Joe Wrote: >So here's what I need:
>A zoom range of about 80-200 mm. >Macro (magnification) capability of at least 1:3. >Constant f2.8 aperture. This is a pretty tall order, as most of the faster telephoto zooms don't have great close-focus specifications. If you ~REALLY~ need a fast (i.e. f2.8)tele zoom that focuses close, you will probably need to buy a 80-200ish/2.8 and add a diopter "close-up lens". (I think Tiffen and Hoya both make diopers up to 77mm). I would not recommend an extension tube simply because it will cost you lens speed, and your subject will not stay in focus when you zoom. Diopters do not cost you light as extension tubes do, but be sure to use the weakest one possible to get the magnification you want, or the image quality will be rather poor. But... If it were me, I would ~strongly~ urge you to consider Pentax's A*200mm/4 macro.(Or FA*200/4 macro). I have the A* version and use it all the time, both hand-held and on a tripod. Fast telephoto zooms are not cheap, and (if you are out to spend that much), the long macros are a far better tool for the job you describe. True, it's not f2.8, but I very rarely even use f4 for DOF reasons. So, that is my first recommendation. My second suggestion (if you are on a limited budget), is to buy the well regarded Pentax A 70-210/4 and use a 62-58mm step ring to affix Nikon's 5T and/or 6T double element diopters (+1.5 and +3 respectively). Since the Pentax lens focuses fairly close by itself (1.2m), you could probably get away with just the +1.5 and zoom in and out to get the magnification you need. Just because it's not a big, "pro" f2.8 optic, don't let the older contstant aperture f4 zooms fool you. They are quite capable and handle better than some of the fast-glass bazookas out there. This set up costs a tiny fraction of what I paid for my macro and works very well. It is what I use when I don't expect to shoot many close-ups and don't want to lug aroung my A*200/4 macro in addition to my tele zoom for general shooting. My third suggestion is a monopod. Photographing butterflies with a tripod is rediculous and frustrating. A monopod, however, is more reasonable. Working around a fixed height becomes less and less of an issue with longer focal lengths. My personal equipment choice for butterflies and hummingbirds is this: A*200/4 macro, home-made wooden monopod w/small ball head, and, (light permitting) 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. >(Recommendations of the type "Get real, Joe" are not needed. Let's save bandwith here.) I hope I have provided some useful suggestions that will prove practical for you, and I wish you all the best in your macro-photographic adventures. Best Regards, -Jonathan- Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
