Upgrade for Birding Lens

[chauncey]

Seems like a rather anal response to me WM.

It was rather terse John in that I failed to elaborate...my lens choices are, for the most part, based on MTF characteristics. Experience tells me that the higher end prime lenses will cough out superior image quality as compared to any zoom lens on the market, a characteristic that is magnified by the addition of a 2X TC. If your goal is to produce web based images then those demands are significantly reduced.

[ajohnw]

I'm comparing the 80-400mm with zooms that cover lower ranges.and yes the AF-D lens. What I see at 400mm on that one in a test is too much fall off in performance and I would be concerned about extreme crops. The new AF-S version is a complete redesign. A comment from the review site that I do trust on the AF-D version is that it barely matches the resolution of the 10mp camera used to test it. That doesn't rule it out but it would put me off. For me though it's not an option for my D7000 as I can match the reach with m 4/3. I've only played with birds in flight on that once. "Keeper" rate with seagulls approaching with a misty background was better than 50% - no one but me will see them as the effects of the ISO I used surprised me. Plenty of both detail and loads of noise.

Out of interest KR passes a comment that he can track cars doing say 45mph with the AF-D lens even with it's rather slow AF as he refers to it using a D70. He doesn't mention if they are coming/going or passing. Perhaps people couldn't do birds in flight with AF-D lenses. I nearly went out with my AF-D 300mm F4 along with 1.4x and 2x converters last week but other things interfered so I have to pass on that. it's raining on and off here again. Rather heavily at times.

Personally on a "budget" I would be inclined to go for the new Tamron 150-600mm lens. In quotes because it isn't a cheap lens but it's the cheapest lens by far with IS and that sort of reach. I have read comment on another of there IS lenses that people may not like what it does when panning so would want to try it in a shop. Having used a 500mm mirror lens on m 4/3 giving 1000mm FF equivalent I would say that 600mm really is getting some where at 900mm on a crop camera but there will be times when even longer would be better. Only problem with the mirror lens is that so far I have not managed to get a consistent focus.

On the other hand Ken Rockwell ( KR) reckons that the 1.4x converter can be used on the newer Nikon 80-400mm if the camera is rated for F8. I'd want to be sure.

Sigma is an alternative. I've found mine a bit off putting. I decided to sell it mint and was asked about any marks on the glass. A very close look showed slight signs of fungus. It seems from comments by the person interested in buying it that this isn't uncommon even though many are only used infrequently and well stored. While these spots wouldn't have any effect on shots they have a rather severe effect on resale value. The reason I mentioned size and weight of others is that this is why many lenses of this type aren't used all that often. I know for a fact I don't like carrying mine about on the off chance of using it.

Sigma - Tamron. If one is entirely internal focus and doesn't trombone that would be the one I would buy. I would expect the Tamron to have more even performance through the range if it's like the 200-500mm. That one on modern high pixel count sensors probably is a bit soft.

I've been nosing around to see what birding lens I would buy. It's difficult in the UK. Eagles for instance would need a trip to certain parts of Scotland. I have to remember that my sigma didn't get used much. This time I hope to find out what birds are where within reasonable distance and just play with what I have in the meantime and get more experience. Used lenses for my D7000 are favourite because they can often be resold at very little loss. For more actually when prices rise even if bought from new at times.

John
-

[ajohnw]

It was rather terse John in that I failed to elaborate...my lens choices are, for the most part, based on MTF characteristics. Experience tells me that the higher end prime lenses will cough out superior image quality as compared to any zoom lens on the market, a characteristic that is magnified by the addition of a 2X TC. If your goal is to produce web based images then those demands are significantly reduced.

I do too. I like photozone.de the most and have looked at the tests and also own some of the lenses so have a fair idea what they mean in practice. Not so keen on MTF as often it's difficult to relate what these mean other than if tested at 60 lp/mm it's likely to be a high res lens. There are other sites that test in the same way as photozone but no numbers. In the bird area I think it's worth looking to see what bird forums have to say about the lenses. Taking Sigma for instance - soft over 300mm, needs plenty of work to bring out feather detail, great lens I love it, I prefer a zoom because sometimes the birds are close and I have no time to change the lens. There is always a grain of truth if enough are read. Pixelpeepers is very useful as there generally will be links to 100% res shots or crops. It's often possible to tell at a glance how good the PP was, right clicking on those usually shows PS.

