Some recent AK photo's (Fairbanks, Beaver: records, national, circuit)

[Rance]

Originally Posted by aurorawatcher

Well a 2x converter would give you a 432mm lens on your camera. And if when I do get up there you are always welcome to use my 800-1200mm lens. (1280-1920mm)

Dang. Whats one of those go for? 10 grand?

[Captain Crunch]

Rance & Warpt both need a Sigma 50-500 " Bigma "....

[aurorawatcher]

Originally Posted by Rance

Dang. Whats one of those go for? 10 grand?

It will work with my Nikon, Canon or Olympus cameras also. Only need a t-adapter. And it didn't cost me that much.

I also have a 400mm APO telephoto lens for my Nikon's which I got a adapter to work with my canon now.

[Barkingowl]

Originally Posted by Captain Crunch

Rance & Warpt both need a Sigma 50-500 " Bigma "....

I've got that lens.

[aurorawatcher]

I have a Sigma 400 mm APO

[Captain Crunch]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

I've got that lens.

So do I..... and recently added the Nikon 200-400VR

Ya get a lotta bang for the buck with the 50-500 Sigma..

[aurorawatcher]

I'll look into that one.

[aurorawatcher]

Here is a shot taken with that lens at 1280 mm.

[Floyd_Davidson]

A shot of the moon that I took last September, using a 30 year old modified Canon 800mm f/5.6 lens on a Nikon D2x.

For $10,000 those new 600mm or 800mm lenses with image stabilization and auto focus are indeed very very nice, but...

The question is what can or should one give up in terms of quality, or in terms of convenience, to get the price down to something at least semi reasonable! Personally, as can be seen in the photo of the moon, my choice was to look for high quality optics and a relatively long focal length. I gave up auto focus and stabilization, which, for one thing, means it is exceedingly difficult for me to get good pictures of birds in flight. My reasons for doing that include the fact that I photograph animals on the flat tundra, where it can be very difficult to get close to anything. Others will have different requirements and make different choices.

The first step down from the high priced lenses from the manufacturers, are perhaps their older models. Nikon and Canon both have been making optically great lenses for decades, and with either of them the newer cameras will still work with lenses back at least a ways. Canon only goes back as far as the EOS mount. Nikon cameras will take anything back to the original F mount. Typically though, these older lenses are manual focus, and still cost $2000 or more. Sometimes there are some odd ones that can cost less, such as a well used example. In the case of the 30 year old Canon 800mm that I have, it was converted from a Canon FD mount to a Nikon F mount, so the price was half what it would have been unmodified. (Buyer beware too, as it worked just fine on a Nikon D2x, but had to be modified again, to disable auto aperture, to work on a D3 body.)

There are also the variety of Quantray, Samsung, Phoenix, Opteka and others such as those that have been mentioned here. I would avoid the ones that are zoom lenses because they aren't as sharp, but for some the convenience of zooming is more important. The biggest problem with most of those lenses traditionally has been the slow apertures, but modern digital sensors are making that much less significant!

Another option, with a totally different set of detriments, are the many mirror lenses. They universally have horrible looking bokeh, with donut shaped out of focus circles. But they are light, small and inexpensive too. Generally, just like the zooms, they are not as sharp as could be. I see where Kenko is now selling 800mm f/8 mirror lenses for just over $200. They also have 500mm f/6.3 models. I have no idea how they perform, but at that price it is easy to accept imperfections. (The typical 500mm f/8 mirror lens, regardless of the $120 cost, is not something I've ever bothered to even try. They're just not worth it to me.)

In the more modest focal lengths, out to 400mm, the use of a 2x teleconverter on the best 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom one can buy strikes me as just about the only option. Canon and Nikon both have truly wonderful 70-200mm lenses, and at least with Nikon the older 80-200mm f/2.8 AF lens is less expensive and yet still a fabulous lens. Adding a 2x telconverter provides essentially two lenses and is way way cheaper than any equal quality 400mm lens. (The downside is that it is an f/5.6 lens, while extra money can get a 400mm f/4 lens.)

[Barkingowl]

Floyd... Great photo, but where have you been?