Re: long lens for birds?
On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:18 AM, David Savage wrote: FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) Not necessarily, but you'd better be prepared to crop. A lot. Here's a small section of a slide I just happened to be working on this evening... http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/swans.html That's Velvia grain you can see ;) The image is a bit soft because the 15mm isn't very sharp wide-open, and I was pushing my luck with the exposure (1/15th handheld with MLU, I think). Oh and it was misty, which is why I was out shooting in the first place. Perhaps a slightly better example is this friendly duck I shot at 24mm. http://pug.komkon.org/01sep/Closeup.html - Dave (hoping to attempt photographing fantails soon, if they can stay still long enough)
Re: long lens for birds?
The SMC Pentax- A 400/5.6 can sometimes be had for as little as $300. $400 to $450 is a more typical price. There are also M and K versions of the Pentax lens (SMC Pentax-M 400/5.6 and SMC Pentax 400/5.6), but neither will focus close enough for bird photography without the addition of an extension tube. However, I used a K version for quite a while with a short extension tube, and it was a workable solution. Both the K and M can be had for $300 or slightly less. The A is by far the best choice here though, due both to its close focus (2.8 meters), and it's ability to take advantage of all of the *istD (S, S2, L) metering functions. I'm not up to speed on the Tokina prices or specs. Paul On Apr 18, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: The Tokina 400/5.6 in good condition goes for around $150 then? Is this MF or AF? Also, about how much should I expect to pay for an A400/5.6? And also, also for either of these lens' are there different versions that should not be purchased? Also, also, also. thank you for the plethora of input. Russell
Re: long lens for birds?
On 4/19/06, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not necessarily, but you'd better be prepared to crop. A lot. Here's a small section of a slide I just happened to be working on this evening... http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/swans.html That's Velvia grain you can see ;) The image is a bit soft because the 15mm isn't very sharp wide-open, and I was pushing my luck with the exposure (1/15th handheld with MLU, I think). Oh and it was misty, which is why I was out shooting in the first place. Good thing you titled it what you did or I would have sworn that it was the Loch Ness monster :-) Dave S.
Re: long lens for birds?
I bought last fall from a list member, the K 400 f5.6. It was in rough condition, but the glass etc is good.Manual Focus. However if i can find an A or AF i might part with it. My only tests with it are a few shots of a broken down dock at a pond edge, using the istD and some Iflord BW HP5 film. It looks ok from the digital end, but not to sure about film. Not as sharp and flat, BUT it could have been the film or my proccessing of it. I don't seem to do a good job on HP5 as its always grey looking.I gave up on my wet print of the subject. I have tried my Sigma 300 f4 with 1.4 tele, and that was semi successful(shot a hawk from the car) I have not tried my 50-200 or 70-210 for birds yet. I didi try my Sigma 170-500 Nikon mount for some ducks. Results were ok, but not tack sharp as one would suspect. Colours were good. dave - Original Message - From: Russell Kerstetter Subject: Re: long lens for birds? The Tokina 400/5.6 in good condition goes for around $150 then? Is this MF or AF? Also, about how much should I expect to pay for an A400/5.6? And also, also for either of these lens' are there different versions that should not be purchased? Then WW said. I can't help you on price, that seems really variable, depending on patience and luck. I seem able to buy something off ebay and then see three auctions in the next month end for less than I paid. Anyway, I have both an A400/5.6 and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 (it's a manual focus, contemporaneous with the A400/5.6). The Pentax is definitely the better lens, I recall the Tokina had a bit of chromatic abberation, the Pentax is nice, with a very crisp image. The CA doesn't seem to show up on film, or at least not as obviously, but does show on the digital. William Robb David J Brooks Equine, Pets, Bands, Rural Landscape Photography in York Region www.caughtinmotion.com Pentax istD, PZ-1, Nikon D1 D2H
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: Don Williams Subject: Re: long lens for birds? That's strange. You would expect the opposite considering the sensor is so much smaller than the film frame. Digital sensors seem somewhat less forgiving than film in this regard. William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
so lenes that are optimized for digital in addition to being smaller are designed to have less CA? Russell
Re: long lens for birds?
