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: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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
