Opinion on lenses

[john_wolf1]

Hi

My name is John i'm 23years old and live in Australia. I'm new to

Photography still learning Anyway my passion is birds i've been

watching them for years but have gotten into the photography side of

things, what a fun hobby.

So last year i went out looking for a camera and ended up with a

Pentax.

Ok on with my question this has probably been said before so i hope i

dont step on any toes.

LENSES now the current lens i have is a 100-300 zoom and and i'm after

somthing bigger. I have got quotes and my budget is $2000 and these

are the lenses available to me the sigma 300 fixed focal length and

the 400 fixed focal length the shop said i might want to think about

the sigma 170-500 zoom.

So ummm does anyone have an opinion on what i should buy?

 

Many thanks

Cheers, John

[andy.kim]

The question seems to be that you're interested in starting with bird photography, not so much what should a pro who wants to punch out publishable images needs to get. Both questions are more or less answered in the static content online here, so you should browse around the site.

 

A 600mm f/4 (or longer) is indeed the lens of choice for most, while certainly some people are doing interesting things with 400mm f/5.6 lenses. The 400mm is nice in that you only plunk down $500 and can play, whereas a 600mm f/4 usually demands in a significant tripod, head, and chiropractor investment to support it. You can also find lots of third party used 300mm f2.8's, which coupled with some good 1.4x or 2x teleconvertors, could do some interesting things.

 

You could also go with a Nikon system. There have been a pretty good number of 300mm f2.8's and the occasional 400mm 3.5 offered for under $2000 here. Get whatever $250 Nikon body that suites your fancy and a 1.4x or 2x Kenko Pro 300 teleconverter and you can do some interesting work.

[kristian_elof_sxrensen]

The ultimative lense for your purpose might very well be the Pentax FA* 250-600 5.6<br>However a new one goes for $7500 so it won't happen on your current budget.<br>

<br>

Birds can be shoot either handheld or with a monster lenson a Arca-equipped tripod. With your budget you have limited yourself to the less expensive handheld method.<br>

You schould go for a reasonably fast 400 mm lens and maybe some converters. There's quite a few available for pentax in your price range so start looking arond.

[kristian_elof_sxrensen]

You can get a new FA* 400 f5.6 that weights 1.14 kg (40 oz) and is 27 cm long that costs $1450 from B&H<br>

Sounds like just what you are looking for, with a price that leaves room for film and processing expenses or whatever.

[bliorg]

Second above. A 400/5.6 or 300/4.0 (new/used/third party) should, one way or another, be well within your budget. Add a 1.4x or 2x <i>matched</i> teleconverter, and you'll have a decent entry-level birding rig which, with good technique, should get you many great images...

[Former P.N Member]

John,

 

Search this board and the 'Original Q&A' using 170-500 for your search key. Both will turn up a couple of threads with info in the Sigma 170-500. Some of the feedback is negative speculation but there is also some positive comments from people who have actually used the lens.

 

I just bought the lens myself but have only shot a couple rolls so my experience with it is way to slim to make a serious evaluation. It is a slow lens but with its' cost and your budget you will have money to spare for a decent tripod, which you will need for long lenses anyhow.

 

Dick

[michael_kitei1]

John,

 

I was also looking for a long lens for birds. I found a nikon 400mm at a reasonable price at B&H, however, before I could buy it, I discovered a web site www.photodo.com that seems to do some credible lense testing. That led me to the Sigma 400, f5:6. I haven't regretted it. It's sharp, and relatively lightweight. I'm very pleased with it so far. By the way, they rated it better than the Nikkor and a new one was less than half the price.

 

Mike

[mike_smith2]

Depends on whether you are using autofocus or not. If you are using manual focus there is a great Pentax bargain second hand lens the 500mm F4.5 SMC Takumar, several such lens has been featuring on EBay auctions recently, also KEH (www.keh.com)has one for sale. Expect to pay approx $800 for the SMC version. The lens is equivelent to the Nikon gear selling at 2 - 3 x price and will knock spots of any Sigma or 3rd party lens. The matched multipliers are the Pentax 1.4 or 2.0 x "L" converters which like Nikon has protruding lens elements, however they seem to be as common as hens teeth (I have yet to track one down at a reasonable price - again KEH sell some but not at a price I am prepared to pay...yet)

 

Unfortunately new Pentax autofocus lenses are costlier than Nikon or Canon and extremely rare second hand, so in long run if you want autofocus you may be better switching over to Nikon/Canon now before you build up too much gear. If however you are content with manual focus equipment Pentax will give the standard two a good run for their money.

