling along and just barely even saw the bird. I had little time for composure, let alone attaching a color correction filter. That is the copy I made later and applied noise reduction and color correction to in Helicon Filter.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>PS: My 500/8 is a refractor lens.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I can see how you would think that I took it with intention of marketing it. I captioned it with the marketing reference referring to when they [the auction director that wanted a copy of it] wanted to see it cropped so that the bird was bigger in the frame. They didn't think it would sell for much if I cropped it.</p>

<p>P.S. I have seen images easily of (in my strong opinion) marketable quality taken with 300/4 lenses. Granted, by far better photographers than I, and with lenses that probably cost them more than most people's cars.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"People apparently don't have very high standards."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>I would keep using the equipment you have and save up for a quality prime 200mm 2.8 or 300mm 2.8. One of the most overlook pieces of photographic equipment is foot work and the techniques to get within range of wildlife, master this with the equipment you have, so when you can afford a prime 200 mm or 300mm you will be set.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>If that means anything more than walking silently, do you have any tips? If not, I can already walk silently, and I am already aware that animals tend to be more tolerant if<br>

A: you are already there, or<br>

B: you approach in a vehicle or such that you curve past them (or am I missing something in that<br>

as<br>

well?)</p>

<p>Also, a $1000+ lens is out of my range, because one of my closer relatives literally gagged the first time I spent $50 on a lens.</p>

<p>Question: how can I get out of the rut of a bad technique that I have developed, and start taking better photos? Practice only makes perfect when you know what to practice.</p>

<p>P.S.<br>

My best photos of each category that I take pictures in (macro being by far the worst) are available for view at<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgsfv/<br>

and critique is requested.<br>

Flickr didn't pass the "Real Name Safety Research," so I used my initials followed by two random characters. I know that it is bad practice for photographic endeavors, but I am paranoid.</p>

[david_barts2]

<p>As cheap as possible? That can end up being pretty darn cheap (and pretty darn crappy and pretty darn unreliable).</p>

<p>It's been long enough ago that I can't remember what it cost, but I'm generally enough of a cheapskate that I doubt I paid significantly more than $200 for the BGN grade Pentax K 300/4 I bought from KEH. Like any Pentax lens I've used, the limiting factor is far and away my skills as a photographer, not the optical quality of the lens.</p>

<p>I do find it annoying that it doesn't have a tripod mount, but I don't shoot at that focal length enough to want to shell out more for a lens that does. I have dreams of sometime making a small platform with a beanbag on it that I can mount on my tripod. That wouldn't be a good as a lens with a tripod collar on it, but it would be better than nothing.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Learning to read behaviours in animals is the key<br>

An eg I never try and sneak up on owl or large birds of prey their eye sight is ten times better than my 300 2.8 lens. When you try and sneak up on them they take notice and look at you as a threat because you are hunting them. What I do is make some noise, talk to myself walk back and forth never spending too much time focused on them. When I see that they are relaxed I move in bit by bit, kick the ground , make it look like you grazing, never make direct eye contact ( hats are great for this) just to name a few techniques .<br>

Enjoy the time you have with the animals and learn to read them and you will find that your photos will improve . There is so much to be learned that a person could spend a lifetime<br>

What I find best for learning is to shoot fully manual (manual focus , spot metering and manual mode). This is so you can learn to see how the camera sees and how your choices affect the final product.<br>

This was one of my first digital owl photo taken with pentax ist ds faj 75-300mm I think I spent something like $85 cnd for the lens .<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10407467-lg.jpg" alt="" width="692" height="925" /></p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I took my biggest lens, my tripod, some ISO 400 color print film, and walked up to 20 feet from the tree that a Great horned Owl was sitting 50 feet up in, and pointed my lens at the owl, and clicked away, bracketing exposures (The sun was behind it, and I don't trust the internal meter.) and changing angle and framing until a crow landed next to it and squawked it away, but I had already run out of film. I guess it was just friendly. If you want, see Flickr in a week and a half.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I mean as cheap as possible maintaining image quality. You can get a lens on KEH for 39 dollars. Is $225 a good deal for a 300mm/4, assuming that or similar are there after I have followed the suggestions to improve my technique?</p>

<p>And if any question remains, this is, given my mode working distances and wanted magnifications, to be used essentially as my long general purpose lens. (I also have a regular general purpose lens. I use both regularly.)</p>

[mel_unruh]

