Lens for birds (also)

[PhilT]

I'd like to add a telephoto to my 17-50mm lens. I think about 50 or 70-300mm. I'm not a "birder", but if possible I'd like to take pictures of birds from time to time. Is 300mm enough, or definitely not enough? I tried for few days a 150-500mm (Sigma), but it's too heavy...
Thanks a lot for any suggestions
PhilT

[Geoff F]

Most people would consider 400 mm to be the minimum for birds. But it rather depends on what sort of birds and your shooting conditions.

If you can get close enough, and the birds are large enough, then 300 mm is sufficient. You can always crop closer.

I have the Sigma 150-500 which works fine but I prefer to use it with a tripod whenever possible. Yes it is heavy.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Phil,

If you'd like more specific recommendations, it would be helpful for us to know which camera you are using.

If Nikon, their 70-300mm (which I have) is a fairly good all rounder.

Welcome to the CiC forums from ... Dave

[NorthernFocus]

300mm with a cropped sensor camera is about minimum for even casual bird photos. Anything less is likely too be an exercise in frustration. I feel a moral obligation to warn you that shooting birds can become very addictive and subsequently very expensive

[Shadowman]

Birds in flight, at a nest or a tree branch, ground level?

[NorthernFocus]

Birds in flight, at a nest or a tree branch, ground level?

Awww. Boyds is boyds

[ajohnw]

I will probably post some shots tomorrow that can give you an idea what 300mm on a crop sensor can do scale wise. I fancied a bacon and egg sandwich and tried a nikon 55-300mm out after eating that.

For shear focal length the Tamron 150 ?? to 600mm is probably the best option cost wise. I saw a comparison of it against a Canon 600mm fast prime. As would be expected it isn't as good but the lady who used it did show that shots can take significant crops. The other point she made was that they had to use the canon lens on gimbals and that the Tamron captured a few shots that would have been missed otherwise.

Choice lenses seems to be primes and converters according to many bird forum people. Another comment I read some where was that as soon as some one gets a longer lens the birds just move further away.

John
-

[PhilT]

Hi Dave,
I use the NIKON D7100. I think that the 24 Mpx allows cropping, then perhaps 300mm is enough?
Thanks for you suggestion, I'm tempted to go to the Nikon Lens.
Have a good day, PhilT

[ajohnw]

I'd say I took this shot from about 20m, probably less. It's had some very quick PP just "improving" the duck and is a reduced crop.



This is the full frame. No pp at all other than reduction. Checking the camera the distance is 16m.



This is a similar distance but 300mm on m 4/3 so about what you could get from 400mm



This is the full frame



Last but not least similar distance but this time a full resolution crop so not much scope for PP. On this one the camera reckons the distance was 15m and again would need 400mm on a crop camera.



I don't think that the extra pixels in a D7100 over a D7000 will help but that's why I bought a D7000 so opinions might vary. My conclusion is that the biggest gain comes with longer focal lengths providing the lens has at least decent performance levels. There are lenses about that are a good as they can get but the prices tend to be rather painful..

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

Philippe, how much you can crop depends largely on:
1. Quality of the lens
2. Using good technique (focus, steadiness, proper exposure)
3. Desired resolution of the image, i.e.web vs. print resolution

If your interest is strictly to produce low resolution images for posting on the web or viewing on a computer and items 1 and 2 above are taken care of, the D7100 can be cropped a LOT. Here is a link to thread I posted a while back demonstrating that Details matter

[tclune]

A friend has the D7100 and uses the 70-200 f/4 with a 2x TC when he goes birding. It is a nice light and compact package and gives surprisingly good results in competent hands. The center focal point will autofocus with this lens/TC combo on the 7100. And, when you don't need the extra reach, the 70-200 f/4 is a wonderful lens on its own. If you get bitten by the birding bug, you'll want a longer lens. But this is a very decent setup for casual birding. FWIW

[Adrian]

We have a Diffractive Optics zoom that goes up to 300mm, and unless you get really lucky it is useless at that focal length (even on a crop camera) for birds in flight. Whilst there are better 300mm lenses out there, it is too short for wildlife much of the time.

For this reason we just bought a 2x converter for our 70-200L and whilst waiting for that to arrive I bought a Tamron 150-600, which gets excellent reviews. It weighs about 4 lbs and has effective image stabilisation which means you can hand hold it. I have started another thread where I am beginning to post my views on this lens as an amateur. On a Canon crop it takes you close to 1000mm and I would suggest it is well worth a look if wildlife is likely to be featuring much in your shooting. It comes in Nikon fit too. Mine cost £929 and based on first impressions is a bargain.

