70-200 f2.8 vs 70-300 f4.5 lens

[NorthernFocus]

While we are talking in absolute focal lengths here remember that you choice of sensor size will also have some bearing. For example, I have a 70-200mm f2.8 that quite handily takes the TC-14 and slightly less gracefully the TC-17. Both will give me acceptable images on either a DX or FX format camera. Here is an Egret in flight with the TC-14 on the 70-200mm taken with a D750 FX camera. The effective focal length here was 320mm. On a DX camera like the D7100 that would have been cropped to be an effective 480mm...

Math check?

[NorthernFocus]

Sanjib one thing with bird photography is that everything about the bird is in focus and sharp....throw out all you think you know about f-stops....that means f-16... A lens with f-2.8 is great if shooting bird on stupid stick...

And yet, there are professional wildlife photographers the world over shooting birds in flight at wide apertures

And there are other reasons that wide aperture lenses are beneficial. Recall that lenses are at max aperture when metering, focusing, etc. More light coming through a large aperture means a brighter viewfinder, better AF performance, and some will argue, improved metering. Also virtually ALL lenses are sharper when stopped down a bit. So shooting an f2.8 lens means shooting at f4 to f8 likely produces best IQ. Shooting a lens with max aperture of f5.6 means optimum sharpness etc, requires shooting f8 or f11. At those apertures the BG must be distant indeed to achieve decent bokeh. Which is a trait that most would agree also contributes significantly to successful bird photography.

There is obviously a market for wide aperture telephoto lenses for a reason. And there is a reason that there is a market for lower cost, smaller aperture lenses.

[Saorsa]

Math check?

The 320 was from the EXIF I guess I had the TC-17 on the lens instead of the 14 as stated. The 1.5 crop factor came to 480.

[cauger61]

Sanjib one thing with bird photography is that everything about the bird is in focus and sharp. I sometimes shoot birds in flight as it is more interesting than them sitting on a stick, this happens in the winter here as I am going out looking for owls mainly Snowy owl. I use the 70-300mm on a D7000 camera this is where you throw out all you think you know about f-stops. Here is why, when shooting birds it is all about depth of field, to get a Snowy that is 100ft away in flight moving from one side to another I need close to 7ft DOF as wing tip to wing tip is close to 5ft. that means f-5.6, if it was 200ft away than you could get away with f-2.8 would work and would have to crop the heck out of it. If you are really wanting this than I feel that the 80-400mm (the new one not the old version), the older one if it misses focus takes forever as it hunts to find focus, the newer on is very fast to find focus and lock on much like the 70-300mm Nikkor lens, also the newer 80-400mm Nikkor will take a TC, the older one will not. The 80-400mm I think is the best choice as it also allows you more options over the long run, and is a good piece of glass not the best but the best over that range.

Cheers: Allan

Another, technique that now-a-days I am observing among some members of my bird watching group, is that -- "digiscoping". They are using 12x80 or 10x60 spotting scopes and attaching their point-&-shoot cameras even mobile phones with adapters and taking bird shots. I don't have any idea about the technical quality of those pictures, but on an average the shots are good!! The spotting scopes, I find, are cheaper than the telephoto lenses. Is there any wrong going by this route?

[cauger61]

While we are talking in absolute focal lengths here remember that you choice of sensor size will also have some bearing. For example, I have a 70-200mm f2.8 that quite handily takes the TC-14 and slightly less gracefully the TC-17. Both will give me acceptable images on either a DX or FX format camera. Here is an Egret in flight with the TC-14 on the 70-200mm taken with a D750 FX camera. The effective focal length here was 320mm. On a DX camera like the D7100 that would have been cropped to be an effective 480mm.


and here is another shot taken at a 50% further distance witn a Nikon 1 and the CX 70-300mm lens. No TC, just a much smaller sensor.


I find the really long primes very expensive. At the shorter end the 300mm f4 is about $1300 while the f2.8 is around $5500. The 200-500mm is about the same price as the F4 and offers more flexibility and a longer FL.

If I were you I would go with the 200-500. It is certainly capable of detailed captures at a distance and you will eventually end up wanting longer and longer lenses anyway. It's the nature of bird photographers. Egrets and Herons and other big birds are one thing. Filling the frame with a robin is more difficult.