On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: so lenes that are optimized for digital in addition to being smaller are designed to have less CA? No optical designer ever designed a lens to have more CA ... it's just that film and digital sensors constitute entirely different kinds of light sensitive recording mediums. Some lenses' light path is such that CA is exaggerated on the digital sensor, that's all. A lens designed to work well on a digital sensor takes the sensors characteristics (sensitivity to incidence angle, hotspots that can arise from back-reflection, etc) into account in the design to reduce these things, including CA. In general, any lens that works well on digital sensors will also work well on film of the same format dimension because film is relatively insensitive to these kinds of things, but both medium respond well to lower CA, better resolution, better contrast, etc. Godfrey
Re: long lens for birds?
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Don Williams Subject: Re: long lens for birds? That's strange. You would expect the opposite considering the sensor is so much smaller than the film frame. Digital sensors seem somewhat less forgiving than film in this regard. William Robb I think you're right about this. The sensor (for some technical reason) is more sensitive to CA than film. I put the Sigma 400/5.6 APO on the D yesterday and took some bird pictures. I find there is CA that I haven't seen on film*. However, The Sigma 70-300 continues to please. Especially with a Tokina doubler. But CA must always be smaller closer to the centre of the field. * As before this CA is only detectable at pretty large zoom %s in Photoshop. D -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: Russell Kerstetter Subject: Re: long lens for birds? so lenes that are optimized for digital in addition to being smaller are designed to have less CA? I don't know about smaller, the two digital only lenses that I have are both horses. Lens design is about compromises, you gain some quality in one aspect, you probably lose some quality somewhere else for doing it. William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
Russell, Not that I have any expertise whatsoever on the subject of wildlife photography, but I'd say also that primes are definitely the way to go. And you will always want more reach than you have. Seems like in order to get really close for those frame filling shots that shooting from a blind produces the best results. Especially with the more skittish species. At least with the Pentax equipment that doesn't have image stabilization built in. I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg Too bad they discontinued this lens. I too would be tempted to get another if it came up available. I don't think however that the lens mentioned by William as going for $40.00 on eBay is the same. There is another version (manual) by Tokina; the SL I beleive, but it is not the same or even close in quality to the AT-X SD version. Good luck with your search, JayT
Re: long lens for birds?
On 17/4/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: It's easy to shoot birds with a 200-- if they're dead. Mark! would that be a parrot Paul? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: long lens for birds?
I have a Chinon 300/5.6 which looks a lot like this Tokina 400/5.6. Maybe the same factory? Would a 300/5.6 on a APs snesor be OK ? Isn't 5.6 a bit slow ? -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: long lens for birds?
Cotty wrote: On 17/4/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: It's easy to shoot birds with a 200-- if they're dead. Mark! would that be a parrot Paul? ;-) Thanks Cotty! (Beautiful plumage, eh?)
RE: long lens for birds?
A pretty good shot Jay Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Jay Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18. april 2006 08:54 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? Russell, Not that I have any expertise whatsoever on the subject of wildlife photography, but I'd say also that primes are definitely the way to go. And you will always want more reach than you have. Seems like in order to get really close for those frame filling shots that shooting from a blind produces the best results. Especially with the more skittish species. At least with the Pentax equipment that doesn't have image stabilization built in. I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg Too bad they discontinued this lens. I too would be tempted to get another if it came up available. I don't think however that the lens mentioned by William as going for $40.00 on eBay is the same. There is another version (manual) by Tokina; the SL I beleive, but it is not the same or even close in quality to the AT-X SD version. Good luck with your search, JayT
Re: long lens for birds?
On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S.
Re: long lens for birds?
When did you change your name John? Dave S ===On 4/18/06, Jan Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=== Paul, the Tokina focuses down to about 13 feet. That isn't close enough on film for any but the largest birds, but on the APS sensor in the *ist-D it is OK, as evidenced by my last parrot shot. Also, the glass is good enough to withstand reasonable enlargement too. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?)
