kit for wildlife/birding

[outwithmycamera]

I've recently transitioned my photography gear to a mirrorless body (sony a6000) and assorted lenses and am really enjoying this kit for how compact it is. However, one area where mirrorless continues to lag behind the DSLR world is in telephoto options for wildlife and birding. Consequently I am considering acquiring a DSLR and long zoom for this very specific type of photography. The options in Nikon seem to be a d7100/d7200 (the D500 I think is beyond what I really need) and the new 200-500 zoom, or one of the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 zooms. Of course longer primes could be interesting but most of those are seriously expensive. I'm not sure what the equivalent or preferred kit for Canon or Pentax would be. Has anyone gone this route, a DX set up pretty specifically for wildlife and birding while maintaining another system for other more general purpose work? Though I do still have a Nikon D80 body (the rest of that kit was stolen nearly a year ago), I'm pretty much brand agnostic at this point so I am looking for recommendations or points to consider. Below is a wildlife shot using my a6000 and 55-210 zoom, but i was very close (+/- 30ft), to the heron in lots of available light and was fully extended to 210mm so more reach (and speed?) is definitely wanted for less ideal circumstances.

[Shadowman]

Chris,

You didn't mention pricing (you did mention expensive though) and the link doesn't provide but this is an option for your Sony. I'm sure Sony makes a 70-300mm that would work as well.
http://lenshero.com/lens/Kenko-400mm...or-Sony-e-lens Looked more closely and this might not be fast enough for your purposes.

If you go with the Nikon that would work even more in your favor and the lenses listed will get you where you want to go. I've tried the Sigma lens and it handles very well, a bit heavy but if mounted on a tripod/monopod very manageable.

[JHzlwd]

I have a number of options on hand for wildlife and think you might be best served by the D7200/200-500 mm kit if choosing Nikon. I have had the 200-500 since first released and cannot really fault it. It is a bargain, besides. I'd put the 300 mm F/2.8 ahead of it (and it is very tele-converter friendly) but you are looking at around US$6000, Also, it is very heavy. With the winter climate being what it is around here I haven't done much photography yet with this gear - mostly a few tests. The attached snapshots were taken at beyond what I considerable a reasonable distance for most shots of small birds, even at rather long focal lengths. The range in both cases is well over 100 ft/33 meters. Focal length is 410 mm, 1/400 and 1/1600 sec., respectively - VR on. My D7200 had just arrived back from Nikon repair to fix a stuck diopter adjustment and it was only after I took these snapshots I discovered they had reset everything so all I got was these size optimized JPEGs which can't do justice to the camera or lens. Still, I submit these samples do suggest something of the potential of this lens/body combo. I used Paintshop Pro to resample and resize but there is, however, some in-camera processing in effect owing to my oversight re the repair shop reset.

Click on the thumbnails/attachment linksto see the samples.

[rpcrowe]

If you desire to go the Canon road, I would recommend a crop camera such as the 7DII (or even the 7D) and either a third party 150-200mm to 500-600mm zoom lens or the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. The Canon lens is far more expensive than the third party issues but, it is smaller in size and lighter in weight. The Canon 100-400 II lens is remarkably friendly to hand holding because of its great image stabilization combined with relatively light weight. However "light weight" is a relative concept...

OTOH, a used Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens has gone down in price (perhaps because of the 100-400 II) and a combination of Canon 7D plus the 400mm f/5.6L lens could be purchased for around $1,200 USD or so. I have also used the 300mm f/4L IS lens and while 300mm is a bit short for most birding, this lens is very TC friendly which results in a 420mm f/5.6 lens with the addition of a 1.4x TC. This prices of this lens have also taken a slight dip.

[rtbaum]

I would consider the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR. It is quite compact and light for a telephoto lens which I really appreciate. I pair it with a 1.4 teleconverter....the two are never separated, actually . The phase fresnel lens reduces weight by nearly 50%, from 3.1# to 1.6#, compared to the other Nikkor 300 mm f/4, excluding the teleconverter. I frequently hand hold to capture flighty small birds, I feel this in combo with my D750 is quite nimble.