Primes will always be better than zooms but if the zoom range is restricted there needn't be that much difference. Also the cost of course for say a 600mm F4 canon is lens. 300mm F2.8 too really. Too much for many so compromises have to be made.

Here is a couple of useful pixelpeepers shots with the tamron lens at 600mm. In my view for this purpose the fact that the exposure is slightly out on one and no signs of lots of PP they really are useful. I would ideally like to know how big the 2nd bird is though.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/204089...71333/sizes/o/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/204089...75745/sizes/o/

Taken with an 18mp T3i. There is a need to be careful on this site as some shots will have had a lot of pp which doesn't really show what the lenses actually do. This one looks over sharpened to me taken at 400mm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/204089...41443/sizes/o/

Here is your sort of test on the lens except they plot MTF 50 with lp/mm which is a decent method of comparing.

http://www.lenstip.com/403.1-Lens_re...roduction.html

It should be possible to compare it with the Sigma on the same site. If you do you will see that the Tamron has more even resolution through the zoom range even though it goes further It's another good review site. They also verbally compare it with the canon 100-400L You might like to read that. I may be biased but this is the sort of result I would expect from a new Tamron lens. Like all older ones may not keep up with pixel counts.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - you do spend too much time reading and quoting reviews, where they test lenses in a lab environment and the results are quite meaningless in most real world photography. I have 17" x 22" prints (crops in fact, done on professional grade printers) taken with both the Nikon 80-400mm and the Sigma 150-500mm. I imagine that they are softer than when shot with pro glass, but only when viewed at pixel peeping distance. Frankly I couldn't really say, as these were hand-held shots taken in difficult shooting conditions, but I do know I get a lot of compliments on them from some very competent photographers..

Review sites measure things that are easy for them to measure, but unfortunately, these generally have little real world impact. They rarely report on things that really matter, like build quality, weather sealing, balance, smoothness of operation, etc.

[ajohnw]

I take any information I can get before buying things Manfred. Cameras, usually mainly dpreview which take some time to read and I also always download the manual and spend time with that. I also try to get hands on but often photo's of a camera in some ones hand will do. Had to on the E-M5.

Same with lenses except reviews are a lot more difficult. I find that they can indicate likely results but many aren't worth the bother of even reading.

Anyway I only look when contemplating buying.

As to the other comment. The one I use mostly which unfortunately doesn't cover all of the lenses I would like it to does comment on a number of things. Even they can get it wrong sometimes though eg wobble in the centre section of the 14-42mm - yes it does but not when the camera is powered up. Not that I care as I owned it before I read the review. Interesting lens - people who just can't wait to get rid of it, many others who use it pointing out that it's a wonderful lens. That's what reviewers often achieve via comments of one sort or another. Lens test results tend to make lenses look worse than they will be in practice. On the other hand they can show that one variant is better than another - and it will be.

Most of my quotes in any case where aimed at WM but I honestly would not buy an AF-D 80-400mm but did point out that it could produce decent web shots. Bird feathers often make difficult subjects especially when the bird comes no where near filling the frame. Most lenses will take great photo's of barn doors.

John
-

[Dave Humphries]

For anyone considering purchasing a second hand lens, I came across this video, the content of which I broadly agree with and is fairly comprehensive. I have no connection with the video producer beyond being subscribed to his channel because I had found his previous work helpful.

I would add that you should look through the lens from both directions, against outdoors through a distant window, or using a torch, as the video advocates.