I've seen 3 varieties of this lens. The oldest of them is the RMC. Then came the SD Finally came AF and improved optics in the AT-X SD. Here's some general observations: The old RMC may be limited to the K/M mount. The SD can have A, or not, but also has a Ricoh pin. Fortunately Tokina had the foresight to make it a bump so that it won't interfere with Pentax' AF coupling. The AT-X SD is where auto-focus comes in. I've seen no manual focus AT-X SD in the 400/5.6. (Someone correct me if that observation is in error.) The SD and AT-X SD are Very Good optically. The RMC is much cheaper and OK optically. Not bad, like old Soligor. But imo it's worth the extra few bucks to get the SD. Collin KC8TKA
Re: long lens for birds?
What's the story on this friendly bird..taxidermy? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: long lens for birds?
Hi Russell, Birds are difficult because they're so small and fidgety. They don't ever seem to sit still. You need to use some type of blind to get close even with really long lenses. I don't like TCs for birds because I lose too much shutter speed. I throw away enough blurred shots as it is. Your best bet is to set up a feeder near a tree just outside a window in your house. I've never been a fan of feeder pictures. Birds will often land in the tree before they hop down onto the feeder. If you're quick you'll be able to get a few shots of them sitting on the branch. Of the lenses you mentioned, the 80-320 is your best bet IMO. Focal length counts for everything in bird photography. I haven't used mine for birds but I have used it for bigger wildlife at a distance and had good results. Tom Reese -- Original message -- From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: long lens for birds?
Nah! It's wild native bird that just isn't afraid of anything :-) I've seen them fight off crows, magpies and kookaburras. What it was doing was following behind my old man, as he was walking on the lawn, eating all the flying insects that Dad stirred up. When Dad stopped and sat down this little guy would chirp angrily at him. When that didn't work, it jumped all over Dad until he got up and continued stirring. This carried on for about an hour or so. At one stage I had it perched on my left hand while I photographed with the right. It still visits the yard daily. Dave S On 4/18/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the story on this friendly bird..taxidermy? Jack --- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/18/06, Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a decent lens (or a decent length) for shooting birds? snip G'day Russell FA 100mm f2.8 Macro isn't too shabby: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/pages/IMGP2152_2.html Of course you need friendly birds :-) The FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6 isn't bad for a cheap lens: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html#6 All but the last 2 in the gallery were shot with the FA 80-320 Dave (not really helping much) S. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: long lens for birds?
This makes a lot of sense and works well for those types of birds that eat at feeders... Jays, Finches, Chickadees, Buntings, Grosbeaks, even Quail. Sometimes predatory birds like Hawks and Kestrels may start hanging around a feeder as well, in hopes of getting a meal. Another thing to do if not shooting out in the wild is to set up some kind of water feature. A fountain or a small pool with a drip system will atrract a lot of birds to the area. As others have said the focal length of the lens you'll need depends entirely on how close you can get. I can tell you that a 500mm lense on the *ist D at 40 yards has yet to produce a pleasing shot of large birds like eagles and herons when the picture is cropped enough to show off the bird. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese) Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:52:36 + Hi Russell, Birds are difficult because they're so small and fidgety. They don't ever seem to sit still. You need to use some type of blind to get close even with really long lenses. I don't like TCs for birds because I lose too much shutter speed. I throw away enough blurred shots as it is. Your best bet is to set up a feeder near a tree just outside a window in your house. I've never been a fan of feeder pictures. Birds will often land in the tree before they hop down onto the feeder. If you're quick you'll be able to get a few shots of them sitting on the branch. Of the lenses you mentioned, the 80-320 is your best bet IMO. Focal length counts for everything in bird photography. I haven't used mine for birds but I have used it for bigger wildlife at a distance and had good results. Tom Reese -- Original message -- From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: long lens for birds?
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] One should not let a lust for toys be confused with needs. Toys are nice to have but one should not lie to one's self about it. graywolf OTOH, there's no real substitute for having the right tool for the job. :-) Tom C.
RE: long lens for birds?
