Get 50% Off Affinity Photo Today!

Wildlife lens.


gm4zhl 11 13 Scotland
13 Aug 2009 10:41AM
I normally take wildlife photos with my 170x500mm sigma, but i thought i needed something with more reach.. but the thought of spending more than 5000 on a lens kind'a made me feel sick.. so i opted to get the Opton 650-1300mm m/f i know its a cheepie. but for only 230 odd pounds, i thought i would give it a go.. any thoughts you have on this lens..

george..
User_Removed 11 718 9 England
13 Aug 2009 11:57AM
Hmmm, They are cheap, but worth the money?

I've no idea, but generally you get what you pay for.

To be honest i have seen these on ebay and always thought it must be crap, but as i have'nt handled one before i cant say for sure. Certainly wont break the bank, but will the compromise be worth it? Im guessing it will be made on the cheap, cheap optics, body etc.

Personally id save your money and approach wildlife photography differently instead of relying on extremely long lenses, but thats just my view.

These lenses could be the bees knees, but if so then there would have been rave reviews in the photographic press, and i have seen no reviews as yet.

Alison H
Fairclough 11 174
13 Aug 2009 4:20PM
From what I can gather trawling the web, this lens is sold by a fair few manufacturers. The fixed F-Stop (dependant on focal length) isn't terribly useful, and the optical performance isn't very good. However, with a camera with a decent high-iso capability it may be a good, cheap way of recording what you see. Don't expect fine-art photography, but it may be a viable alternative to digiscoping if you don't already own a scope. If your camera has a live-view mode with a zoom feature you can get the best available results, and record your sightings, but it's certainly better news to would be birders after a record than to photographers.

In effect, I wouldn't recommend it for photos, but it does give great reach for confirming sightings, and will probably print okay at 6x4.

I wouldn't want one for photography, but my inquisition would like to play with one. If you can afford it as a whim, as opposed to a tool, it could be quite intriguing...
NEWMANP 12 1.6k 574 United Kingdom
13 Aug 2009 4:35PM
Well i dont wish to rain on your parade but from what i can see you are probably going to get better results if you ram a jam jar down the end of a meter length of drain pipe and tape it to the camera.
just an opinion though. but seriously i dont think its going to come close to your Sigma
Phil Wink
Henchard 15 2.7k 1 United Kingdom
13 Aug 2009 4:47PM

Quote:I normally take wildlife photos with my 170x500mm sigma, but i thought i needed something with more reach..
george..



I hope they are standing very still because I believe that these are manual focus. You'll need it on a very steady tripod probably with a cable release and mirror lockup to have any chance of a sharp photo that's without out taking into account how good or bad the optics might be.
RogBrown 13 3.1k 10 England
13 Aug 2009 5:19PM
230? Don't touch it with a bargepole!!
vagabond 14 39 1 Wales
13 Aug 2009 7:44PM
You would probably get superior images from your sigma with a 2x TC fitted (similar price), still manual focus and probably still not very good but a wiser investment IMO. Canons 1200mm L cost 40K for a reason.
User_Removed 11 718 9 England
13 Aug 2009 9:29PM

Quote:Well i dont wish to rain on your parade but from what i can see you are probably going to get better results if you ram a jam jar down the end of a meter length of drain pipe and tape it to the camera.

Phil



Would a cardboard tube which large prints come in and an empty jar of coffee suffice? Obviously id give the jar a quick wipe 1st.
gm4zhl 11 13 Scotland
13 Aug 2009 10:47PM
Thank you all for your opinions.. I've tried it on my tripod with the remote cord, even with a light wind it was moving, its a bit long [26 inches] the reason i got it was,, in shetland there are not very many trees to use to hide from the birds and otters, so i just thought i would get it and see how it performed.. but to pay 6000 and up for a good lens, forget it.. so i will probably stick to my 170x500mm sigma, someone mentioned a 2x TC.. I don't think you can use them on the 170x500mm lens.. but thank you all for your opinions..

george. from sunny shetland..
Overread 12 4.1k 19 England
13 Aug 2009 11:01PM
If your thinking teleconverters a 1.4 would be your best bet, I even on a highend zoom like a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 a 2*TC gives a very noticable drop in image quality - on the 170-500mm I would think it would be far too great a drop for most people to suffer using.
A 1.4 gives a less noticable drop in image quality and would still give you a good increase in focal length.

As for hiding and tracking you could try some camo gear, a few empty weekends and a lowlevel hide (low tent or a proper hide) as an alternative. It gives you less mobilty but it does give you a fixed position where you can shoot without detection
gm4zhl 11 13 Scotland
14 Aug 2009 12:32AM
Hi. Override.
I don't have any problems with getting my otter shots, all i do is keep low down in the rocks on the banks overlooking the sea.. birds are more difficult due to the fact we have virtually no trees.. i stalked a merlin on the moors at the end of june, using the depressions in the heather, i got to about 50 feet from it and got my shots, i do use camo jackets and trousers.. To put a hide up on the moors, i don't think it would be a good idea, just to get a few golden plovers curlew etc. I still think that the TC will not fit with the sigma 170x500mm
regards - george..
gm4zhl 11 13 Scotland
14 Aug 2009 12:34AM
Sorry Overread, i called you something else by mistake.. i think its called auld age..
Overread 12 4.1k 19 England
14 Aug 2009 12:35AM
Have you considered lures and logging nesting sites as an alternative - to give you an idea of where birds might be likley to located themselves and (possibly with lures) give you a chance to get them into a position where you can get some cover - though I appreciate that many will be far more happy out in the open where they can see around them

edit - heh no worries about the name thingy Smile
gm4zhl 11 13 Scotland
14 Aug 2009 12:58AM
Well i've not thought about that, but the merlin is a schedule 1 bird so you have to stay well away from their breeding sites, although the merlin has five different sites on the moor near my house.. sorry for getting a bit off topic..
george..
cambirder 16 7.2k England
14 Aug 2009 2:56PM
I would thing a portable hide would be a better investment.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.