Sorry, no good birds with the 200-500mm but I can provide you with a Horse in Flight

Great answer Brian, hilarious!!

[cauger61]

While we are talking in absolute focal lengths here remember that you choice of sensor size will also have some bearing. For example, I have a 70-200mm f2.8 that quite handily takes the TC-14 and slightly less gracefully the TC-17. Both will give me acceptable images on either a DX or FX format camera. Here is an Egret in flight with the TC-14 on the 70-200mm taken with a D750 FX camera. The effective focal length here was 320mm. On a DX camera like the D7100 that would have been cropped to be an effective 480mm.


and here is another shot taken at a 50% further distance witn a Nikon 1 and the CX 70-300mm lens. No TC, just a much smaller sensor.


I find the really long primes very expensive. At the shorter end the 300mm f4 is about $1300 while the f2.8 is around $5500. The 200-500mm is about the same price as the F4 and offers more flexibility and a longer FL.

If I were you I would go with the 200-500. It is certainly capable of detailed captures at a distance and you will eventually end up wanting longer and longer lenses anyway. It's the nature of bird photographers. Egrets and Herons and other big birds are one thing. Filling the frame with a robin is more difficult.

Sorry, no good birds with the 200-500mm but I can provide you with a Horse in Flight

Does the cropping factor matters? Can a 70-300mm lens on a DX Nikon, be taken as having effective focal length as 105-450? This Dave (post #15) does not support.

[Stagecoach]

The spotting scopes, I find, are cheaper than the telephoto lenses. Is there any wrong going by this route?

Sanjib, It really comes down to what you are prepared to spend AND what you consider as 'good enough' image quality to you.

A couple of years back I considered a try (play) at bird photography but all I could get at that time (due to my location) was a cheapo old model Tamron 70-300, no VR and snail pace AF. All shot at 300mm.

Here's an example of what that lens could produce, would that quality be good enough for you?

[cauger61]

I was once in your position. I had using a Tamron 18 -270 unsuccessfully for my attempts at birds, it did not have the speed nor quality to satisfy me...and it hunted way too much. I found a Sigma 400mm at a reasonable price and my success rate went up considerably. It took some work, as the lens was a screw drive and no VR....but I made it work. Finances allowed me to upgrade and I went in search of an alternative. I had things narrowed down to the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma 150-600 Sport. I am fortunate to have a good camera store in the vicinity and went to check out both. I was less than impressed by the weight of both and I hated that they both telescope out quite a ways. I find that I prefer to hand hold for much of my shooting and I just could not wrap my head around using either. It just so happened that they had a copy of the Nikon 300mm f/4 Pf. It was much smaller and about 1/3 the weight. It was sharp, worked well with a TC1.4, had VR, and snapped into focus quickly. I fell in love and it is rarely off my D750.



So far as getting close enough......that is called fieldcraft

Great Randy!! Getting closure is the best zoom. Really this fieldcraft, I think only works and most affordable too.

[cauger61]

Sanjib, It really comes down to what you are prepared to spend AND what you consider as 'good enough' image quality to you.

A couple of years back I considered a try (play) at bird photography but all I could get at that time (due to my location) was a cheapo old model Tamron 70-300, no VR and snail pace AF. All shot at 300mm.

Here's an example of what that lens could produce, would that quality be good enough for you?

Well Grahame, it is something of a trade-off. In bengali we say -- as you pour more sugar, things become more sweet. If you don't mind -- may I ask you the question posed by you? Are these photographs acceptable to you or to average of the community? While these photos are a bit soft presumably due to very slow AF of your lens, but as because I am not that much sound technically, I find these photographs acceptable from an average view point of a birdwatcher, not as a "photographer", particularly the one with the bird in flight!!

[Stagecoach]

Well Grahame, it is something of a trade-off. In bengali we say -- as you pour more sugar, things become more sweet. If you don't mind -- may I ask you the question posed by you? Are these photographs acceptable to you or to average of the community? I am not that much sound technically, therefore I find these photographs acceptable from an average view point of a birdwatcher, not as a "photographer"!!

They certainly do not meet my expectations of image quality as a photographer at the experience level I consider myself at

They are 'soft' due to the cropping, lens quality and possibly OOF.

As for others it will of course vary.