Hi Jay that is a nice and promising photo, I would love to try that lens too :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Jay Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I have been very satisfied with a relatively new enablement in the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6. This is the same lens that Bruce and a few others here also have. It is light and small for a 400mm prime; very hand-holdable on bright days. I haven't taken a lot of time yet to see how it works with a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach. Here is a recent shot grabbed in my front yard: http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/63987/1/58830040.YardBird.jpg
Re: long lens for birds?
No change Dave, just that I had to use my laptop while my desktop was having a hissy fit, and the email account there is set up for my wife to use! Reverting to my (normal) male persona now... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:22 PM Subject: Re: long lens for birds? When did you change your name John? Dave S ===On 4/18/06, Jan Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:=== Paul, the Tokina focuses down to about 13 feet. That isn't close enough on film for any but the largest birds, but on the APS sensor in the *ist-D it is OK, as evidenced by my last parrot shot. Also, the glass is good enough to withstand reasonable enlargement too. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?)
Hi Collin: mine is the RMC version, and it is of course manual focus and manual aperture only, but works perfectly on everything I've tried from an ME up to the *ist-D. As I said, I have found the glass good enough, having used it mainly at f5.6-8: you may recall my PUG shot Butterfly Dance was shot with it, and the displayed image is a fairly heavily cropped one, looking at that photo may allow others to judge it's quality. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:29 PM Subject: Tokina 400/5.6 variations (Re: long lens for birds?) I've seen 3 varieties of this lens. The oldest of them is the RMC. Then came the SD Finally came AF and improved optics in the AT-X SD. Here's some general observations: The old RMC may be limited to the K/M mount. The SD can have A, or not, but also has a Ricoh pin. Fortunately Tokina had the foresight to make it a bump so that it won't interfere with Pentax' AF coupling. The AT-X SD is where auto-focus comes in. I've seen no manual focus AT-X SD in the 400/5.6. (Someone correct me if that observation is in error.) The SD and AT-X SD are Very Good optically. The RMC is much cheaper and OK optically. Not bad, like old Soligor. But imo it's worth the extra few bucks to get the SD. Collin KC8TKA
RE: long lens for birds?
I'm happy to report: The Mostly harmless, but inpatient Norwegian, has made some real progress today :-D I had a lot of birds about 10 meters away from the hide. I even managed to focus pretty accurate. All I have to do now is to crop a bit ;-) I'll keep you informed folks, don't you worry ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Russell Kerstetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18. april 2006 01:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: long lens for birds? 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
Re: long lens for birds?
I thought as much. But I just wanted to check. :-) Dave S On 4/19/06, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No change Dave, just that I had to use my laptop while my desktop was having a hissy fit, and the email account there is set up for my wife to use! Reverting to my (normal) male persona now... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: long lens for birds?
The Tokina 400/5.6 in good condition goes for around $150 then? Is this MF or AF? Also, about how much should I expect to pay for an A400/5.6? And also, also for either of these lens' are there different versions that should not be purchased? Also, also, also. thank you for the plethora of input. Russell
Re: long lens for birds?
