Ferruginous Hawk

[Aloicious]

I believe this is a Ferruginous Hawk...there was about 1 on every telephone pole where I was driving but they wouldn't let me get very close, this is about as close as I could get with the 70-200 @ 200 w/1.7x teleconverter on it, taken handheld while I was walking slowly towards it, and still had to crop quite a bit, this image was actually RIGHT before he flew away...it came out 'okay' but I would have liked it to come out better (I really wish I would have had my monopod or something).

I enjoy taking images of birds but would like to get something longer so that I can not scare them away while I'm trying to take the images, but bird imaging is only a hobby, so I can't justify spending too much, under $1k for sure, I'd love one of the nikkor super tele primes, or the 200-400VS but they're just WAY out of the price range for a hobby lens...I'm thinking of either a Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 or the tamron 200-500...I know there is another member getting some great Osprey shots with the Tamron 200-500, all those options are pretty slow lenses, but I don't think anything faster is really in the price range I'm looking at....anyone else have any lens suggestions, or experience with either of the sigmas or tamron?

 

[Blitz55]

Really nice shot.

I'm with you, id like to get a decent zoom but I don't have the kind of money to get one thats ultra fancy. But something to take a nice photo with and not have to be standing right next to the bird would be nice.

 

[Aloicious]

Really nice shot.

I'm with you, id like to get a decent zoom but I don't have the kind of money to get one thats ultra fancy. But something to take a nice photo with and not have to be standing right next to the bird would be nice.

yeah, I'm temped to take my small 400mm telescope out and give it a shot, but realistically, the IQ would be quite a bit lower, and MUCH more difficult to use than something like the sigmas or tamron...if you end up getting something, let me know how you like it, I probably won't be able to afford anything for a couple months at least...

 

[cgipson1]

Talk to SCraig.. he uses a Sigma.

 

[unpopular]

I would have never imagined the offspring of Fergie and Mr. T to be so ... avian.

 

[Aloicious]

Talk to SCraig.. he uses a Sigma.

Thanks Charlie, I'll have to do that.

I would have never imagined the offspring of Fergie and Mr. T to be so ... avian.

I pity the foo' who ain't a arid region dwelling bird of prey!

 

[unpopular]

I'm gonna get you drunk, get you drunk on my falconimorphae humps.

 

[Aloicious]

 

[SCraig]

Talk to SCraig.. he uses a Sigma.

Thanks Charlie, I'll have to do that.

What do you want to know?

I have the 150-500 and there are only three things I dislike about it. It's heavy at around 4 pounds. That doesn't sound like a lot but hang a camera on the end and haul it around all day. Second, it's not that fast. At f/5 wide open it takes a lot of light to make it happy. Third, and related to #2, if there isn't plenty of light the shots are rather soft contrast. I've not had good luck shooting with it on cloudy days most of the time. Of course just to keep me wondering I have gotten some good shots with it in rather gloomy weather. In general though it works best with lots of light.

 

[Aloicious]

Thanks Scott...the slow speed is definitely something that concerns me, but with a limited budget, I may have to just live with it. I'd mainly be using it on the long end ~300-500mm, how do you find the IQ is when zoomed in a good amount in your experience? any CA problems or anything else that you've noticed with it?

 

[Aloicious]

also, is yours the OS or non-OS version?

 

[SCraig]

Thanks Scott...the slow speed is definitely something that concerns me, but with a limited budget, I may have to just live with it. I'd mainly be using it on the long end ~300-500mm, how do you find the IQ is when zoomed in a good amount in your experience? any CA problems or anything else that you've noticed with it?

This was shot at 500mm:

It wasn't a long distance, probably 50' or so, and it's not cropped much as I recall. I have others, of course, but this one came immediately to mind. I couldn't do anything about that bright background either. It's my neighbor's house, and if I had move at all that squirrel was prepared to run.

This one was a little further away. I'd guess about 100' or so, maybe a little less.

The first one was shot with a tripod, however the ball head wasn't locked because I was chasing him through the trees. The second was shot with a monopod.

Mine is the OS version, and it works quite well.

 

[Aloicious]

Thanks for posting those. they look pretty good to me, especially that first one, even with the shady lighting, I'm expecting to need a monopod at least with those kinds of focal lengths (regardless of OS or not). I've heard the 50-500 has slightly higher IQ than the 150-500, though I don't know how substantiated that is...

 

[seakritter]

I shoot routinely with a 75/300 and get pretty good results depends really how close you can get, I get good detail at about 75 to 100 ft really depends on a number of other things as well.