[mike_smith2]

Sorry forgot to mention the 500 F4.5 has minimum focus distance of 10m which puts a lot of people off, works fine with standard manual extension tubes, and you will need a set ultimately for isolating birds from the background - Read up on Moose Petersons web site for the technique. It is a big lens so you will need a decent tripod & Ballhead set up

 

Also have a look at some of the bird photos Mark Cassino has achieved with the Pentax equipment, both Tokina, and Pentax 500 F4.5 and 400 F2.8 - http://www.net-link.net/~cassino/ plus his insects on Pentax macro lenses.

[george_rhodes]

Definately stay away from the old Nikkor 400mm f5.6 EDIF. It is an outdated manual focus lens that is overpriced and it can't be mounted onto a Pentax camera anyway. I assume your Pentax is an autofocus model. Pentax happens to make superb optics that are hard to beat. I second the opinion that a good lens for you would be the Pentax 400mm f5.6 EDIF FA. It is an autofocus lens of the same brand as your camera that is well within your $2,000 budget. I also recommend buying it from B&H in New York. A fixed focal length in that range will be better than the Sigma zoom you mentioned and you could use it to good effect with a 1.4X teleconvereter, giving you a 560mm f8 lens.

[george_rhodes]

In my previous response, I assumed that you have an AF camera. If you have a manual focus model Pentax, I second the recommendation of the old, long-discontinued manual focus 500mm f4.5 SMC Pentax lens. A friend of mine used to have one of those lenses that had been adapted to fit his Nikon f3s. I used to borrow the lens to use with my old Nikon FE-2s and I can tell you that the lens is quite good, especially for the price.

[l._timms]

I don't mean to be making any deprecating remarks about any of the comments that the others have made regarding lens selection, but I am going to tell you something that is diametrically opposed to almost all of what they are saying. I have a friend who's bird photos are handled exclusively thru Vireo, a prestigious stock photo agency here in the States, specializing in bird photos. His photos have appeared in hundreds of textbooks, magazines, birding CD's, calendars, etc. . The biggest lens he has, is a 200 F2.8, with a set of teleconverters 1.4 or 2.0 that he can put on if needed giving him a max of 400mm. The key to succesful bird photography, is to learn the tricks of the trade so you wind up CLOSE to the birds. Blinds, misters, drippers, food, decoys, bait, water, the use of props (perches) etc. .. He is not alone in doing things this way. Except for shorebirds, the majority of the photos from pros that you see of things like songbirds, warblers, woodpeckers etc., were all taken at probably 30 ft, most probably less than 20 ft. . This individual was photographing over the weekend (red polls, crossbills, red bellied woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, cardinals, bluebirds) all at a distance of 4 to 8 ft. .

Even the raptor shots are often taken at incredibly close ranges thru the use of a blind, and an owl decoy. The long lenses come in handy for flight shooting (birds in flight) or for shorebirds (although again, if you know an area that shorebirds are frequenting, a blind can provide up close opportunities). Good luck with whatever choice you decide to make.

[jeff_hallett1]

Since you made the comment" What a fun hobby"...you might consider the

reflex or mirror lens. It is certainly much within your price range and is very lightweight and the optics are pretty good for the money spent. The drawbacks are the fixed aperture eg. a 500mm usually has a fixed f8 which limits your ability to control DOF. Also any bright spots in an out of focus background may appear as little doughnuts which many find appealing. You will be able to reach out to the birds

with this type of lens and still have some money left in the bank. Sigma makes a 600mm f8 reflex lens for about $375 out of NY. If you're just going to do prints for friends or slides for for general viewing

or enlargements I'd opt for this type of lens at this point.