also, also, also, also.. I did not see Colin's other post about the Tokina for I post may last. Russell
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: Russell Kerstetter Subject: Re: long lens for birds? The Tokina 400/5.6 in good condition goes for around $150 then? Is this MF or AF? Also, about how much should I expect to pay for an A400/5.6? And also, also for either of these lens' are there different versions that should not be purchased? I can't help you on price, that seems really variable, depending on patience and luck. I seem able to buy something off ebay and then see three auctions in the next month end for less than I paid. Anyway, I have both an A400/5.6 and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 (it's a manual focus, contemporaneous with the A400/5.6). The Pentax is definitely the better lens, I recall the Tokina had a bit of chromatic abberation, the Pentax is nice, with a very crisp image. The CA doesn't seem to show up on film, or at least not as obviously, but does show on the digital. William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
That's strange. You would expect the opposite considering the sensor is so much smaller than the film frame. I got a Sigma 70-300 APO Super a couple of weeks ago (£65) and tested it on the ist D immediately for CA. There is nothing to be seen at 100% zoom (Photoshop) in the far corners of the images. If zoomed up hugely the pixels do seem to have slight tints, but it takes a bit of imagination to see them. I freak out if I see chromatic aberration on a picture -- it totally spoils things for me. This is a personal aversion stemming from bad experience with a Schneider 360/5.6 for which I paid an enormous amount in the 1950s. Using this lens on Alpa Reflex bodies I took hundreds of pictures of birds in Hwange national park (Rhodesia) over several weeks. They had such blue fringes that I chucked the slides out in disgust. The standard lenses I used then -- 50/1.8 Kern Macro Switars were great. I still have one of those terrible slides. I'll look for it. By the way I also have the Sigma 400/5.6 APO and this is also good. It works well with a Tokina Doubler. Don William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Russell Kerstetter Subject: Re: long lens for birds? The Tokina 400/5.6 in good condition goes for around $150 then? Is this MF or AF? Also, about how much should I expect to pay for an A400/5.6? And also, also for either of these lens' are there different versions that should not be purchased? I can't help you on price, that seems really variable, depending on patience and luck. I seem able to buy something off ebay and then see three auctions in the next month end for less than I paid. Anyway, I have both an A400/5.6 and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 (it's a manual focus, contemporaneous with the A400/5.6). The Pentax is definitely the better lens, I recall the Tokina had a bit of chromatic abberation, the Pentax is nice, with a very crisp image. The CA doesn't seem to show up on film, or at least not as obviously, but does show on the digital. William Robb -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616
long lens for birds?
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
Re: long lens for birds?
On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: or should I instead be looking at primes? (I do have a very limited budget.) The upside with primes is that they're generally faster and sharper than a zoom in the same price range. I heartily recommend buying the best primes you can afford. -Aaron
Re: long lens for birds?
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
Re: long lens for birds?
I'd recommend the Tokina 400/5.6. It's relatively inexpensive, fast enough for general use, and decent quality. The woodpecker I shot this past weekend was out @ 200mm. http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/AWalkInThePark041506/ And the bird was only about 15 ft. (5 meters) away. Given the cropping, even 400mm is sort of minimal. Collin KC8TKA mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
RE: long lens for birds?
IMO, 200mm does not even get anywhere close to the magnification you'll need for the vast majority of bird shots. As you noted from others, even 500mm is pretty short when it comes to shooting birds in the wild as a semi-casual observer. That 500mm lens provides the magnification factor of a 750mm lens on the Pentax DSLR's... so consider that as short as well. Sure 200mm, 300mm, etc., may work if you are close enough. Figure that you often won't be close enough unless you invest a significant amount of time getting close and then, likely waiting for the birds to return. Tom C. From: Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: long lens for birds? Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:23:20 -0700 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
Re: long lens for birds?
It's easy to shoot birds with a 200-- if they're dead. Otherwise you're going to want something longer. Of course a prime is best. Fast, long primes are very expensive. One of the best bargains is the A400/5.6. It focuses close enough to shoot a bird full frame. With a Pentax digital it is long enough to get some decent shots. Combining it with an A1.4X-S converter should make it just about perfect. I sometimes use it with the A2X-S, but that makes it a bit too slow. Paul On Apr 17, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Russell Kerstetter 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
Re: long lens for birds?
what you should start looking for kind of depends on what you're planning to do with the photos. I am a hobbyist photographer who follows a professional bird photographer around from time to time. For what it's worth, the majority of the bird photos I've shot ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye/sets/1202178/ ), have been done using a 70-300 zoom. I'm not particularly ashamed of it -- it was about a hundred bucks and I didn't see the sense in spending more, given my lack of ability at the time. SOME of the most recent photos in that gallery were done using a 400mm lens, but you still see me sneaking back to the zoom from time to time, because it's auto-focus and the 400 is not. On 4/17/06, 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. . . . My point is that I would like to know what I need to start looking/saving for.