ISO 1600, 420mm, f/7.1, 1/250 sec

[inkista]

Canon side of the fence, an XXD or 7D body and a 400L lens of some kind (or the Sigma 500mm lenses you're looking at) is probably the equivalent of what you're stating for Nikon. I use an antiquated 50D and the EF 400/5.6L USM, which has no Nikon counterpart. It's a PITA at the zoo, but for wildlife shooting, where you're never close enough, it's da bomb, and autofocus is very very fast.

[singlerosa]

I've also had the 200-500 since it began shipping, although most of its use has been motorsports with a D7200 (and D750). Great combo and I look forward to using it for birding with a gimbal/tripod combo later this year. Here's a hand held, frame-filling shot I caught a few weeks back. 450mm, 1/2000, f.6.3, ISO 400.

[IMG][/IMG]

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Chris. I use an a6000 for travel and have shot a few critters with it as well. Even with better/longer glass, that will never be much of a birding lens. For static subjects sure, but if you're like most people once you get into birds you'll want to shoot BIF sooner or later and the a6000 surely won't get it done.

Regarding the 7100 or 7200, I've had both. The only reason I got the 7200 was due to the lacking buffer in the 7100. Other than that they are much of a muchness.

I also shoot the 200-500 and it is pretty darn good for the price. For a birding "starter kit" that combo is hard to beat. With the hi-rez, DX format and that zoom range you cover a lot of range in both distance and animal size. If you consider the 1.2x crop mode built into the 7200 as well, with that combination you essentially have a full frame equivalent range of 300 to 1000mm with that kit with VR and shooting at 6fps (which we all thought was fast five years ago). And with current prices of the 7200 since the D500 has been released, you can have that combo for just over $2000 US. And with adequate light the IQ of the 7200 rivals everything in the Nikon lineup.

Unless/until you get REAL serious about shooting wildlife, you can't go wrong with that kit.

[outwithmycamera]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone! I'll probably pursue the D7200 and 200-500 lens combo, that makes most sense for me at the moment. Pentax doesn't seem to have viable options, the K3-II looks great but the lens support for what i'm looking for seems non-existent. Canon + one of the 150-600 seems reasonable, but Nikon is familiar to me and seems the best fit - I can even get the lens and use it with my long-in-the-tooth D80 for a time if i felt the need.

[NorthernFocus]

I didn't think about it before, but here's another option to consider. Some argue that the Sigma 150-600 performance is as good or better than the Nikon 200-500. Well Sigma makes the MC-11 converter which adapts a lens with Canon mount to Sony mirrorless cameras. You could get the Sigma lens with Canon mount and the adapter and use it on your a6000. That would be good for shooting static birds and other wildlife. Then if you find you're getting really serious about wildlife shooting you could invest in a Canon DSLR body and head off in the Canon direction.

Too many choices....

[Pegger 3D]

Hi WITHOUT,

I have the Nikon D7100 and just bought the AFS-200-500MM Lens.

Plus: Sharp at any focal length. More range than the 70-300MM (I have that one too). Range limiter. Sport Mode.

Cons: None, except heavier to hand hold compared to the 300MM.

If you want a faster lens, you will have to spend at least $2000 more.

I took both attached pix at about 35-40 yards away. Oriole=480MM /1/1000 / 1SO100 Sparrow=480MM 1/400 / ISO100.

Pegger 3D

[Pegger 3D]

This site is not easy to load pix.

Try again.

[Pegger 3D]

And again.

[Pegger 3D]

Again

[outwithmycamera]

I didn't think about it before, but here's another option to consider. Some argue that the Sigma 150-600 performance is as good or better than the Nikon 200-500. Well Sigma makes the MC-11 converter which adapts a lens with Canon mount to Sony mirrorless cameras. You could get the Sigma lens with Canon mount and the adapter and use it on your a6000. That would be good for shooting static birds and other wildlife. Then if you find you're getting really serious about wildlife shooting you could invest in a Canon DSLR body and head off in the Canon direction.

Too many choices....

