What size lens do I need to take a close-up of a hawk 150 feet away? What size/type lens you recommend?
35543
How much are you willing to spend? I'd suggest the $1300 Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM as a very good general purpose wildlife lens. For birds in flight or smaller birds, this might not be quite enough. Otherwise, depending on the image quality you want (check FM Reviews at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ ), how much you're willing to spend and how much you're willing to crop, you might also look into the following lenses: Sigma 70-300mm APO $200 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS $240 Canon 70-300mm IS for about $500 Canon 70-200 for about $500 or $1000 with IS Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS HSM $750 Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD $800 Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM $900 Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO RF $900 Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM $1000 Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM $1300 I'd also suggest reading some of the birding forums before making your decision.
1877830
Matt, I don't shoot. However I just sighted in a redtail hawk at over 200 yards & watched it grab & peel a digger squirrel for a snack. I paid under $200 for this scope & it is an excellent one for the price. Mary
465320
I would recommend the 17-40mm unless you are really into wide angle nature shots.
1197063
You question is not very clear. What is your expectation? do you want to capture moving distance object? or nearby shots? This lens is for near shots with quality you may have to look for telescope lens for long distance shots. Hope it helps.
1037105
Telephoto lens is a good question. I dont have a big lens in my arsenal. But love using with what I use and wished I had it a lot sooner. I don't even notice it there with every movement I do while hiking. Way better than a sling that keeps the camera banging your hip.
410988
I had the same dilemma, and ended up with the Tamron. The only real negative is the occasional poor focus. The 270mm reach was great for my trip to Jamaica, capturing people jumping off of oceanside cliffs. In reality a 200mm reach would do great as well, and since im not blowing them up huge, a 135 might have fit the bill as well. the 6.3 is a little slow on the long end. If I had to pick between the 3 you mentioned, id pick the tamron again. if you arent blowing them up huge the pictures end up bring tack sharp. If I had a bigger budget, id probably go for the 24-105 f/4 L. I do not like the fact that a 72mm polarizing filter of good quality runs $150ish. I had the same dilemma, and ended up with the Tamron. The only real negative is the occasional poor focus. The 270mm reach was great for my trip to Jamaica, capturing people jumping off of oceanside cliffs. In reality a 200mm reach would do great as well, and since im not blowing them up huge, a 135 might have fit the bill as well. the 6.3 is a little slow on the long end. If I had to pick between the 3 you mentioned, id pick the tamron again. if you arent blowing them up huge the pictures end up bring tack sharp. If I had a bigger budget, id probably go for the 24-105 f/4 L. I do not like... » Read More I had the same dilemma, and ended up with the Tamron. The only real negative is the occasional poor focus. The 270mm reach was great for my trip to Jamaica, capturing people jumping off of oceanside cliffs. In reality a 200mm reach would do great as well, and since im not blowing them up huge, a 135 might have fit the bill as well. the 6.3 is a little slow on the long end. If I had to pick between the 3 you mentioned, id pick the tamron again. if you arent blowing them up huge the pictures end up bring tack sharp. If I had a bigger budget, id probably go for the 24-105 f/4 L. I do not like the fact that a 72mm polarizing filter of good quality runs $150ish. « Show Less
381970
It is approximately 10 feet. If you want a close up range monocular, you will need to look for another one that is available on Amazon. If a binocular is not a problem, I highly recommend the Pentax Papilio. It has fantastic close up focus. It is like having a stereomicroscope in your hands.
1413313
I bought this scope for basic birdwatching, and hunting use. Landscape features a few miles away? I wouldn't expect much from it. I would go for something higher power than 16x for that. An inexpensive spotting scope? I'd look into this: Enjoydeal Multifunctional High Power MONO Multi-Coated 15-50X21 Single-tube Telescope MonocularTelescope Black
597334
thanks tom. took your advise bought the 15-85. all i can say the image the quality is superb for a non l lense. thank you for recommending this lens.
381968
2nd answer. If you mean the closest distance you're able to focus at? I can only guess at about 15 to 20 feet. If you mean the closest distance you can calculate by using the mildot system I would again guess as close as you can get a clear focused picture. Mine gives me a very clear picture fifty yards and out but I could not honestly tell you the minimum useful distance.KT
22466
I have found it best at 15 to approx. 40 ft. Up close it seems to blur. But, I am more than pleased with the Moultree D-444.
381969
2nd answer. If you mean the closest distance you're able to focus at? I can only guess at about 15 to 20 feet. If you mean the closest distance you can calculate by using the mildot system I would again guess as close as you can get a clear focused picture. Mine gives me a very clear picture fifty yards and out but I could not honestly tell you the minimum useful distance. KT
797772
According to the Panasonic lens chart for the 14-45 lens, the minimum focus distance is 1 foot or 12 inches. I haven't tested the G1 in the more traditional macro/close-up type approach. I didn't get the impression that the camera likes getting closer than 12". From @2-3', I was able to engage the Extended Zoom (2x) + 4x digital + a Tcon 1.7 teleconverter (1200mm) and got surprisingly good results. I'm not suggesting you do it, but it worked.
862229
No automatic focus though it does have a reasonable amount of depth of field, I would say generally 10 to 20 feet depending on the zoom.How close you can see things, depending on the zoom, is quite close. A sparrow at 100 yards and full 55x zoom will appear quite close and fill the eye piece. However, having used this on walks, a pair of binoculars for that kind of viewing would be much better as the trick then becomes holding such a small (effectively telescope) still enough to enjoy the view.
1150477
Is there a zoom lens in approximately the 17-80mm range that has good result shooting hoops? I have tried several, the last being Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8, and the results were not that impressive. Had good results using Canon's 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8, but would like to find a wider angle zoom that can deliver.
24767
The 50-500 is a great lens...... but it is heavy!! I can't hand hold it to shoot birds. I now use the canon 100-400 for birding which is awesome. If you are gonna use a tripod, the sigma is great choice.
681557
My recommendation is Tokina 11-16mm (sharpest UWA lens)+ 18-55mm + 70-200mm f/4 IS for most of traveling and hiking in the mountain, kit lens is actually very good and light. If you are in vacation you also need fast prime for indoor activity like 50mm f/1.8 and dedicated flash like 430EX or bigger. If you only need to bring 1 lens, get 18-200mm IS, very useful and acceptable sharpness in whole range compared to any third party superzoom lenses.