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I'd recommend the Tokina 400/5.6. It's relatively inexpensive, fast enough for general use, and decent quality. Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
Before the 1960's a lot of wildlife photography was done with a Leica and a 135mm lens, back then labor was cheap and there was not a lot of money for equipment and photographers were willing to invest a day in getting a decent shot. Today money is more readily available than time, so one tends to invest in long lenses. A compromise seems the most viable and I would think that one should be able to do okay with a 400mm on an istD series camera which gives the same working distance as a 600mm does on a 35mm camera. All that said, I have never really been much of a wildlife photographer and the longest lens I own is a 80-200/2.8 (+ a 2x converter which I have seldom used). One should not let a lust for toys be confused with needs. Toys are nice to have but one should not lie to one's self about it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Russell Kerstetter 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
Re: long lens for birds?
What's the minimum focus distance on the Tokina? That's where some of the less expensive primes and zooms fall short. The A400/5.6 focuses at 2.8 metres. You'll need close focus ability for birds. Paul On Apr 17, 2006, at 8:51 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I'd recommend the Tokina 400/5.6. It's relatively inexpensive, fast enough for general use, and decent quality. Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb I was watching that one. It has some fungus on the front cell. But good ones have been $150 regularly. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://www.brendemuehl.net He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: Collin R Brendemuehl Subject: Re: long lens for birds? Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb I was watching that one. It has some fungus on the front cell. But good ones have been $150 regularly. I hadn't noticed that. I have one in good shape, I'm happy it is worth something. William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: long lens for birds? What's the minimum focus distance on the Tokina? That's where some of the less expensive primes and zooms fall short. The A400/5.6 focuses at 2.8 metres. You'll need close focus ability for birds. The Tokkina focuses to 4 meters, which isn't good, but a short extension tube gives it a nice working range. William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
I used to have an A 400/5.6. It was a very good lens, but a bit large. My current Tokina 400/5.6 ATX SD AF lens is smaller, lighter and focuses closer (2.5 meters). It has AF to boot. I almost never see this Tokina for sale, but would pick one up again if I saw it. I can also recommend the A 400/5.6. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 17, 2006, 6:11:32 PM, you wrote: PS What's the minimum focus distance on the Tokina? That's where some of PS the less expensive primes and zooms fall short. The A400/5.6 focuses at PS 2.8 metres. You'll need close focus ability for birds. PS Paul PS On Apr 17, 2006, at 8:51 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I'd recommend the Tokina 400/5.6. It's relatively inexpensive, fast enough for general use, and decent quality. Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
Sounds good. I'm surprised to hear that it's smaller and lighter than the A. I figured the A 400/5.6 was about as small and light as it gets in that long a lens. I'd love to have an AF 400. I'll have to keep an eye out for this one. I wonder how it compares in flare resistance and resolution. The ability of the A lens to shoot in backlit situations is most endearing. Paul On Apr 17, 2006, at 11:42 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I used to have an A 400/5.6. It was a very good lens, but a bit large. My current Tokina 400/5.6 ATX SD AF lens is smaller, lighter and focuses closer (2.5 meters). It has AF to boot. I almost never see this Tokina for sale, but would pick one up again if I saw it. I can also recommend the A 400/5.6. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, April 17, 2006, 6:11:32 PM, you wrote: PS What's the minimum focus distance on the Tokina? That's where some of PS the less expensive primes and zooms fall short. The A400/5.6 focuses at PS 2.8 metres. You'll need close focus ability for birds. PS Paul PS On Apr 17, 2006, at 8:51 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: long lens for birds? I'd recommend the Tokina 400/5.6. It's relatively inexpensive, fast enough for general use, and decent quality. Very good quality, truth be to tell. One just went on eBay for less than US$40.00 William Robb
Re: long lens for birds?
Paul, the Tokina focuses down to about 13 feet. That isn't close enough on film for any but the largest birds, but on the APS sensor in the *ist-D it is OK, as evidenced by my last parrot shot. Also, the glass is good enough to withstand reasonable enlargement too. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: Re: long lens for birds? What's the minimum focus distance on the Tokina? That's where some of the less expensive primes and zooms fall short. The A400/5.6 focuses at 2.8 metres. You'll need close focus ability for birds. Paul
