I'll just offer the thought that, it all depends or your method and style of shooting. Setting up in a likely feeding/watering site with you and your equipment in an nonthreatening location, can make for a fat 'folio of bird images. Flash w/long snoot is big help. OTOH, chasing raptors in and out of nesting trees and playing "drive by" tag with egrets and herons will leave you frustrated. I've enjoyed shooting many flocks of geese that would be easily gettable with a 200 w/t/c, but in that case, it's the flock that's photographed, not the interaction of individuals. I've had very limited success with single images using an A*300 f/2.8 with 1.4L t/c (film SLR) but I've not made the needed effort either. I've not even taken advantage of free blind use at a State Wildlife Area near my home. Those who have, claim anything with more weight and reach than a 70~210 is a hindrance due to the close proximity to the action. You will not have wasted your money on an A70~210 f/4 for a bunch of reasons. Go longer if and when, but work your way there. Free advice and worth every penny.
Jack --- Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? I > read > a book about this topic, and author prefers to shoot at 200, but I > have noticed that many of the shots posted here are much longer than > that, and often with a TC. This also brings to mind Tim from Norway > and having problems even with a 500. So is 200 (or 135 for angle of > view) unrealistic until I have mastered stalking? What I have right > now is the 18-55 kit, A24/2.8 and a Super-Tak 50/1.4. So the only > way > I can get close enough for a decent picture is if I also bring my > Ruger, and I don't think that would be a good idea. > > And further more....... if 200 (135) is an appropriate length, the > lens' that I have been considering are: > > DA50-200/4-5.6 > FA80-320/4.5-5.6 > A70-210/4 > > any comments on these lens' would be great, or should I instead be > looking at primes? (I do have a very limited budget.) I believe > that > they can each be had for around $200 US or less, and of course I > would > go for an older MF over a newer AF if it is better. > > My point is that I would like to know what I need to start > looking/saving for. > > Thanks. > > Russell > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