<p>A couple of lenses worth of consideration are the Sigma 70-300APO and the ancient of days Tamron 70-350. The Tamron could be used to flatten asphalt should it ever break on you. It's a manly lens with a tripod collar, built in sun shade,82mm filter size (as I recall) and it's sharp as a tack (SP quality before the SP brand designation). It's an old school 2-touch system. Focus with one collar and zoom with another (but its constant focus). The Sigma is also a good performer. I know neither of these are primes, but given your price, point a zoom is worth consideration. <br>

One more thing, the Sigma also has macro capability. So, if you swing the ol' Tamron around and whack your hummingbird with it, you can zoom in real close to capture the colors and texture of whats left. :-)<br>

Mel</p>

 

[peter_sanders2]

<p>Nice Tamron. What is the maximum aperture at 350mm?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>If that means anything more than walking silently, do you have any tips?<br /> how can I get out of the rut of a bad technique that I have developed, and start taking better photos? Practice only makes perfect when you know what to practice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if it is photographing birds you are talking about here, I would endeavor to learn as much as possible about the typical types of birds you are aiming for in your area. There are lots of resources in most communities. I would start by joining up with the local Audubon group. Most offer monthly bird walks; larger communities have events held more frequently. Usually there are one or two experts who have a passion for educating others, and they will love any photos you take during the outings.</p>

<p>With a nudge from my wife, I started joining in on the walks two years ago. I've learned so much about avian behavior and identification, and have been to really great places for photography of nature.</p>

<p>Here are a few from last few weeks:<br /> <strong>Eagle collecting a gull for breakfast</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1245987510_64gtc-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Juvenile eagle approaching bald eagle</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1245989791_VuYKn-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Two juvenile eagles jousting in air</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1245989547_Xy3Rd-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Juvenile bald eagle taking off</strong><br /> <img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1244717200_hUUv9-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Flicker</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1195910464_4fwXy-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Townsend's Warbler</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/1195938946_GTwmp-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Do note that it takes a very different style of shooting and preparation for different families of birds. Herons are among the easiest to photograph because there are a relatively large number of them, they are large, and they tend to stay still at a fairly close distance.</p>

<p>Eagles are getting easier too, because they are becoming more numerous and they are large enough for a good AF system to lock onto for a long distance. There are six bald eagles in my neighborhood and their calls are quite distinctive. I also know they are around because raucous gangs of crows harass them.</p>

<p>Once you spot an owl, the shooting is fairly achievable because they stay still. Finding them in daylight is a challenge. There are local nature guides that give free tours of urban and rural forests who will provide tips. One is to look for owl scat at the base of trees.</p>

<p>I find the toughest birds to photograph are my favorites: colorful songbirds. They are tiny and move around awfully quickly. This tends to make using a monopod or tripod dysfunctional, but chest-braced support can help as can good image stabilization. You just have to know where the songbirds hang out, and their migration cycles. And have a lot of good luck.</p>

<p>Also be aware that a lot of the really impressive shots of raptors you see commercially are achieved with baiting techniques--usually rodents, though I've also seen the effectiveness of digital bird calls from an iPhone. This is highly controversial and I'm still struggling to develop my own personal values around it.</p>

<p>BTW, totally engaging shot Ian.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>While birds are a common subject (the most, probably) of mine, I also photograph dolphins and butterflies. I find most commonly that the 4/5 times that I get the shot, I am still usually disappointed with the reach of even the 500mm/8. I am fairly certain that I meant for that to be a question, but since I've told you so, you get the gist of the interrogative format.<br /> Also, your bird tips are sound, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no Audubon group here. We are too small and the nearest place with an Audubon group is too urban for the same to apply (if I am correct in thinking that a Bald Eagle will treat a 5 story building differently than a tree and a Great Horned Owl will treat a lost hat differently from a squirrel.)</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>there is no Audubon group here. We are too small and the nearest place with an Audubon group is too urban for the same to apply</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are going to have to apply your creativity and think through additional helpful resources. I'd also not assume that a place is "too urban" to be beneficial. Neat birds to photograph can be found anywhere. I'm sure there are NYC/NJ/Baltimore/Boston-resident forum members who can testify to that.</p>

<p>Since you are photographing dolphins I assume you are near a large body of water and a shoreline. Often there are resident bird experts employed by local, state and federal parks, and fisheries and game management departments. There are also local native plant societies that have naturalists conducting programs all the time. I've been on a native plant and wildlife enhancement tour of a restricted US military bombing practice reserve in Eastern Washington.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am still usually disappointed with the reach of even the 500mm/8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said above, most shooters of birds and sport have an insatiable need for longer and faster and sharper telephoto coverage. Most likely you are trying to photograph things that are simply too far away with less-than-wonderful tools. Knowing one's limits, especially those of physics, is important to a satisfying practice of photography.</p>