I had wondered about this option already and its not out of consideration. I've been avoiding the adapted glass approach so I want to learn more about this.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

[Cantab]

If you desire to go the Canon road, I would recommend a crop camera such as the 7DII (or even the 7D) and either a third party 150-200mm to 500-600mm zoom lens or the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. The Canon lens is far more expensive than the third party issues but, it is smaller in size and lighter in weight. The Canon 100-400 II lens is remarkably friendly to hand holding because of its great image stabilization combined with relatively light weight. However "light weight" is a relative concept...

OTOH, a used Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens has gone down in price (perhaps because of the 100-400 II) and a combination of Canon 7D plus the 400mm f/5.6L lens could be purchased for around $1,200 USD or so. I have also used the 300mm f/4L IS lens and while 300mm is a bit short for most birding, this lens is very TC friendly which results in a 420mm f/5.6 lens with the addition of a 1.4x TC. This prices of this lens have also taken a slight dip.

Chris, Richard's comments make a lot of sense. I use a 60D with the mk1 100-400 zoom (and would like the 7Dmkii).

[pchettleburgh]

I got the photography bug just over a year ago when I bought my A6000. After roughly 18,000 shutter activation's I decided to try out some bird/wildlife photography this spring. I also decided I wanted to try a "mirror" system like a Canon because I had never even held one before. I picked up a used 40D for a couple hundred and bought a 55-250 lens for it. I find myself picking up the 40D more often than not, especially if I am going out to shoot some birds or such. For some reason this camera just "feels" right when I am out on a trail etc.

I am at the point that I am thinking I should not spend any more money on my Sony system for the time being. Don't get me wrong as I love the little A6000 especially with the 50 mm 1.8 prime on it for some types of situations. But at least for birds/wildlife that Canon just seems to be my preference. Now I have to think about where I want to go with the Canon system. I have only been into the birding for several weeks and am not about to spend a bunch of money based on that limited time just yet... so suffice it to say the 40D with the 55-250 should work for now. Long term though I am starting to think about better/longer glass and better body. I would LOVE to go 7DII and all that insanely expensive but lovely long prime or telephoto glass but that is not in the budget. More in line would be a 70D or a 7D paired with something along the lines of a Tamron or Sigma 150-600. A friend suggested the new 80D but from what I see price wise I think a 7DII would be better for not a lot more money.

Since I know I am in no hurry I can debate the pro's and con's of the 7D as opposed to the 70D and work on getting better with the 40D and bird/wildlife photography.

One question though... the Sigma comes in a Sport and Contemporary version and the price difference is significant but I am not at all sure WHAT the actual difference is?

[DanK]

I'm mulling over a similar decision. I have an APS-C body for times when I want reach, but the longest I have now is a 70-200 with a 1.4x converter. The question that has me stumped his how long to go. I've pretty well narrowed down the choice to the Canon 100-400 Mk I and the Sigma 150-600 contemporary. There is a big difference between 400 and 600mm--horizontal angles of view of 5.2 and 3.4 degrees, respectively. Not having done a lot of wildlife, I don't know how much value that extra length is in practice. If anyone who has experience with lengths over 400mm has an opinion about this, it would be helpful.

thanks

[NorthernFocus]

... If anyone who has experience with lengths over 400mm has an opinion about this, it would be helpful.

It depends on what you call "wildlife" and where you plan on shooting. If you plan on shooting birds it's easy. You can never have too much glass. With large mammals, it depends. If you will be shooting mammals from the roadside in national parks, etc, then the 600 is useful to be sure.

Then it also depends on what kind of IQ you require. If you just plan on shooting for digital images for web use or simply to collect species and don't mind cropping heavily, then 400 with an APS-C is likely plenty. However if you desire full frame images for printing.... you can never have too much glass

[Bobobird]

Be extremely wary of terms like "good enough" when referring to either cameras or lens for wildlife photography particularly birds.

Getting from "good enough" to "happy enough" will end up costing you way more than if you had gone "happy enough" from day 1!

From "happy enough" to "happy with" even more. Then of course you have to contend with "really happy".