[couplos]

as a birder, i encounter probably the same problem as all,

my reach is too short many times,

as taking photographies is the main  purpouse

 

i currently have a canon 7d mark1,

and as longest lens a canon 400mm f5.6,

with kenko converters 1.4 and 2.0,

i alm quite happy with the 1.4, af still possible in very bright light, iq ok-ish,

less about the 2.0 one, no af of course, but iq is low end,

combining the two...no comment so

 

obviously i should upgrade to a ef 600 f4.0 or 400mm f2.8

but i fear  my wife would not say ... ¥€$...

 

so digiscoping ?

as my 400mm has a aperture of 77mm,

any smaller scope makes not really sence, or am i wrong,

 

3 options seem to be possible at this time, (accessories included)

 

1 a reasonable priced ed scope (which would cost me around 1500€ or even less)

2 a mirror one alike the celestron c5 (cost about a 1000€)

3 a canon 600mm fd f4.5 (cost about a 1200€)

 

i know this is not really a birder forum,

but i did not find really usefull information else,

 

any thoughts ,

 

...or should i change my wife....

;-)

 

 

kr,

couplos

 

[davidmanze]

Hi Couplos,

 

      Are you planning on shooting birds in flight?

[popo]

Diffraction limiting will be caused by too small optics for the focal length, resulting in soft images. If you want to stick around f/5.6, then by implication the longer you go, the bigger the aperture gets, and the heavier the optics.

 

I've attempted to use astronomical scopes at prime focus for terrestrial use, and for any degree of focal length you probably will need a tripod to help stabilise and aim, and hope your subject stays still long enough to manual focus. So it does depend if you will be walking around with it, or would you be fixed in a hide where you can rest the equipment?

 

I quickly decided 1325mm on an APS-C sensor wasn't fun to hand hold. With my more normal kit, I have hand held a Sigma 120-300/2.8 with 2x for 600mm f/5.6, but that combination was very heavy for the image quality, I found I actually preferred using the 100-400 mk1 instead.

 

I've not used one myself, but I think one of the Sigma 150-600mm lenses would be a consideration if I wanted a longer zoom these days. The C version is very affordable, and the S is still not going to break the bank, although there may be a bit of risk to your back... Tamron also do similar but I personally wont consider them as their zoom ring is backwards compared to Canon.

[Klaus]

Sigma 150-600m Sports

The new Tamron 150-600mm G2 seems nice.


Or ... on a different system - the Leica 100-400mm ...

[JJ_SO]

Sigma 150-600m Sports
The new Tamron 150-600mm G2 seems nice.

Or ... on a different system - the Leica 100-400mm ...

 
The new Tamron 150-600mm G2 seems  is nice. 
 
Maybe at the long end the Sigma performs a little bit better*, but having tried both, the Tamron G2 is the better alround value and less heavier weight.
 
*if you're using a solid tripod with Gimbal. Handheld you will have a hard time to get the optical advantage.

[davidmanze]

   Actually the Canon 400mm + the 1.4X converter gives 560mm at F8, the 400mm F5.6 is a renowned lens for it's sharpness, X 1.6 crop = 896 mm, already quite some reach. 

  To beat that you would have to use the same tele-converter on the Tamron G2 or the Sigma sport, I'm not convinced there would be any real benefit over cropping, if any. hence the OP's call for telescope lens recommendations.

 

 The absence of any AF and automations  in my view limits these lenses to standing birds only, it wouldn't be my route!

 

  Having been shooting the first generation Tammy , the sport and now own the G2, I would have no hesitation in recommending the Tammy G2, it matches the Sport for sharpness IMHO @ 600mm and is very hand-holdable with excellent balance.

 

  

 

   It's times like this that one considers how to approach the birds more closely!

 

  Most of the recent shots are taken with the G2:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/

[davidmanze]

  If anyone has the courage/time to wade through this Camera Labs review, "or for those who have a life"

 

Briefly their conclusion; the G2 is slightly sharper in the center but the Sport is better at the edges @ 600mm!

 

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron...ness.shtml

 

An excellent comparison review.

[Klaus]

I can even tell from these shots that their Sigma 150-600mm Sports is decentered.

See the arrow in the image - that shadow there is not normal - not in the center.

[davidmanze]

 If you think that copy of the Sport is de-centered Klaus (which I'm sure you're right) look at the image from the copy of the Sport I bought S/H, you can see why I wanted to return it ASAP.

 

 

Never seen the like, the trees were at 500-700meters, luckily the guy was sympathetic and refunded me the next day! (weather was poor that day) 

[couplos]

BIF with a canon fd 600mm 4.5 ?

i guess i should do some exercice to get some more muscles,

for this purpose my 400mm f5.6 and my 70-300mm zoom should do the job,

 

about the 150-600mm ziooms,

with a 1.4 converter on my 400mm i am near,

is it really worth upgrading ? (getting only 2/3 stops better)

 

still a question remains,

is a mid-priced spotting scope an option (refractor or mirror),

is a canon fd 600mm f4.5 still good enough,

i know they are heavier  and only MF,

and i will probably have to change my tripod,

 

kr,

couplos