A cheap and light wildlife kit

[eccles]

I wandered around my local patch yesterday with my Sony A700, Sony (rebadged Tamron) 55-200 zoom, Sony 500mm AF Reflex, Canon 500D achromatic close up lens and a Jessops 330 monopod.
I shot these two:

DSC04905.jpg (132.39 KiB) Viewed 468 times

DSC04916.jpg (177.24 KiB) Viewed 468 times

The mirror should not be confused with those things called Centon or Sirius. It is in a totally different league, being almost totally free from chromatic aberration. It autofocusses, and with a touch of USM during PP can pull in some very good detail.

The little zoom is small, light, and yes it feels cheap, but stop it down a bit and it'll give nice punchy photos with a useful short tele range. It comes with a hood that is of decent depth.

The Canon close up lens is superb. I frequently use my 58mm version with a beercan (70-210 F4) using a step-down ring, and combined with that lens it gives very sharp results. Backgrounds with that combo are smooth and subtle, and significantly better than from my Sigma 105 macro. It's still very good with the 55-200, easily resolving butterfly wing scales and filling the frame with a small tort. With the zoom backed off to about 150mm it's just right to include a bit of environment with a medium sized butterfly.

Shopping around, the reflex currently costs around £480 and the 55-200 Tamron equivalent a mere £60. The close up lens to fit the 52mm Tamron filter size can be had for about £40 or less.

There are undoubtedly sharper lenses out there but not by much, and this little kit will give the best a run for their money. Besides, the alternatives are a lot heavier, and a whole lot more expensive.

[Chris]

Hi Eccles... interesting stuff. I think what you actually demonstrate though is that the tools don't need to be the most expensive available... an excellent photographer will get results using what they have available. Far more important are knowing the limitations and advantages of your equipment, and fieldcraft.

Much as i enjoy reading your Sony / Canon exchanges with Gary, there's no taking away that you're both excellent photographers to the point where the equipment debate seems academic by my reasoning above.

[JKT]

The pictures look great at the glance and the areas in focus look as good as they come. The areas slightly out of focus are where the price shows. Maybe I'm just sitting too close to my monitor...

[eccles]

Thanks Chris. This is the point I'm trying to make. Not everyone has the budget for the best available gear, but there are ways and means to get good photos of wildlife for relatively modest amounts of cash. Perhaps the biggest difficulty in using a close up lens is that you have to be in range in order to get any photo at all, because when using it you cannot focus at infinity. Good field craft is essential.

@JKT, yes you're right of course. Out of focus areas (called bokeh) are what can let cheaper lenses down, but it's often pot luck whether more expensive lenses are any better. The top photo is fortunate in that there are no nasty highlights in the background as the OOF donuts evident with mirror lenses can be quite distracting. It is however a pretty good trade off for portability and reach.
The lower photo with the Sony rebadged Tamron I think has acceptable bokeh, and is no worse, maybe even a little better than my Sigma 105mm EX macro, although when pixel peeking you can easily tell the Sigma is sharper. Good bokeh is the main reason why I use my Minolta 70-210 "beercan" with the close up lens for most of my butterfly shots, only resorting to the Sigma when I want to get in very close. That said, the Tamron is a useful light carry-round lens to stick in the bag, and it's a bargain at £60.

Mike.