Super Telephoto Lenses

[bakree_isat]

Hello:

 

I have a small question regarding lenses.

 

With my 18-70 I do not get very close to subjects. For example, once I tried to

photograph a blue jay on a tree, but it was too far away, so when cropped, it

resulted in a grainy, choppy image.

 

I have decided to get a 70-300MM Macro From Tamron.

 

Have any of you used tamron's lens or any other in the 70-300 category?

 

Also, would any of you reccommend I get this, or buy some other lens? I want a

F/2.8, but that Is a little steep.

 

Thanks!

[geoff_mcauliffe]

If you want to photograph birds 400 mm is the minimum.

[andrew robertson]

Lots of people do it fine with a 300mm lens, especially fitted with a teleconverter.

[jamesdak]

Are birds your main goal. If so you may find a 300mm way too short. While I used one effectively on my 7D for about a year the 1.4x teleconvertor saw a lot of use also. And a lot of times I needed even more reach. But, with patience and some "hunting skill" the 300 can get you some decent shots.

[j._bradley_deal]

Hi Sean, I have a Tamron 1.4X tele converter that works reasonably well. Paid $50 used. Not all teleconverters are equal. Mine is a "better" quality model and the AF does work with it. You can expect some softness . You may also want to check out keh.com. They have a lot used lenses. -JBD

[jamesdak]

Here's an example of what you can get with a 300mm and 1.4x t-con.<div></div>

[dennis_fallon1]

Note on teleconverters ... you can get good results with a high quality APO tele lens (like the aforementioned 300/4, 300/2.8 ... the 400/4.5, etc.) and a matched TC (one designed to work with the lens). Pairing a 3rd party TC up with one of these lenses is ok, but they degrade image quality enough that there's debate over the merits of using a such a TC versus simply cropping. When it comes to using a TC on a zoom (unless it's a matched TC & APO zoom combo) odds are you're better off just cropping (i.e. versus putting a TC on a Sigma 70-300).

 

If you're on a budget, options to consider are:

- used Tokina 400/5.6

- used Sigma 400/5.6 APO (do some research - there were multiple versions and some better than others)

- Minolta 500/8 mirror lens (research mirror lenses for more info on fixed aperture & donut-shaped OOF highlights)

- Minolta 100-300 APO ... probably $300+ used but the sharpest 300/5.6 you'll get in this class of lens ... the other xx-300s are going to be soft at 300/5.6 in comparison, and marginally better at f/8

 

- Minolta also made a 100-400 APO but it's bigger, much more expensive (harder to find) and f/6.7 at the long end. I'd skip it.

 

- More expensive options include the 200/2.8 with matched TC (1.4X and/or 2X) With that combo or a 300/4 with 1.4X you'll have a 400-ish f/5.6 lens that is most surely going to be a good bit sharper than the aforementioned Tokina 400/5.6. Sigma's 100-300/4 is a nice sharp zoom (gets rave reviews) and you can research its performance with a 1.4X.

 

- Common wisdom was that on film, 400mm was useful for some bird photography; 500 to 600 and sometimes longer with TCs was necessary for more versatility. If you can get to a sharp 400, then you've got the same framing you'd get with a 600 on film, and if you can crop (requires a sharp lens to start with) then you can do better.

 

If it were me ... under $500, I'd look for a used Minolta 100-300 APO, practice getting close (learn how to use blinds, stalking techniques, etc) and crop when necessary (and maybe you just limit yourself to smaller prints). Next step up would be the $1000-1500 (maybe more !) range with the 300/4 and 1.4X combo.

 

I'd be tempted to wait a year until Sony releases their new lenses to buy a used G tele; the market is just plain poor right now (with G teles selling used for well over former new prices).

 

Above $1500, I'd buy a Canon lens then a 30D to attach to it. Otherwise you're throwing too much money at the wrong system for serious birding.

 

- Dennis

[jamesdak]

Another good point by Dennis. While I did shoot successful bird photos with my 7D and 300mm f/4 combo the AF tracking of the 7D for birds in flight is just terrible. So I am now the owner of a new Canon 30D with a 400 f5/6L USM lens for shooting wildlife and sports. Great combo for this kind of work and I am saying that as someone who has shot Minolta gear only since the '80s. Don't rule out other brands over some silly notion of "brand loyalty" Go get the best product that will do what you need and that you can afford.

[ilich_zuniga]

Firstly, let me say that all the points posted above are more than valid. Secondly, let me make the point that bird photogrpahy has alot to do with opportunity, patience, and, persistance. I have never gone out with more than a consumer grade 100-300mm zoom much like the one you've just bought, and acquired decent results. If decent is all you want, then I think you're ok. If you want spectacular and show stopping, then you'll want what everyone here is suggesting. If you want super-uber zoom, try digiscoping.

 

Remember, there is no better zoom than your own two legs. Bird photography is mostly about patience, and persistance.

 

Happy photo taking!

[dennis_fallon1]

Ilich, I notice you mention 100-300 ... which lens ? At 300/5.6, there's a world of difference between the Minolta APO lens and most any other (Minolta 75-300, Sigma, Tamron). Other lenses can even perform better than the 100-300 at various focal lengths (my old Sigma 75-300 APO was a better lens from 75 through at least 150 and maybe 200) but only by a bit; meanwhile, it was downright soft at 300/5.6 ... unusable for anything but vacation snaps at that setting (and not a whole lot better at f/8). Granted, the 100-300 APO costs a bit more than 3rd party alternatives, but if buying an xx-300/4.5-5.6 as a "poor mans tele" then you want to max out your 300/5.6 performance. I've seen great bird & wildlife photos taken with the 100-300 APO.