Camera lens?

[Dave66]

Hi All

I was wondering if you could give me some advice about my camera. I have a Canon DSLR & a 70-300 lens. I'm looking for a bit extra on the lens side but I don't have anywhere near the money I would like to spend. My choices are a 2x teleconverter to fit to my current lens or a 500mm mirror lens. What would you get if you only had £100 to spend?

Cheers

Dave.

[Connor7]

I cant pretend I know alot about Canons but i always prefer to go for a teleconverter than a mirror lens. Is there no chance of saving up more money no matter how long it takes? Its always better spending a year saving money for a decent lens than buying a quick cheap option

Sorry If im no help at all...

[Beekeeper]

Hi Dave,
From my own point of view, i spent quite a lot on my camera at the time, a canon 20D, without lenses and purchased what i needed second hand on Ebay, every seller i have found describes what their selling very well and usually provide pictures to go with the description, you can get some really good deals if you keep a close watch on the site, apart from a good quality macro lens which i still need, i am quite happy with everything i have purchased so far.

Ian

[Dave66]

Thanks Conner

I am going to save up for a half decent one but I've been out with my camera a lot over the last 2 months and every time I get home I'm really disapointed because the birds are too far away, so I was thinking of getting a cheap option while I save up. It will probably take me year to save up for a decent lens.

Cheers

Dave

[eeyore]

If you do go for a cheap option dont buy a mirror lense - you will be dispointed , for one thing they are fixed apperture and for another they tend to produce donuts on your pics.

If you go for a 2xtc you will be unable to use autofocus but might still get acceptable pics using manual focus (though probably not on moving targets like flying birds)

be aware that even with 600mm a lot of birds will still be out of range.

Personally i'd spend the hundred notes on a hide and/or some decent camo clothing and a couple of books on field craft and photographing birds (Photographing wild birds by chris gomersal is excellent) - if the birds are too far away for your lense the obvious solution is to get closer to the birds or bring them closer to you !

[Harold Smith]

I also have Canon DSLR (400D) with a 70-300mm zoom with which I have some very good results. With this setup I'm afraid Eeyore is right. You either need to get nearer the birds or get them to come to you. £100 will not get you much for Canon equipment. Sigma do some very good compatible lenses/equipment which are a lot cheaper but still a lot more than £100.

Have you considered Digiscoping. I have a digiscoping connector that has a T2 mount that attaches the camera directly to the telescope replacing the eyepiece. It turns the telescope into the equivalent of a 1000mm lens from which I have had some pretty good results.



The Avocet was well over 300m away.

The cost of a digiscoping connector will vary according to the make of telescope but it will most likely be more than £100. However, it will be a lot cheaper than a new 500/600mm lens.

Harold.

[Dave66]

Thanks Lads

Food for thought, will definitely look into the cost of a hide, that may make all the difference.

Cheers
Dave.

[WhiskyBottle]

See if you can find a mirror lens to try.

Sure they produce donuts on out of focus highlights (so avoid bright backgrounds), sure they're fixed aperture (but 70-300 + x2 is f/11, you aint gonna stop that down), they're manual focus I believe (but so is the 70-300 + x2)

Get a good one (Sigma, Tamron, Canon) and the image quality will be far better than the teleconvertor on a consummer zoom.

Give one a test drive before you write it off.

Don't forget you'll need a half decent tripod to hold it still. The zoom will be less well balanced so the tripod will be more critical. Avoid the very cheep light weight tripods.

[nigel_b]

I've just switched from digiscoping to zoom lens. I bought a secondhand Minolta Beercan 70-210 which gives an effective 100-300 with the Sony's crop factor. Its clearly much less than the 30x through the scope but its much more satisfying to use.

The pictures are far superior and its teaching me more about fieldcraft and getting closer to the wildlife I want to photograph. Its easier to use and carry around than the scope.

Just for comparison, I live near Dorset heathland and these little beggars can be very elusive and hard to photograph. I'm not an expert on the Dartford Warbler by any means, but I understand the bird and its habitat.

This one was digiscoped


..and this one was through the Sony plus Beercan 70-210



The thing is, you wouldnt get either without some knowledge of the bird and its habitat. To me, that's far more crucial than what equipment you are using.

At the moment I am trying to get a reasonable photo of a kingfisher. Not by using tricks such as submerged tanks with minnows in, but by observing the bird and understanding its behaviour.

I know there are people who can go and photograph a kingfisher anytime. I cant, yet, but I'm getting there slowly. Yesterday we spent about an hour on the river bank and while I didnt see it as I was faffing with the camera, Sally kept spotting the kingfisher in the distance with the binoculars. We're learning.

To me that's where the satisfaction is derived, understanding the bird to get in close without disturbing it. I think its easier with a zoom.

[Dave66]

Thanks for that Nigel,
I think your right about studying the birds and their habitat. I think since joining WAB and seeing all the excellent photo's on here I got a bit carried away. All good advice though and I think I will have to be more patient when trying to get that "perfect" photograph.

Thanks
Dave.