mavrick8019

Thank you, There is a camera shop down the street that I have been to and the people there are very good. I didn't think this hobby would so expensive. Again thank you

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

agillot

here we go . the bower 500mm long lens was my first bird lens [ sold under 5 or 6 other brands ] took hundreds of pics .this is a T mount lens , so 100 % manual .the only draw back it focus down to only 32 feet .forget about using the doubler , it destroy what little sharpness you have .on a tripod , with the right light , close enough to the subject [ so you dont have to crop much ] the result at time will surprise you .the 2 main issues , are 32 ft close up minimum , and the other on a snow white bird in bright sun light you have purple color on the edge of bird .now , there is a newer design lens , oshiro 500mm long lens that focus down to 10 ft [ great for butterflies ] , also claim improved lenses to help that color fringing problem .[ $ 110 ] i then i moved on to a vivitar 600 / 1200 zoom , same issues there , but it will focus down to 10 ft [ used made in japan ], then now a 1980 or so nikon nikkor 800 mm used in like new condition from a estate , with coffin size aluminum box . a beast , heavy , long , can only be used with a tripod .great pictures , no more issues , only focus down to 33 ft , but for wild birds it is not a issue .but i did enjoy the very light cheap [ well built ] other 2 lenses . so , if i needed to get a cheap long lens , the oshiro would be it . it is also at walmart ?

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Probably a piece of junk good for a paper weight

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

mavrick8019 - a few thoughts. First, get familiar with the equipment you do have. Maybe not the long-range wildlife, yet, that you desire. But, if photography is an interest in starting, get started.

Second, see if your local shop can help you find a good & reliable source for used equipment. These ideas might be beyond your budget, but any will be a valid first step toward wildlife:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C
Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 APO DG HSM OS
Sigma 50-500mm F/4.5-6.3 APO DG HSM OS
Canon 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM EF
Canon 300mm F/4 L USM
Canon 400mm F/5.6 L USM
Canon 300mm F/4 L IS USM

This selection falls between $500 and $1000, all based on used prices. This may be way beyond your budget, but as said earlier: you'll only be wasting smaller amounts of money looking for cheaper options. Options that technically won't even work with your camera or will generate such inferior results the money spent was a wasted amount.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Some of those manual T mount lenses can take fairly good images, provided they are used within their limits. I'll bet it is a two ring pre-set lens. Meaning you have to use one aperture ring to open the aperture for focus & confirmation & then use the 2nd ring to set the taking aperture. Very old design. Not really for fast action or rapidly changing light situations. All manual as there are no electrical connections to relay lens info to the camera. That said, they are the cheapest way to get to telephoto lengths. A decent Tele is likely going to be out of your budget. I still have an old Sharpshooter 400mm F6.3 Spiratone pre-set lens. Doesn't get used anymore as I have since acquired better optics. Yes, photography, like any other hobby, can get expensive.

mavrick8019

Thank you all for your help and recommendations

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I echo all that chgcanon said. Really cheap optics are useless and a waste of money. Ever try to actually use a sub $100 Tasco telescope?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

One of the least expensive, reasonable quality telephoto solutions is a manual focus "mirror" lens... but there both good and bad examples of those, too.

Over the years, I've used a number of different mirror lenses. The one I liked the best of all is the Tamron SP 500mm f/8. All the following were shot with that lens:







Notice the round "donut"-shaped out-of-focus highlights in the background of the 1st and especially the 2nd image... That's typical of mirror lenses, due to their design. IMO, the Tamron 500mm handles this better than most, that the donuts are minimized and not too distracting.

The 3rd shot gives you some idea of how close focusing the Tamron lens is, too.... to around five feet! That's pretty amazing for a relatively inexpensive lens. (The nearly $10,000 Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II's closest focusing distance is about 12 feet.)

The Tamron SP 500mm Model #55B "mirror" lens dates from 1979 and can typically be found used for between $100 and $200 (on everybody's favorite auction website). However, be careful. Originally that lens was fitted with a tripod mounting ring and came with lens hood and several small filters... One of which is a one-stop neutral density. I feel it's important to get a lens that still has the tripod mounting ring... Where it hasn't been removed and lost (or the later version that deleted the tripod ring). IMO, that mounting ring is needed to effectively use the lens on tripods and monopods, which will be necessary sometimes with a powerful telephoto like this... ESPECIALLY when using it on a modern, crop-sensor DSLR. If it's been lost, the tripod ring is virtually impossible to replace. The lens hood is also difficult (I think I bought the last replacement, matching hood still available new about 10 or 15 years ago... and it cost $40 back then, for the lens hood alone!). So, I'd recommend holding out for one that has both the tripod ring and lens hood, even if it costs a little more.

In 1983 Tamron updated the lens (from model #55B to model #55BB).... part of which included redesigning it without any tripod mounting ring and no longer including the set of filters. There were some optical changes too... Personally I still prefer the earlier version which has the tripod mounting ring.

If lost or not included, the filters are pretty easily replaceable. There should always be at least a clear "sky" filter installed on the rear element of the lens, a filter is part of the optical formula. The filters are 30.5mm, if memory serves... not a really common size, but not impossible to find either. With digital only the clear "sky" filter and one or two neutral density filters are needed maybe a half stop and a full stop or two-stop. Mirror lenses do not have an adjustable aperture (well, most of them don't... I know of two that do). The neutral density filters are used to reduce the light passing through the lens, if needed. A one stop filter makes it an effective f/16... and a two-stop would make it an effective f/22. (Note: because the aperture diameter doesn't actually doesn't change, depth of field remains the same regardless.)

The SP 500mm f/8 lenses are part of Tamron's Adaptall-2 line. That's an interchangeable mount that allows the lens to be set up to work on virtually any 35mm film or most modern DSLR systems. Adaptall-2 mounts are still being manufactured in China. I've bought them for EOS/EF mount cameras like yours for $40 ("chipped" version, which allows Focus Confirmation on Canon cameras to work). I'm currently using one on a Tamron SP 90mm Macro Adaptall-2 lens (also have Adaptall-2 mounts for Nikon F, Pentax P/K, Olympus OM, Canon FD and Konica K/AR, which allow all Adaptall-2 lenses to easily be converted to work with various vintage cameras in my collection.) There also were some excellent Adaptall-2 mount Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5, 80-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4 manual focus lenses. There was an SP 350mm f/5.6 mirror lens, too... but it's a lot less common than the 500mm and because of its rarity tends to bring 2X the price or more.

You might see the Tamron 500mm offered with a "matched" 2X teleconverter. Sometimes they were sold that way. Frankly, I tried the lens with various teleconverters and never found a combo that gave what I considered acceptable image quality. As good as the lens is optically on it's own, IMO it just doesn't work well with teleconverters. (Note: Tamron's much bigger and more expensive 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4 Adaptall-2 lenses both work very well with 1.4X teleconverters and pretty well with 2X... but good copies of those lenses cost a great deal more, even used. Beware, too, a lot of them were owned by newspapers and magazines, as part of their photo equipment pools, shared among staff photographers. Pool lenses are often very heavily used... and none too carefully treated by their users.)

I foolishly sold my Tamron SP 500mm f/8 some years ago, only because I had another similar telephoto for use on the camera system I was using at the time..... Sometimes I wish I'd kept that Tamron!

mavrick8019

excellent information thank you

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Use your 55-300 at 300mm. I measured out 150 yards using google earth for my block, and took this picture of my neighbor's mailbox at 150 yards, f5.6, 1/500 sec., auto iso (camera set the iso to 1600). It was taken in overcast conditions, sitting on a bench, handheld, with the camera lens supported on my knee. First shot is untouched jpg out of the camera (a Nikon D7000) with my Nikkor AF-S 55-300 VR lens. The second pic is a crop of the first, sharpened in Photoshop.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Don't let the poor quality of a noisy oversharpened mailbox scare you off your photography hobby ...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Don't let the snobby advice of people telling you you need to spend thousands of dollars to get a decent telephoto picture keep you from trying.
An oversharpened closeup at 150 yards is better than no picture at all.

And the sharpening is optional. Here's the same crop right out of the camera.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Actually, acceptance is in the eye of the beholder & it rests in large part on how you intend to view the image. Online images are way less demanding of resolution than are prints. That said, it is true that an image is better than no image. You don't have to spend thousands by the way....

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I agree. But you do need at least a 300mm lens to get some clarity at 150 yards. My 55-300 lens was $250 used. The D7000 was $385 used. Also the lighting matters. In bright sunlight, you could use lower iso which will equate to less noise and more brilliant colors.