I need a longer lens!

[DickyOZ]

All of these birds are tiny and I can never get close enough with my 75-300mm lens. (Its not tack sharp at the long end either).
White-cheeked Honeyeater. The largest and most timid of the lot.


Chestnut Manekins.




Silvereye


Scarlet Honeyeater

[Shadowman]

You did well, especially on the Silvereye. Were these images cropped, if so didn't affect the final output too much?

[chauncey]

As you are no doubt aware, glass like you believe that you need doesn't come cheap.
It might be more fiscally responsible to create a backyard sanctuary.

[Shadowman]

As you are no doubt aware, glass like you believe that you need doesn't come cheap.
It might be more fiscally responsible to create a backyard sanctuary.

A lot of birds become more visible after it rains (love those worms), I've been meaning to take advantage but usually look for dryer environs during the rainy season.

[JBW]

In astronomy it's called 'apertureitis'. Your equipment is fine. Your stealth needs improving.

[DickyOZ]

You did well, especially on the Silvereye. Were these images cropped, if so didn't affect the final output too much?

Thanks John, most are 70-80% crop, the Silvereye was the least crop. The Honeyeaters are usually cropped from an image this size:


But I suppose if I had a 400mm lens I would want a 500mm lens.

[Shadowman]

Thanks John, most are 70-80% crop, the Silvereye was the least crop. The Honeyeaters are usually cropped from an image this size:


But I suppose if I had a 400mm lens I would want a 500mm lens.

I've struggled with that desire for years, had a chance to play with the 50-500mm Sigma but in confined locale (zoo), I wish I had the chance to use in typical environment. Still considering renting one or just flat out buying. The Nikon 200-500mm looks good also.

[TonyW]

It looks to me that you ha e done well under the circumstances. I have a similar question about lenses. The good long lenses are two heavy, let alone the expense.

We find that the birdbath attracts honey eaters well, especially the yellow faced ones around now. More stealth might help if you have more patience than I have.

I thought the silver eye was a particularly good catch.

[Wavelength]

Well done set of images

[wrench]

Nice shots! I liked the silvereye the best.

[FootLoose]

I have had those white cheeked honey eaters in my courtyard for several years. I never knew what they were until now. Thanks Richard. But they move too fast for me, I have never been able to get a decent shot of one.

[LePetomane]

Nice shots.

[just me]

Thanks John, most are 70-80% crop, the Silvereye was the least crop. The Honeyeaters are usually cropped from an image this size:


But I suppose if I had a 400mm lens I would want a 500mm lens.

Hi Dicky......I know you were considering to get the 400mm a while ago.......so when a longer lens is on the program, best get the 500mm now ......

But I like all these images with the 300mm......

Griddi......

[Shadowman]

Hi Dicky......I know you were considering to get the 400mm a while ago.......so when a longer lens is on the program, best get the 500mm now ......

But I like all these images with the 300mm......

Griddi......

While viewing a tutorial, one of the experts said that having extra focal length doesn't really improve the IQ, his thinking was that the IQ would be equal if shot with 300mm and cropped as opposed to using 400, 500, 600mm. I'd like to experiment to prove and will do when I get another chance to play with a lens.

[John 2]

While viewing a tutorial, one of the experts said that having extra focal length doesn't really improve the IQ, his thinking was that the IQ would be equal if shot with 300mm and cropped as opposed to using 400, 500, 600mm. I'd like to experiment to prove and will do when I get another chance to play with a lens.

That surely depends on just how far away the subject is. There must come a point where IQ suffers as a result of cropping the 300, at which distance the 400, 500 or 600 still gives an acceptable subject size in the frame in terms of IQ.

[John 2]

That's a really nice series Richard. The first two are absolute crackers.

[Shadowman]

That surely depends on just how far away the subject is. There must come a point where IQ suffers as a result of cropping the 300, at which distance the 400, 500 or 600 still gives an acceptable subject size in the frame in terms of IQ.

John,

I'd have to agree and as stated would only support the theory after substantial testing.

[rtbaum]

When in a similar situation last Spring, I looked a number of options, the Sigma 150-600 Sport and Nikon 200-500 were my initial candidates. The concern that surfaced was that at 500mm or 600mm the lens was very long and unbalanced in my opinion. I hate to admit that I primarily hand hold for small birds, tripods are too cumbersome for flitting birds. I chose the Nikon 300mm f4 Pf VR with a 1.4 teleconverter which is light, small, and I have been happy with the quality. I am sure that longer focal lengths will provide better reach when attached to a tripod, but that does not fit my style.

[Saorsa]

When in a similar situation last Spring, I looked a number of options, the Sigma 150-600 Sport and Nikon 200-500 were my initial candidates. The concern that surfaced was that at 500mm or 600mm the lens was very long and unbalanced in my opinion. I hate to admit that I primarily hand hold for small birds, tripods are too cumbersome for flitting birds. I chose the Nikon 300mm f4 Pf VR with a 1.4 teleconverter which is light, small, and I have been happy with the quality. I am sure that longer focal lengths will provide better reach when attached to a tripod, but that does not fit my style.

Try a monopod.

First of all it takes the weight when you aren't shooting and gives your arms and shoulder a rest.

Secondly, it controls motion in one direction at a minimum while shooting static birds and used with some degree of skill will handle two or three directions. For example, shooting from a boardwalk or a fairly solid bush I can use my knee to hold the monopod against a stable place.

Finally, it provides a good handle below the tripod mount of the lens near the point of balance and makes it easy to lift and pan to follow a moving bird. The typical grip of a hand half surrounding and supporting the lens is less stable and to me a less natural motion. It also usually means a hand on or near a control you might not want to be moving.

[rtbaum]

Try a monopod.

First of all it takes the weight when you aren't shooting and gives your arms and shoulder a rest.

Secondly, it controls motion in one direction at a minimum while shooting static birds and used with some degree of skill will handle two or three directions. For example, shooting from a boardwalk or a fairly solid bush I can use my knee to hold the monopod against a stable place.

Finally, it provides a good handle below the tripod mount of the lens near the point of balance and makes it easy to lift and pan to follow a moving bird. The typical grip of a hand half surrounding and supporting the lens is less stable and to me a less natural motion. It also usually means a hand on or near a control you might not want to be moving.

Actually, I have a couple monopods. What I am saying is that with this lens on my D750, the balance is quite nice and I can effectively go handheld for those very small birds. Getting close is not that difficult. Simple observation of their habits and being in the right place when and where they are active, sitting quietly and letting them become accustomed to your presence works well for me.