What lens would you like to see introduced next by Sony?

Started Aug 15, 2009 | Discussions thread
Mark VB Senior Member • Posts: 2,912
Re: How about a 200-400/3.5-4.8 for 1/3 of the cost?

pickles101 wrote:

Thank you so much for the help Mark. What im looking for the most is for a lens that can keep me as far away from the bears as possible, and not be as heavy for long hikes. I think the 300 2.8, and 400 with a 1.4 teleconverter wuld be the best option, unless sony comes out with the rumored 500 4.5. Until then I'll get on to pestering those whiley sony reps about your lens.

Thanks. I've photographed bears, primarily in Alaska but also on the occasional sighting in Yellowstone/GT National Parks (and Polar Bears in Churchill, Canada). If you are in a US national park, there are strict limits on how close you are allowed to a bear (and other wildlife, but the distances are larger for bears). Even in a place like Katmai National Park in Alaska, with bears more "accustomed" to people, plenty of salmon for eating (the reason they're there), and the "shortest" distance limits (25 yards if I recall correctly, except for a sow with cubs which is 50 or 100 yards), my 600 was my most used lens. I also recently saw some bear photos from a fellow camera club member taken in Lake Clark NP in Alaska and he was using primarily a 500/4 (Canon).

If you are shooting bears, you will want the longer focal length, particularly on an A900. I would strongly suggest you consider the Sigma 500/4.5, unless Sony comes out with a new 500 which you also could consider.

-- hide signature --

Mark Van Bergh

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow