Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, James Harrison wrote: > Great story about coyotes!! They will always be around. I wish to buy a >long lens for my R7. For birds and coyotes. Which lens?? 180 f2.8 , or >the 250 f4? What are the differences in weight? Thanks in advance..Red >dots in the woods.. jh There's no simple answer 'cuz there are lots of ways to get wildlife photos. Some people like using the biggest, baadest lens they can find on an equally imposing tripod, stacking converters when nessesary to get a good-sized image. Current theory is that a 600 f/4 AF is the way to go. I prefer the mobility of a hand-held camera so shorter lenses are more useful to me. For wildlife photos over the last 30 years I've used lenses from 55mm to 1000mm and the most useful focal length has been 400mm, followed by 560 and 280. Success with "shorter" lenses like the 400 involves knowledge of the critters' habits and behavior, and sometimes a bit of luck. With active subjects the sliding focus of the 400 is much more useful than a traditional twisting-ring focus control and with a viewfinder like the SL's I've never felt the need for AF. If wildlife photography is what makes your pulse quicken a 400 is ideal. If you want a lens that can be used for occasional wildlife but is supposed to be a more general-purpose lens the 250 is probably a better bet. I hope this helps. Doug Herr Sacramento