Yes, this is a worry that I have. If I were to buy a Sigma 150-500, I doubt that I'd use it often enough to justify having bought it - impressive though David's shots are.

Andrew

I know that the DA 55-300 is highly regarded, but don't know how it compares, at the long end, with the FA 100-300 that I have. If the reviews on the american PentaxForum are to be believed, there might not be much advantage to be gained by swapping to the 55-300, though I am rather tempted by the more usable short end.

I've just had a look at a few of yours taken with the 55-300 at 300mm and they look sharper than I can get with the FA lens I have, though its hard to tell with such small images.

Andrew

As a rule, if a bird ends up in any photograph I take, it is there by accident rather than by design. I have been wondering, though, whether I should change that and try to take some deliberately. I joined a camera club a few months back and have seen pretty ordinary looking (to me) photos of birds getting high marks from judges in inter-club competitions - the most recent being at Rochdale on Tuesday this week.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting for one moment that taking photos of birds is easy, I am certain it is technically very challenging. Having said, a photo of some bird sitting in a tree doing nothing in particular doesn't seem, to me, to have the same level of artistic merit as many photos I see that are judged to be of lesser worth in competitions. The same also seems to be true, to a degree, of photos of pet dogs and monkeys at zoos. I do find this a little confusing.

Anyway, I think maybe it is time I had a go at generating a few photos of birds deliberately, rather than discovering one or two in a photo and then having to clone them out!

My first job, I guess, is to decide which lenses I have that are remotely suitable. I have a Pentax FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 that I use from time to time - but it's rather soft at the long end. I also have a XR Rikenon 300mm f/4.5 APO which is sharp but generates quite a bit of blue/purple fringing at apertures under about f/16 at high contrast edges (such as birds against the sky). OK, scratch two lenses!

I have a very old (circa 1963) T-mount Tamron 400mm f/7.5 that I haven't used much since I bought it a couple of years back but which I remember being quite sharp. This afternoon, I dug it out and took a few test shots. I also tried it out with an old Tamron 2X teleconverter that I have lying around and was quite surprised by the results.

This is a shot taken at f/11 1/100sec, ISO 3200 with the Tamron 400 and teleconverter (so 800 overall) of a neighbours door that is maybe 70 or 80 yards away, on an overcast, misty, drizzly afternoon through a double glazed window.




It has been processed a little to reduce noise - but there was surprisingly little CA and almost no fringing. It doesn't look so bad to me. When mounted on a tripod, along with a DIY long lens support that I cobbled together last summer, the outfit will look more than a bit Heath Robinson, but maybe it'll do the job - well enough perhaps to give me a flavour of what this birding business is all about.

So, what gear should I really be using to give me a realistic chance of capturing one or two decent photos of our feathered friends?

Andrew

One thing you need to look at (in the help section) is how to change the defaults for sharpening and added contrast. By default, both are a bit over the top.

Andrew

I've been having a (brief) look at using focus stacking for landscapes. The obvious problem is movement in the subject between frames - clouds, water, ducks.

I tried it out on Thurs evening at Dovestones Reservoir - stacked three frames, one focussed on infinity and the others at 2m and 1m, using a K30 and Sigma 24mm f/2.8 Superwide II at f/11 (possibly better at f/8 or f/5.6).

I took the shots as RAW and converted them using ACR6.2 in Elements 8. I then used CombineZP (freebie) to stack the images. The results were "OK" but I'm not convinced they were better - actually the infinity focussed shot was obviously better (sharper) than the stacked version. CombineZP, by default, (over)sharpens as part of the stacking process - maybe that's an issue.

No. You need either Photoshop CS6 (or earlier?) or CombineZP.


No long enough to worry about (less than a minute to stack 3 x 16Mp images).

I definitely need to try again before forming a definite view on focus stacking for landscapes. At the moment, the jury is still out.
Cheers
Andrew

Very true but, I wouldn't be tempted to spend £600 on a piece of software, no matter what it was - nor would I want to rent software on an ongoing basis. I find it quite surprising that so many (amateur) photographers do that when you can get 90% or more of the useful functionality for less than 10% of the cost by buying Photoshop Elements.

Personally, if I decided it was time for a nice Christmas present, I would be more tempted to throw £600 at a new lens.

Andrew

I think there must be a lot of sample variation in 18-55mm kit lenses. The MK II kit lens I have is very good. It is hard to tell the difference between it and the (well regarded) Sigma 24mm f/2.8 Super Wide II at f/5.6!! At f/8 onwards, the kit lens is as good or better everywhere. The Sigma is a keeper - if you nail focus, it's still pretty sharp wide open.

I also have an F 35-70mm and agree that it is a very good lens. I suspect that it might be better than the kit lens at common focal lengths - though I would have to work too hard and do lots of pixel peeping to be sure. I am happy to have either on my K30.

Andrew

I think that this is a reference to the aperture required at the lowest brightness figure quoted as being the autofocus operating range. For example, I have a K30 and in the specification (page 10 of the Appendix in the operating manual), it says that the autofocus operating range is EV -1 to 18 (ISO 100). As EV -1 corresponds to moonlight, I interpret this as meaning that I should expect autofocus on the K30 to work in moonlight, providing that I have a lens fitted that has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or wider (assuming that f/2.8 is the relevant figure for the K30 also).

I also have a K200D and the specification says that the autofocus operating range is EV -1 to 18 at ISO 100, using a f/1.4 lens. The K30 autofocus system is, therefore, two full stops more sensitive than that of the K200D (again, assuming that f/2.8 is the relevant aperture). I guess folks can look up the corresponding figures in their K5 and K5II manuals.

I can only guess at what the reference to Canikon cameras focussing at f/8 means. Presumably a bit of Googling would reveal the autofocus operating range for non-Pentax cameras (or download the operating manual for a Canikon camera and look it up)

Andrew

I fitted a focusscreens.com split screen to a K200D a few years back. It worked very well. The only real downside is that you lose single point metering. It becomes erratic and inaccurate - often a couple of stops out.

Andrew

Would you use a UV filter (and a rain jacket) to protect the lens from adverse weather or spray from waterfalls? I bought both some time back, but they rarely see the light of day. What do others do to protect non-WR lenses against the weather?

Andrew