<p>I would question whether your bigger issue is with the quality of images captured at 500mm with a cheap lens. The Bigma 50-500mm f 4-6.3 eventually disappointed me with both optical performance and AF responsiveness and accuracy. Part of this was due to the Pentax system at the time as well. After adding a Canon 7D and a better 100-400mm telephoto my satisfaction grew and I was able to crop down long distance shots to achieve a perceived longer reach. That said, I wish there was a business case for me to purchase the 500mm f4 for $6K.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>By too urban to help, I mean that the birding outings won't help me in the coastal micro-environment that I live in, because it is a <em>micro-</em>environment. It would be able to give me general knowledge, but not very many specifics. There are state park officials, but they just inform tourists about the unique things about the salt marshes. The people who know what you can't learn in the Audubon book don't have time for the lone inexperienced birder in the area. I do learn some things, and will ask again, from the <acronym title="Department of Natural Resources">DNR</acronym> person, but I am just going to ask around on the internet (in other places than this (i.e., directed towards birding in my area)). As for dolphins. That is when the reach of my 500mm/8 disappoints me, and dolphins haven't come close to shore since I got a lens longer than 50mm. I have some pictures from my 2.1MP P&S Digicam, though, where they were just 10 meters (coincidentally the minimum focusing distance of my 500mm/8) from shore.<em></em></p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>By too urban to help, I mean that the birding outings won't help me in the coastal micro-environment that I live in, because it is a <em>micro-</em>environment. It would be able to give me general knowledge, but not very many specifics. There are state park officials, but they just inform tourists about the unique things about the salt marshes. The people who know what you can't learn in the Audubon book don't have time for the lone inexperienced birder in the area. I do learn some things, and will ask again, from the <acronym title="Department of Natural Resources">DNR</acronym> person, but I am just going to ask around on the internet (in other places than this (i.e., directed towards birding in my area)). As for dolphins. That is when the reach of my 500mm/8 disappoints me, and dolphins haven't come close to shore since I got a lens longer than 50mm. I have some pictures from my 2.1MP P&S Digicam, though, where they were just 10 meters (coincidentally the minimum focusing distance of my 500mm/8) from shore. How does one better one's odds (without disturbing wildlife in any way (i.e., by changing location)) of dolphins coming close without using a boat?<em></em></p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>I am just going to ask around on the internet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/index.html">Nature Photographers Network</a> is my site of choice. Excellent forums and amazing galleries about birds etc. You may have to subscribe to get useful information, but I'm not sure. If you do, send me an email so we can both benefit.</p>

<p>Another good one is <a href="http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/forum.php">BirdPhotographers</a>.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[david_barts2]

<blockquote>

<p>Is $225 a good deal for a 300mm/4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Honestly, it's been so long since I shopped for Pentax lenses I really can't say exactly. I will point out that KEH has a BGN grade one for that price. Their prices tend to be competitive, so while it's probably not a screaming deal, it's probably not a ripoff either. In fact, KEH prices tend to be better than the ones on that big auction site these days.</p>

<p>So I'd say go with it, provided the lack of a tripod collar (and of course, autofocus and pretty much any other automatic feature) isn't a deal-killer for you.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>For a similar price, you could try something like this, which even has a built-in hood and a tripod collar:</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Screwmount-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PS06004999999N?r=FE</p>

<p>Or this:</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Screwmount-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PS06999018376K?r=FE</p>

<p>You'd need an M42 to K adapter, but those aren't very expensive.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>SHORT VERSION<br>

None of those are deal-breakers for me.</p>

<p>LONG VERSION<br>

I like AF for a normal zoom, or any lens in the focal length in their "limited" series for casual snapshots, but for anything artistic, I barely trust the in-camera meter. At longer focal lengths, I have always been better with MF. Granted, all of my AF experience is from a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III that belongs to a photographer I know, a customer's Canon EOS 5D Mark II, my father's Nikon F-50 with a Tamron 28-200mm/4-5.6, and assorted point and shoots.</p>

[thebs]

<p>The DA* 200 f/2.8 is based on the full frame FA 200 f/2.8. Both are the ultimate, if you don't mind going down to 200, but you gain f/2.8.<br>

I have to disagree with those about the DA* 200 f/2.8 having a tripod mount. It's barely 5" long. It's not the DA* 300 f/4, which should have one. I've used my DA* 200 f/2.8 on both my K-5 Silver Limited and even the K-x Red, in addition to my bigger K20D. The lens is light enough that it's just fine.</p>