lenses for telephoto 400mm+

[dugless]

Any recommendations , new or 2nd hand UNDER £400.

For wildlife / bird photos.

I know its stating the obvious,but clarity is of MAJOR importance .

Would I be better going prime ?

[beano500]

dugless said:

Would I be better going prime ?

Well I would say "yes" every time.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a nice little 400mm F2.8 jobbie for your budget - which is what we all NEED really, let's face it.

Back to reality. Possibilities not to be overlooked include, IMHO, the Tokina 400mm. cracking good performers optically the Tokina range. Well built too.

Personally I am saving up for a 300 F4 and a converter (1.4 or 1.7) to meet my bird/nature requirements.

[406tm]

beano500 said:

Personally I am saving up for a 300 F4 and a converter (1.4 or 1.7) to meet my Peeping Tom /bird/nature requirements.

[GetCarter]

dugless said:

UNDER £400.

This is a tricky one due to the very low number 400!

Are you on a DSLR? If so a 300 will be (in reality) a 450. (I'm sure you knew that).

I use Nikkor ED 70 - 300 and ED 80 - 400 for wildlife, and have not found them wanting for clarity. I'd love a prime, but the one I'd buy costs more than a decent estate car (and weighs about the same).

below - both taken (from some distance) with the 400 (and cropped)





Steve




>> Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 16th November 19:07

[dugless]

beano500 said:

dugless said: Would I be better going prime ? Well I would say "yes" every time. Unfortunately you're not going to get a nice little 400mm F2.8 jobbie for your budget - which is what we all NEED really, let's face it. Back to reality. Possibilities not to be overlooked include, IMHO, the Tokina 400mm. cracking good performers optically the Tokina range. Well built too. Personally I am saving up for a 300 F4 and a converter (1.4 or 1.7) to meet my bird/nature requirements.

I get frustrated with things like this..

Surely a manufacturer,with decades of experience making lenses,sell crap ones ?,canon sell there normal turd and L series,so there admiting there normal ones won't produce clear photos,which is the essence of a lens !.

I will look into tokina ones,I currently have a tamron 70-300 and is to soft at the long end.

Getcarter.. , I just spent a load of money on a car,if I suggest spending big money on lenses I will get divorced.. .Its a 10d by the way. Thanks.

[te51cle]

Sigma used to make a good 400mm f5.6 APO lens which was very good. In fact I have mine at my right hand, it was very good until:

I fell out of a lorry with it...
on the first day of my holiday...
before lunch...
in Australia...
on the last piece of concrete for 1,000 miles !!


Ones that haven't been dropped and don't rattle or wobble seem to be about £200

[GetCarter]

dugless said:

Getcarter.. , I just spent a load of money on a car,if I suggest spending big money on lenses I will get divorced.. .Its a 10d by the way. Thanks.

I just loaded a couple of pics from the cheap glass (look above)

[simpo two]

No reason not to consider second hand - my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and Micro Nikkor 60mm were both mint via eBay and about a third cheaper than new. Have a search: http://photography.search.ebay.co.uk/400mm_Photograp

[dugless]

Thanks for the replies..

Heres some resized but uncropped pics from the tamron 70-300mm,image quality is great,its just not got the magnification for small bird pics.

Has anyone used teleconverters ? , eg x2 x1.4 etc with any success ?

( right click and 'view image' for full size,or right click and 'open link in new window'... )










>> Edited by dugless on Friday 18th November 19:05

[imperialism2024]

dugless said:

Has anyone used teleconverters ? , eg x2 x1.4 etc with any success ?

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=222578&f=109&h=0