300mm is not as long as I thought

[htarragon]

<p>I just purchased a Pentax 55-300mm zoom and was surprised that 300mm did not really seem that different than 20mm. I bought the lens because I wanted more reach than my 50-200 kit lens would give me. It does, but it seems minimal. This morning I saw a bird in my yard and took 3 shots 1@ 100, 1@200 and 1@300. Much bigger difference from 100 to 200 than from 200 to 300. Then the penny, dime, quarter dropped (for those of us who remember pay phones). 100 to 200 is doubling, 200 to 300 is only half again as much. but shouldn't 100mm make a significant difference?<br>

Here is 100mm</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>200mm</p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>300mm</p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>The bird is about 25-30 ft away; larger than a sparrow, smaller than a hawk - a crow.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Looks right to me. Maybe you need a 500mm... or to walk closer to the crow. P.S., Do you remember pay TOILETS?</p>

[lee_w2]

<p>The real value shows up when you crop the shot to the size you need to show the details on wildlife. That 300mm will look much cleaner when blown up than the 200mm, all else being equal. And yes, as you pointed out the arithmetic says 100-->200 is doubled but 200-->300 is only half again. I measured the birds head and you are getting your 50% increase as you should. Try cropping both to the same size and see how you feel about it.</p>

[michael_elenko]

Hi Howard 

 

Let's face it: when it comes to long lenses for photographing birds, our needs are insatiable. That's a law of nature. 

 

Right now I'm taking a tennis elbow rest from photographing birds and flowers in the Eastern Washington desert.

Amazingly my 3G wifi is doing pretty good. I'm shlepping a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 around. A great blue heron just

flew by. My 400mm wouldn't cut it, I just know that. But a 500mm would, especially the f4 model at $6k. 

 

I never liked 300mm on a cropped sensor body. It's too short and too long at the same time. If birds are your target, I

think you would be more satisfied with a 400mm. Or something like a Sigma 100-300mm+a TC that would provide that

capability. 

 

Back to my hike. 

 

ME

[htarragon]

<p>Brian - Yes, I rember pay toilets, and, thankfully, never had to use one. I'd need more than quarters to buy a 500mm.<br>

Lee - You're right. The flower picture in my POTW was a pretty big crop and it looked ok.<br>

ME - That's disappointing about the heron. There are a couple near here and I 've never been able to get a decent shot w/ the 50- 200mm, I was hoping the 300mm would help. Maybe with a TC, but that would give me an f/8 lens. Oy. For $6k you could buy a heron!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Try a 400mm f/5.6, it will double your 200mm shot, and it's all about doubling, my friend :-)</p>

<p>I've successfully used a 1.4x TC on a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Sure, I have to stop down to f/8 (effective f/11) to get decent IQ, but that's fine on a sunny day, especially if you can bump ISO a bit. I've also used the 1.4x TC with the aforementioned 400mm with OK results.</p>

<p>If spending big bucks isn't your thing, then try a mirror lens. You'd be surprised how "close" a 600mm f/8 lens will bring that crow. Photos below shot with a K10D + Sigma CAT 600mm f/8, with slight cropping in postproduction.</p>

 

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/tv_d9sC502B36-AYmm9v8neRej73clQTGVkLNdS5Vo0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_i6tc3TCyOTA/S1N3GOOqWkI/AAAAAAAADAE/oWT37VWpO88/s640/Robin%20Eating.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="200" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td ><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_i6tc3TCyOTA/S1N3GOOqWkI/AAAAAAAADAE/oWT37VWpO88/Robin%20Eating.jpg">See full size</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[jean_b.]

<p>I just purchased (but have not yet received) a Pentax A 400 mm f5.6. I look forward to posting some out-of-focus bird shots (between the manual focus and my learning how to handle a long focal length lens) in the near future. I've been warned that you can never get a long enough or fast enough lens for bird shots. I see that that is the case here.</p>

<p>Miserere - I like your series of four shots.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>According to <a href="http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm">http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm</a> 200mm gives you 6.9 degrees view across, 300mm 4.6</p>

[shots worth sharing]

 

<blockquote>

<p>you can never get a long enough or fast enough lens for bird shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is why I'm using a 2x TC with the 1000mm (except for the "fast" part ;~) </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Remember, that mirror lenses are manual focus lenses, at least all the ones I know about.</p>

<p>They can become a kind of obsession (<a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00RaKy">link</a>).</p>

<p>However, if you can live with annular bokeh, they can be superb long lenses. However, avoid modern, cheap, off-brands as the plague. Sigma made some excellent ones in 500mm and 600mm focal lengths. Although they are no cheaper, the later Spiratone 300 and 500mm lenses are also good.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Only Sony/Minolta have an AF 500mm f/8 mirror lens. I have no idea why no other brand has released one, because they'd sell very well.</p>

<p>Ah, yes, it's because common sense is the least common of the senses, as Oscar Wylde pointed out.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Howard,<br>

The fates brought Ed and I together in a parking lot at a rich wildlife trail in central Washington today. He uses that Canon 500mm lens, and this is how he carries it around.<br>

Yes, his right shoulder is tilted downward (mine is headed there as well over time). Ed kindly posed for my iPhone after I told him about this thread, and then impressed me with the shots he just finished taking. I was coming, Ed was going.<br>

Ed<br>

<img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-ncLm3hV/0/M/i-ncLm3hV-M.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is what 400mm gets you from about 18 yards<br>

<img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-DD9JJMT/2/L/i-DD9JJMT-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Cropped, the longer focal length holds up better</p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-4q2kgRK/0/L/i-4q2kgRK-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

ME</p>

[snik75]

<p>Jean B., I have had a Rikenon 300mm f/4.5 for over a year now, and I am still not sure if it is soft wide open. Between the narrow depth of field, lens shake and iffy manual focus, plus somewhat limited occasions for use, I have not had much luck getting a sharp shot wide open. More recently I have been bumping the ISO and stopping down, with better luck.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Michael - Since 300mm isn't as long as I thought, I had a brief hope that at least bokeh might be better, but the second picture sort of nixes that although I don't know what aperture it was shot at.<br>

Nick's comment mentions narrow DoF so maybe there's hope.<br>

That Canon lens looks like a cannon, or at the very least, an anti-tank weapon. It must weigh a ton. I cannot imagine hauling that around, especially through the woods. More power to you guys..</p>

[michael_elenko]

Howard,

That was shot at f6.7, 1/350, ISO 800. I took a few at f5.6 but this one was sharper. I only had 12 seconds before the

flicker flew off and it was raining. $6K will get you better bokah, but at this point in my learning just getting a fairly

sharp picture of a cool bird without having to resort to baiting is satisfying enough.

 

Next time around I'd like to rent a 500mm lens. Have you considered the same?

 

ME

[htarragon]

<p>ME - Not yet. We used to have a deck from which I could set up a tripod and try to catch the wildlife in the creek next to our house. We built a room over it, so now my viewpoint is not so hot. But it is a thought.</p>

[coomber]

<p>One quick tip for those that haven't realised it, the Pentax SLR's can assist with manual focus. (well at least mine do) If you mount a manual focus lens on the camera with the switch still set to AF the shutter will only fire if there is something in focus in the frame according to the AF system.<br /><br />It can be used to prefocus on a area frequented by the bird you are trying to photograph while the camera sits steady on a tripod and then keep the shutter pressed by cable release. As soon as a bird lands in the correct 'zone' the camera will decide it has a focus lock and fire the shutter for you.<br /><br />Sorry for all those I've just tried to teach to suck eggs!<br /><br />Craig. </p>