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
> 


Reply via email to