LONG TELEPHOTO FOR LESS?

Hello all. Sorry for the quirky title. I could have listed this in the Lenses forum, but my application is for birding, so here goes.

Not able to afford 400 and 600mm primes, I am wondering what options exist for the cash strapped among us? Not wanting to waste people's time with a repetetive post, I searced the forums for inexpensive options for telephoto lenses. I read Mitch and Alex's postings about using Orion telescopes.

Right now I have the Canon 75-300 4-5.6 III and it is okay, but obviously notice huge image quality differences between it and my Sigma 105 macro. Rather than cry in my beer, I go out and shoot and do the best I can, but would sure love more reach and better quality in that reach. I shoot with a tripod most of the time and do the right things to make my images as good as possible with what I have.

What other options do you guys suggest? If this is redundant, my sincere apologies, but I think there are quite a few of us in this boat.

Many thanks from blizzarding NH.

George

I am far from an expert but am in much the boat as you. Right now I am using the 70-300IS USM lens for birding. I like the lens a lot but 300mm is a bit short for birds. I'd love to step up to the 400mm f/5.6 L (heck, I love to step up to the 500MM or 600mm but there is no way I could justify that expense) but at over $1,000 that will be a little bit down the road. Right now I am waiting on a 1.4x Teleconverter which will take the 300mm out to 420mm. That will hopefully help. Yes there are tradeoffs with using a TC but life is full of tradeoffs. A 1.4x TC will cost you somewhere between $100 and $200 for a Tamron, Sigma or Kenko that will work with Canon lens where the Canon TC won't. Go figure!

In the meantime, yes strive for the best images you can get with the gear you have.

Enjoy!

Hi George,

Not redundant question at all. Hope you find the answer from the forum.

My 1st birding lens is EF 100-300 USM. It's a great lens for starter. Like you, i soon found i needed more reach. With limited fun, i shopped around and realized there's no way i could afford a "L". So, i saught for other brand and fell in love with Bigma (Sigma 50-500). Not many lens can beat its versatility, sharpness, contrast, for the price. Some people complain about the sharpness beyond 400mm. I did some tests but didn't see any difference. At first i didn't get as many keepers. A local bird photographer, who's using Bigma as well, has corrected my technique, and recommended me a better tripod. Now, i fall even deeper in love with this lens.
99.9% of the photos i posted in Birds forum, as well as Nature & Animal forum, were taken with Bigma. Also, check out Mitcon's and Sindri Skulason's, another POTN bird shooters + Bigma users, work.

Hope this helps.

I also use the bigma with my 20d and digital rebel. I love it as well. I do a lot of surf pics and wildlife. Compared to the prices of the big primes canon offers this is an afforadable lens that will take you out there. The glass is very nice and I have no problems handholding it for a lot of my shots. I think I got mine for right around $980.00 with uv filter. Good luck in your search for that perfect lens.

Big glass isn't everything. Some of my best bird shots were taken with the Sigma 105. Until you can justify the expensive glass, concentrate on getting the birds to come to you. In fact, even if you get a 400L, concentrate on getting the birds to come to you.

Sure, it's great to be able to photograph eagles in trees or over the river, but there is major satisfaction in getting a Bluejay to trust you enough to come within 10 feet or having Chickadees, Nuthatches or Downy Woodpeckers eating out of your hand. I'm pretty sure the last picture of a Downy Woodpecker hasn't been taken yet.

Mitch,

Thanks for the points. That is precisely what I am doing now. What I find is that the chickadees, nuthatches, and turkeys (to some degree), don't mind my presence and will come within decent range of the 75-300. The blue jays, cardinals, downies, etc. seem just out of reach. You are quite right about the joy of the pursuit.

Rather than a $1000 lens (which I don't find affordable, unfortunately), I was looking more for ideas like adapting the telescope or things a little more affordable.

Thanks all for your input; I certainly would love one of the bigmas

George

geoawelch wrote in post #2707793
Mitch,

Thanks for the points. That is precisely what I am doing now. What I find is that the chickadees, nuthatches, and turkeys (to some degree), don't mind my presence and will come within decent range of the 75-300. The blue jays, cardinals, downies, etc. seem just out of reach. You are quite right about the joy of the pursuit.

Rather than a $1000 lens (which I don't find affordable, unfortunately), I was looking more for ideas like adapting the telescope or things a little more affordable.

Thanks all for your input; I certainly would love one of the bigmas

George

Take a look at my results from the 400mm 5.6L...it's a very fast focusing lens...It's the best for the least cost. Tc adaptations are another route...start saving and buy once.

Otherwise post this thread again in the lens forum...there are 5 x more viewers there, and most are real sharp regarding the lens you might be wanting to end up with...

geoawelch wrote in post #2707793
Thanks all for your input; I certainly would love one of the bigmas

Oh, I didn't mention in my previous post. I found my copy on eBay, for $720 shipped.

I think the OP made a right decision to post it in the Birds forum since that's what he'll be shooting most. Posting inquiry like this in the EF/EF-S Lens forum will attract tons of pixel peepers, chart shooters, instead of real photographers who use the lens to shoot real subject.

Well, that's simple enough. All you need is a T-ring adapter for the EOS and the telescope. You can buy the scope I use new, for under $500, with the hard case. The T-ring adapter is like $40.

Anything you are likely to find satisfying is likely to cost close to what a nice used Canon 400 f/5.6L can be had for (+/-$900).

Remember that every lens made is a compromise of some sort. Find the one that has the strengths that you require and the compromises you can live with.

Personally, most of the time I would rather do without than have something that only comes close to doing what I want. I have a hard compromising on image quality and will only sacrifice a very small amount of it to save money or gain flexibility (focal range of a zoom).

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Waht you are describing is called digiscoping--coupling a digital camera to a telescope or binoculars. I think you may find some of your answers here:

http://www.digiscoped.​com/

You might also try googling "digiscoping."

canonloader wrote in post #2708348
Well, that's simple enough. All you need is a T-ring adapter for the EOS and the telescope. You can buy the scope I use new, for under $500, with the hard case. The T-ring adapter is like $40.

I've done this with with a small 1200mm $160 Celestron C90 Mak scope. It works pretty good but it has a very, very narrow depth of focus.

Do you have photos with the Celestron?

George

The few bird shots I did were on film and need to be located and scanned. Plus they won't show the 1.6 sensor multiplier. I'll try and dig 'em up if you're still interested. I have plenty of digital moon shots but those might not be as useful to you.

JackProton wrote in post #2709036
I've done this with with a small 1200mm $160 Celestron C90 Mak scope. It works pretty good but it has a very, very narrow depth of focus.

What you have to watch for when buying any scope to use with a digital sensor camera is the lens coating on the telescope you buy. If you've ever seen pics taken with a Canon camera using a cheap circular polarizer or other cheap filter, you know what I mean. Unless the objective lens of the scope has a high quality APO, [apochromatic] coating on it, the images you get will look like trash.

As far as I know, there is no PP fix for those kinds of shots, even in RAW files. Might as well buy the right scope to start with.