Kind regards, Adrian

[inkista]

I'm a Canon shooter, and I use the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. There's no Nikon equivalent, alas, although Sigma, I think, did make a 400/5.6 prime. I think that the lens you probably want to look at (if you can afford it) is the AF-S 80-400 VR. A 300mm lens might do fine for backyard birds at a feeder, but if you're looking to get pictures of shyer birds that are farther away, you'll want the reach, and you'll still be cropping. Birds are small and shy and it's often difficult to fill a frame with one.

If the 150-500 is too big and heavy, there's also the Sigma 120-400 HSM OS.

You can, of course, also get a 70-200/2.8 zoom with a 2x teleconverter, but that's liable to be even more expensive.

[ajohnw]

I don't know if there is any alternative to getting fairly close really what ever the focal length. I had a play with a 500mm mirror lens. This is the view from that at roughly twice the distance of the others I posted.



This one has a slight miss focus problem - no fun 500mm lens on M 4/3 with a 7x mag view for focusing. Near impossible really all shots I took with it were similar.

It was one of the better one Tamron 500mm F8 BBAR. There isn't much depth of field as this shows. Distance around 3 to 4m further than the above and hand held at 1/80 sec - seated elbows on knees. Great shot of the grass. This is more or less a 100% res crop. They are really good lenses.



I have seen good work done with these in the past on gimbals using a dslr but any out of focus spots turn into doughnuts.

John
-

[Geoff F]

I had a 300 mm mirror lens back in the film camera days; and I never had one keeper from the day I purchased it to the day I threw it away!

It seems that they need absolute stability to produce anything well focused; and suitable shutter speed as well.

[ajohnw]

I wouldn't advice anybody to even contemplate trying a 300mm mirror lens or one of the newer faster ones.

The problem is down to how they work. The 2ndy mirror that sits on the glass at the front multiplies the F ratio of the main mirror. The higher the magnification the less optical effect it has as it's diameter gets smaller. The ones to look for will be F8 or slower and 500mm or longer but comparing the look of the end can help too. The Tamron BBAR and the main camera manufacturer ones are all highly regarded as far a I know. The Russian ones as well but I have never known anyone who owns one.

The reason for the size is based round preventing light from directly reaching the film or sensor if on digital. They are sized for 35mm. An AF 500mm F8 version for M 4/3 would I feel be rather interesting. I believe one company did make an AF version at one time.

The shots I mentioned and saw some where were all taken on a gimbals type mount which would go a long way towards reducing shake. I bought a Nikon tamron adaptall mount for mine and will try it on the d7000 at some point. As the dof is so shallow I feel focusing may not be a problem.

Anyway I think the grass in the shot I posted speaks about the quality. One aspect of that is that mirrors really are apo's. Stray light can be very low too if they are well designed. They can be a bit strange when the arrangement is used on telescopes which is fairly common.Too low a magnification and a hole appears in the middle of the image. If the magnification is high enough it's too small to see.

John
-

[cauger61]

Most people would consider 400 mm to be the minimum for birds. But it rather depends on what sort of birds and your shooting conditions.

If you can get close enough, and the birds are large enough, then 300 mm is sufficient. You can always crop closer.

I have the Sigma 150-500 which works fine but I prefer to use it with a tripod whenever possible. Yes it is heavy.

Here I have a small note -- "bird photography" and "photographing birds" are two very different concepts. I am personally member of a birding group. We used to go for birding at the week ends and I see a good number of our group members use 70-300 Nikon as well as Tamron. At the same time there are others who use Nikon 80-400 and Tamrom 150-600. Even some members use "Spotting scopes" and then attach Point-&-Shoot camera or even Cell Phones to capture bird shots; and they and most of us on an average feel happy with the quality of their shots. But as pointed out by NorthernFocus (Dan) (refer post#34 of my thread "70-200 vs 70-300mm lens"), bird photography is a bit serious thing. Therefore, if someone is not that much serious, 70-300 Nikon VR IF-ED will serve a good job.

[Mike Buckley]

This is a quick reminder that this thread was begun two and a half years ago. Though the general concepts will still apply today, there are lenses available today that had not been released when the initial discussion in the thread took place.

[PhilT]

This is a quick reminder that this thread was begun two and a half years ago. Though the general concepts will still apply today, there are lenses available today that had not been released when the initial discussion in the thread took place.

Thanks for this reminder. Can you precise what new lenses (since 2014, how time flies ) are interesting in this setting?
BTW I finally took the 70-300 Nikon FX version, giving an equivalent of 450mm on a DX camera (and I'm very happy with it).

[Black Pearl]

If you want a list of every new lens released between June 2014 and today you might be better off using Google.

If you would like some advice regarding a possible purchase with a specific usage in mind from embers who might be using them you would be better off starting a new thread.