One thing I find with Nikon gear is they cannot seem to get the hang of sticking rubber grips to cameras or lens barrels, so if the only problem is an ill fitting rubber grip on the zoom ring (e.g. like on my Nikon 70-300mm), I wouldn't worry about it - I know I have looked after my lens and still it is all mis-shapen - but it works

Cheers,

[jcuknz]

I use single point, centre point, most of the time and the problem if hand holding or the subject is moving [ BIF ] of making sure the focus area is on the subject. This problem increases in likelihood with the increased reach of the longer lens unfortunately
I have 950mm as well as 430 and 280 focal lengths available and even at 280 the problem exists
In this discussion your 200mm lens is of course 300 and a 300 would be 450
A minor point may be that with my Panasonic camera I have the option, which I am usually/always using of a smaller target area than I suspect your camera has perhaps? Makes for precise focus but harder to hold on the subject.

[ajohnw]

For anyone considering purchasing a second hand lens, I came across this video, the content of which I broadly agree with and is fairly comprehensive. I have no connection with the video producer beyond being subscribed to his channel because I had found his previous work helpful.

I would add that you should look through the lens from both directions, against outdoors through a distant window, or using a torch, as the video advocates.

One thing I find with Nikon gear is they cannot seem to get the hang of sticking rubber grips to cameras or lens barrels, so if the only problem is an ill fitting rubber grip on the zoom ring (e.g. like on my Nikon 70-300mm), I wouldn't worry about it - I know I have looked after my lens and still it is all mis-shapen - but it works

Cheers,

He should have mentioned shiny aperture iris blades - signs of a lot of use. Ideally that needs checking from both ends of the lens.

Fungus or delamination shuch as he shows or even worse wont have any significant effect on the optical performance of the lens. On that basis if some lens turns up with this problem that would normally be too expensive to buy I might well go for it. There would be subsequent problems selling it as it's a miss understood subject. It's an area thing. If the problem what ever it is covers a significant area of the lens it will have an effect.. Just like dust it generally doesn't. It's even possible to black it out with something opaque and the only effect that will have is a minuscule reduction in the F ratio. A tiny tiny fraction of a stop that would be rather difficult to even check in practice.

Worrisome fungus forms something that looks more like a spiders web running across the glass. It tends to spread all over given time. Many people bin things that have that problem - including me. Problems of one sort or another are common in certain makes of microscope optics. Zeiss really springs to mind on this subject. Leitz (ie Lieca) tend to be better but optically inferior compared with a good Zeiss. Both have usage and performance problems built in from new in some cases. These days both makes are very similar and the optics in some ways more mediocre and not so extreme.

Other things can happen as well. I have a lens that i was going to sell. It works fine but there are some marks on the optics. I'm pretty sure that the marks at the rim that some would call fungus are actually delamination. Some optical elements are made by gluing 2 lenses together. When they part company it's usually at the edge and the larger the diameter of the piece of glass the more likely it is to happen. Another mark looks like the coating has detached from the glass - suggesting the lens was dirty when coated. I have another lens with a tiny white speck. This is probably due to it being a more exotic glass and a pin hole in the coating. Surprisingly lots of optical glasses can be attacked even by moisture over time and by many other things kicking around in the atmosphere.

There are some simple decentering tests mentioned on the web. A knock can cause this problem as can worn internal IS. It's not really possible to test this to a manufacturers standard easily but it is possible to get an idea if it's having much effect on photo's. Google will bring up info on how and what it does. When I see Ebay bidding on say a used Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR lenses I wonder about this aspect in particular. Also my need for the lens. Maybe grey imports are a better option. Centring problems from new are also more likely when straying away from camera manufactures brands. I believe that the manufactures can realign lenses but have no idea what it costs. Sigma UK for instance charge £54 an hour plus parts for unusual work. Tamron quote on the job the lens needs after they have received it.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Suzan - I just spotting this pricing on the "Bigma", i.e. Sigma 150-500mm lens for $874Cdn, which is a lot less than I paid for it a few years ago).

It is a Canadian source and I've bought a lot of my lenses from them via their web store (although I bought this one from their "bricks and mortar" store in Toronto.

http://www.adencamera.com/product-ov...384&Category=7