[andy.kim]

John, given the wide scatter of responses, I'd again suggest that you read the static content for opinions from people with known experience. In particular, Arthur Morris' comments are pretty direct, and it would probably also be useful to read Don Baccus' comments on the 300mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. In general, I'd hesitate to plunk down lots of money for a Pentax or Nikon 400mm f5.6: they're useful lenses and of good optical quality, but not a particularly ideal focal length and ratio combo for general bird shooting in the long run. Again, the 3rd party 400mm f5.6's are an inexpensive way to experiment while getting reasonable optical quality. Mirror lenses are also pretty slow with no DOF control, not necessarily what you want to be chasing after birds with.

<p>

Also, the post regarding getting close is definitely true, but even if you can get close, you'll want a long lens for decent image scale (try using Philip's image scale/shooting distance calculator). If you're not good at getting close, not even an <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000SM8">800mm lens is going to help you</a>.

[ShunCheung]

This kind of topic has been discussed over and over and over in this forum, although most of those discussions are not Pentax specific. I too suggest John to go through the archives and static pages first.

 

I'll repeat one opinion that I have given a number of times though. I would avoid mirror lenses. Years ago I though I could "save money" and bought a Nikkon 500mm/f8 mirror, the same model is still currently in production. At f8 and more like f11, the viewfinder is so dim that accurate focusing is very difficult. To put it mildly, I had nothing but frustration with my 500mm/f8 mirror. In that price range, I think you are better off with a third-party 400mm/f5.6 type lens, preferably with AF.

[birdsofearth]

John, Since you already have upto 300mm reach, I'll suggest have a look at Pentax 500mm f/4.5 lens. I don't know how many people use it, but B&H sells it for $2314.95. If you are into shooting small birds, anything less than 500mm will not be that effective. And do remember that lenses like 500mm require a very sturdy tripod also.<P>

Though off topic, but why don't you consider using Nikon or Canon system ? Though I agree that <i><b>its your technique which decides quality of your pictures and not "Camera Brand"</i></b>, but definitely more and more Nikon and Canon lenses and accessories are avaliable than Pentax. Let's know what was your decision!

[kurt_heintzelman]

John: Welcome to Photo.net.--> Get yourself a copy of THE ART OF BIRD PHOTOGRAPHY by Arthur Morris, and also visit his website at www.birdsasart.com. He also has a FAQ column here at Photo.net that is within the Nature Photography forum moderated by Bob Atkins.

[jeff_hallett1]

I,ll have to disagree with Shun and the rest and the opinion of the mirror lens. It is true they have the drawbacks mentioned. As a beginner with little money and little experience, the Sigma reflex lens was my lens of necessity not choice at the time. It was however reasonably sharp and not as "dim" as apparantly the Nikon is. It gave me a beginning and allowed me to purchase other items like film,other lenses, processing and allowed me to see if I was really interested in this "hobby". Today, 15 yrs later I own 4 "L" lenses to use with my EOS 3 and backup EOS 1N.

IMO, a 400 5.6 will likely need to be used with a 2X to reach the birds( 800 f11) and the image quality of that combo will be far inferior the the Sigma reflex I can assure you.

Not all of us are rich nor do all of us want to dump our life savings into photo gear( pros excluded) as beginners. I learned using this lens and so can John.

[bob_royse]

There are many, many options out there. Autofocus really isn't necessary for most bird photography and is extremely overrated (especially to a 23 year old guy with presumably good eyesight). I've gone through many lenses and cameras over the past 18 years and I'd have to recommend getting the best possible glass with the longest reach at f/5.6 (slower than that is hard to focus and not regularly fast enough for high quality film). Eventhough you own Pentax now, don't feel locked into that system. The money you have spent so far is really pretty insignificant if you're going to be a serious bird photographer for the long haul. I'd recommend getting a Nikon 500/f4P or Canon 500/f4.5L (used FD's are cheap now) with a matching 1.4x or a manual 800/f5.6. If you're a birder, sitting in a blind all day with a short lens will only frustrate you. You get what you pay for, but a lot of modern bells and whistles are a waste of money if you're just getting started. Long, fast quality glass should be the first priority. That's my 2 cents.

[ShunCheung]

Personally, I wouldn't buy any long lenses (300mm or longer) that have a maximum aperture smaller than f5.6 for reasons Bob Royce and I have both pointed out. In fact, currently I don't own any long lens that is slower than f4. I have to disagree with Jeff again that IMO while a 500mm (or 600mm) f8 mirror lens looks inexpensive on paper, it is a total waste of money. Obviously not everybody can afford a 600mm/f4, but a third-party 400mm/f5.6, perhaps with a 1.4x TC which brings it to a 560mm/f8, is a much better option at less than US$1000. Since John's (the original poster) budget is $2000, he can get something even better.

 

Bob Royce has another good point that John doesn't need to lock himself in a Pentax system. As everybody knows, Canon EOS and Nikon are very popular and complete camera systems. Since John doesn't have that much equipment yet, it is a very good time to switch brands if he has plans to grow as a nature/bird photographer. However, I wouldn't get into the old manual-focus Canon FD system because it is a dead end and it is a matter of time that you'll have to switch system again. (For example, digital photography will be the future and I can't imagine Canon will ever make a digital FD body.)

 

Sorry to be blunt; I guess I have offened a lot of mirror lens, Pentax and Canon FD owners. I can hear flames coming already. :-) But seriously, these are personal opinions. Your perference may vary. I suggest try things out and form your own opinions before purchasing.

[bob_royse]

I agree with Shun that getting seriously into the Canon FD system isn't a wise idea. I was thinking more along the lines that an old beat up, but functional, FD 500/f4.5 + 1.4x will offer far more photographic opportunities than the shiniest new Sigma 400/f5.6 ever could.

[Michael Eckstein]

I am an amatuer bird/flower photographer. Retired and living in Florida. I recently I

switched from Minolta to Canon. I purchased all new equipment and budgeted

carefully. I bought a Canon Elan IIe and for birding a 400�5.6 a Canon 1.4 x and 2x.

and a 75/300IS, 28/135 is, 100 macro and 22/55. and a Rebel 2000 body(mistake)

and APS IX lite body for family shots. I am getting excellent results with the 400

with and without extenders...though it is hard to focus with the 2x in dark areas. I

would suggest you get a Pentax 400 and the 1.4 x. They should be within your

budget and should supply good results. Before Minolta I used Pentax and I would

say their optics are as good or better than most. I Hope this

[Michael Eckstein]

I would just like to clarify my statement Rebel 2000(mistake). The Rebel 2000 is an

excellent body with many features. I don't think any other manufacturor provides a

body with as many features as the Rebel 2000 at any where near the price. For my

purposes I wish I had bought 2 Elan IIe bodies. I prefer the larger body size and the

eye foc

[leif pigott]

Hi John, I will make the assumption that you are taking about $2000 Aus. dollars and I know your lens prices are nowhere near as cheap as the US or even New Zealand( where I'm from ). Hence the sigma lenses.

 

I brought a new sigma 400 f5.6 macro about 18 months ago, I have since sold it and replaced it with a 300mm f4 L.- too long for working in the bush and most the birds in NZ (and I found this in Tasmania 2 years ago) are not as difficult to approach as in North America (Canada last year)also the birds are often bigger.

 

If you can afford a 300 f2.8 or a 600mm f4, great. If not you will get good results with the sigma 400 f5.6 apo macro. I would also invest in a good tripod and a sigma l.4 TC. You might lose auto focus. Try not to get sucked into the world where speed is everything, you can always use 800 asa print film :-)

 

Second hand is nice but I suspect that you will not have access to a large array of gear. Look at the cost of importing a lens from the US and make sure you and the duty/sales tax.

[john_wolf1]

I'd like to thank everyone for there help. In Australia the price of lenses are over the top but i cant help that. Well making decisions isnt my best attribute but it looks like im going for the sigma 400mm and i should be getting it next week and i have to get a new tripod. So my hard earned dollars will be gone but it should be fun getting the birds on my dads farm.

Thanks again to everyone for there contribution

Cheers John