Anyone any experience of shooting wildlife thro' a Digiscope

[WyzMan]

I have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX lens and X2 TC - mainly for shooting football and cricket. Yes I know that I may be better with something a wee bit longer but it is always a compromise between quality, what I really want and cost.

Speaking to a friend of mine yesterday - he started talking of using a Digiscope for photographing wildlife. Any recommendations? No good for football but I got around to thinking that this could be the answer for the more or less static camera position used when taking cricket photographs.

I also fancy taking myself off to a wildlife park / bird sancturary.

Alan

[CyberDyneSystems]

No digiscope will even begin to approach the quality you have with the 70-200mm.. with or without a TC.

The elements in the lenses are far more precise and expensive than those found in a spotting scope.

Keep using the 70-200mm with and without the 2X (400mm is nothing to shake a stick at!) The "Bread and butter" wildlife lens for all beginneres is the 400mm f/5.6 at about $1,000.00 If you are so inclined. You really don't need much more than that. Sure,. 500 and 600 are longer ,. but the cost difference is astronomical. Plus with a 2X the 400mm becomes a manual focus 800mm f/11

A spotting scope will offer a manual focus f/11 or so at between 600-1000mm depending. And the image quality suffers. (no aperture adjustment either)

[Phil Hall]

I have a Leica spotting scope which I use with a Nikon 990. It is great for birds but you need a tripod and still have to be fairly close. The 100-400 l IS with a 1.4x extender, it does not give as much magnification as the scope but is much better quality. A good scope is going to set you back $1500 plus and adapter, plus a tripod, so you may as well consider a good telephoto lense.

[riverdance]

Hi Wyzman
I'm no expert but visit this site: http://www.birdforum.net/ where there are many forums on digital photography and experts on digiscoping.
Good luck