Macro vs normal

Hey i want a 200 - 300 mm lense for shooting birds, (nothing profesional, this is in my yard for starters), and had 2 questions.

The first question is telephoto or zoom?

The second question is if i chose a macro can it do double duty? I mean can I use it as a long macro and still shoot birds with it? I am thinking about getting one off ebay. I see many of you think highly of tamron, so I'd try for one of those if possible.

I'm assuming a 200 - 300 would be sufficient.

David

Oops, wasn't logged in, sorry that's me up there. Funny it normally it makes me log in first. My bad.

Although Macro lenses are specially computed for close up work and to have an especially flat field, they are very much at home as long telephotos. A 200mm Macro lens would be a superb thing.

Prime or zoom? Well, once I would have said prime without hesitation, but I am starting to become very impressed by the latest (especially digital) zooms.

If you don't need the fast aperture of a prime, I suspect a modern zoom will do very well indeed.

I guess I'd need a decent aperture on it because some of the birds will be in deep shadow. Would a 200 zoom be sufficient for normal yard distances?

Hey Can you tell me anything about Hanimex zooms?

Would a 70 - 300 mm Tamron AF telemacro be light enough to not need a tripod? I don't know much about zooms over 80. Though I had a 300 mm telephoto decades ago on my first camera. Would a manual lense be better? My 28 - 80 sigma has a very short focal ring. The pentax 50 1.7 on the other hand has plenty, so maybe that's not an AF thing.

Do the longer macro zooms have buttons like on my sigma 28 - 80 macro?
Sorry about playing 20 questions. Just when I finally decide what camera I want, I wander into another area I'm unfamiliar with.

Oh it's not a zoom. sorry.

I got the Tamron 75-300 AF zoom with macro for Pentax, off ebay, new. The, "bid to purchase", difference was less than 10$ so dunno why it was listed for twice as much on the Tamron site, but I snatched it up. Glad that's done, cause I need an Ebay break for my eyes.

Most Tamron's are excellent performers, so I'm sure you won't be disappointed. It will work fine on your SFXn in auto mode and using it in manual will give you an idea as to handling on a KX - should you manage to get one.
My understanding of macro lenses is that true macro lenses offer reproduction of life-size or greater (image on the negative), whereas most lenses and especially zooms that are designated 'macro' are really 'close focus' lenses. That is to say that they are designed to focus closer than a non-macro lens of the same focal length.

Even the highly regarded Tamron SP90 Macro only delivers a half-size image!

Yea i don't think it's any stronger than the 1.5 macro that's on my sigma 28 - 80. I could always get one of those add on rings for the sigma that X 2 the magnification. But as narrow the dof is in macro I'd tend toward a longer, dedicated macro. I see on the net there are 3 or 4 types of macro, rings bellows and reversing the lense? On the ones that have the macro button like on my sigma, what is that called? That's not considered a dedicated macro I think. I'm looking forward to the Tamron with birds and other wild life. I aught to be able to get some decent moon shots too I hope. The one i took with my 28 - 80 looked like a button.

Speaking of macro, I got my slides back 2 days ago of my shots in the field last week. It was the first roll where I did all in aperture pryority, (yea I know compared to yall I'm a wimp, hey all manual will be a while yet). Anyway 3 of the pics were great, (great to me). I printed them out full page. A fly agaric mushroom under an oak in my yard, a butter cup in the field, and a bannana pepper in my back yard. The 1.5 isn't allot macro wize, but it does pretty good on the size of these subjects. Only thing is it was still very early in the morning, and i'd of had more dof if i'd have waited for more light to play with.