500mm lens, need some guidance

[cchoate]

I've been looking for a long range lens for a while but can't justify thousands of dollars on a lens the size of a bazooka. What I have been looking at are the Catadioptric type lens around the 500mm size. After reading reviews on Amazon and other places online it seems the ones available today are sub par which most lenses under $250 would probably be. What has got my attention is the Minolta maxxum AF reflex lens that is no longer being produced but is available used online various places.

Here are my two primary uses for such a lens:

1 - Outdoor wildlife. I have a one acre pond about 400' from my house with an unobstructed view out my back door. I get deer, turkeys, herons, fox etc but I'm especially interested in the wild ducks that land and nest here in the spring. My 300mm lens just doesn't get close enough for what I'd like to capture.

2 - I love the night sky and have a big telescope for viewing. Of course I can use it to shoot the stars but sometimes I don't want to set it the whole thing up. Taking my camera / tripod outside is much easier for a quick twenty minute session (especially when it's 5 degrees out).

I know my pictures won't be hanging in some gallery but I would like something acceptable for the amaetuer. Is it worth the $550+ on this lens or is there some alternative in that price range I'm overlooking.

Here is the lens I'm interested in:

Amazon.com: Minolta 500mm F/8 Af Reflex: Camera & Photo

 

[dxqcanada]

I think of all the catadioptric lenses for A-Mount that was has been the highest rated one.
Dyxum does think this lens is OK, you've probably read this already: Minolta AF Reflex 500mm F8 A-mount lens detail page

KEH has three of them: Minolta Maxxum Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com

 

[480sparky]

Cat lenses have a few drawbacks to consider.

1. Fixed aperture. It's f/8. Only f/8. No other options.
2. Low contrast and color. This can be overcome in post if you shoot digital, however.
3. Bokeh. Some like the doughnut-shaped bokeh, but most hate it.
4. No VR. Good steadying technique is the only solution.

 

[Derrel]

Ducks ar 400' are over a football field's length away, so NO, your 300mm lens will not get you any closer than...400 feet away.The solution is to get you and your camera a LOT closer. There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

 

[tirediron]

...There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

 

[480sparky]

...There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

You mean my 2,000mm will do the trick then?

 

[dxqcanada]

I would like something acceptable for the amaetuer. Is it worth the $550+ on this lens or is there some alternative in that price range I'm overlooking.

You might be able to find a Tamron 200-500mm for about $600.00

 

[tirediron]

...There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

You mean my 2,000mm will do the trick then?

Okay... two. :greenpbl:

 

[astroNikon]

Ive many times have had my scope off of the tracking arms, makes a nice 2,000 mm lens
on a very sturdy tripod. Much quicker than setting up the entire thing just like your issue.

I also have a nikon 500mm reflex lens. Im pretty good at hand holding now but a tripod is best.
at some point im hoping to get a 150-600 lens that is coming out due to the AF issues with using the reflex and moving targets. Its doable just a PITA.


The 500 also makes a nice portrait lens for nose hairs.

 

[cchoate]

I think I'm going to order one. I realize shooting ducks on a pond (pun intended) won't be exactly perfect but better than what I'm trying now. Getting closer is the solution but like most things in the wild, once the animal sees you it won't be long before it's out of your view - especially ducks.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

Ducks ar 400' are over a football field's length away, so NO, your 300mm lens will not get you any closer than...400 feet away.The solution is to get you and your camera a LOT closer. There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

This is what I was thinking. Maybe not ANY lens, but a 500MM I don't see working at over 400'. I know my 300mm is best at probably 40'-50' max, anything beyond that I tend to not be happy with (for birds at least).
Half the fun is the stalk! Or just go out there and sit still for a few hours.

 

[Derrel]

Just buy or build a fricking blind. I used to hunt ducks almost every weekend during duck season back in the 1980's.

 

[table1349]

Ducks ar 400' are over a football field's length away, so NO, your 300mm lens will not get you any closer than...400 feet away.The solution is to get you and your camera a LOT closer. There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

...There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

Kids stuff..... This will get you close enough.

Please restore the image...That is my photocopy of an old Canon product manual that I own.

 

[tirediron]

Ducks ar 400' are over a football field's length away, so NO, your 300mm lens will not get you any closer than...400 feet away.The solution is to get you and your camera a LOT closer. There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

...There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

Kids stuff..... This will get you close enough.
http://imageshack.com/a/img527/5540/240475717b811e6462aooe2.jpg

Meh... just another mirror lens!

 

[Derrel]

Ducks ar 400' are over a football field's length away, so NO, your 300mm lens will not get you any closer than...400 feet away.The solution is to get you and your camera a LOT closer. There isn't a lens in the world that will get you close enough.

Well.... maybe one lens!

Meh... just another mirror lens!

Didja' see the minimum object distance on that thing is 120 meters??? OMG!!! Well...so much for macro-range shooting,eh?