[cauger61]

While we are talking in absolute focal lengths here remember that you choice of sensor size will also have some bearing. For example, I have a 70-200mm f2.8 that quite handily takes the TC-14 and slightly less gracefully the TC-17. Both will give me acceptable images on either a DX or FX format camera. Here is an Egret in flight with the TC-14 on the 70-200mm taken with a D750 FX camera. The effective focal length here was 320mm. On a DX camera like the D7100 that would have been cropped to be an effective 480mm.


and here is another shot taken at a 50% further distance witn a Nikon 1 and the CX 70-300mm lens. No TC, just a much smaller sensor.


I find the really long primes very expensive. At the shorter end the 300mm f4 is about $1300 while the f2.8 is around $5500. The 200-500mm is about the same price as the F4 and offers more flexibility and a longer FL.

If I were you I would go with the 200-500. It is certainly capable of detailed captures at a distance and you will eventually end up wanting longer and longer lenses anyway. It's the nature of bird photographers. Egrets and Herons and other big birds are one thing. Filling the frame with a robin is more difficult.

Sorry, no good birds with the 200-500mm but I can provide you with a Horse in Flight

No Brian, why do you consider these bird shots as of no good? Is it because, they are soft on focus or what? As you are saying, that you use 200-500, how is it that they are not working? On a DX format, the effective zoom turns out to be 300-750 -- a great zoom. The members of my birdwatching group use, Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 80-400 on DX as well as FX. For me it is an issue of budget, that's why so much of clamouring.

[Saorsa]

What I meant was that I don't have any images of birds that I consider good and worthy of showing the capabilities of the 200-500. I only got it a couple of weeks ago and haven't been out for a bird shoot with it. I consider the two birds at the top fine. The egret in flight was a crop. It was taken with the TC-17E II on the 70-200mm f2.8. If I crop to a ridiculous extreme I get a soft image which still contains a lot of fine detail.



For an example of what the 70-300mm can do I documented my first impressions here. You might be surprised at how small this image is in the original.
That was taken with a D90 DX body.

As budget lenses go the Nikkor 70-300mm VR is a good deal and should be good choice for you.

[billtils]

Sanjib

Here are some images taken with the Tamron 150 - 600 f5.0 - 6.3.

The first is a New Holland Honey Eater, it is not inflight but these are very twitchy birds and quite a challenge!





The next is a Red Kite in flight:




Both of these were taken in good light with a Nikon D7100 body.



For comparison, here is a Red Kite on a dullish, cloudy, day, with the same lens on a D750 body:






Hope this helps.

[NorthernFocus]

Another, technique that now-a-days I am observing among some members of my bird watching group, is that -- "digiscoping". They are using 12x80 or 10x60 spotting scopes and attaching their point-&-shoot cameras even mobile phones with adapters and taking bird shots. I don't have any idea about the technical quality of those pictures, but on an average the shots are good!! The spotting scopes, I find, are cheaper than the telephoto lenses. Is there any wrong going by this route?

Don't confuse photographing birds with bird photography. There is a huge difference. In my experience birders and bird photographers have completely different objectives in mind when it comes to image capture. Birders are typically capturing images for identification and/or documentary purposes. The bird itself is the quest. On the other hand, bird photographers are concerned with the ultimate degree of detail and/or capturing interesting behavior. The photograph is the quest, not the specific species.

Only you can decide what is acceptable image quality. But if you find images taken with spotting scopes as described above to be of good quality, then you've likely come to the wrong place seeking advice about equipment. As you pointed out, a spotting scope attached to a PS camera or cell phone is far less expensive than a DSLR plus a quality telephoto lens. Such a set up can also achieve levels of magnification that are not possible with conventional photography. One limitation of that equipment is that shooting birds in flight is not likely possible.

If you also want to have the ability to shoot birds on flight(to some degree), then you may want to investigate something like the Nikon1 system. A Nikon V3 and Nikon1 70-300mm lens is a cost effective means of achieving high levels of magnification(810mm full frame equivalent). The V3 has excellent auto focus capability, high frame rate, and can also capture video. It is also very light weight and compact.

[Saorsa]

Sure, the 70-300mm is just a focal length range. My 70-300mm is an FX lens which means it is designed for the lens to create a larger circle at the film plane than a DX lens designed for a smaller sensor would produce.

Remember, we are talking about a crop factor not a change in focal length or magnification.

With Nikon,
FX is 24x36 mm
DX is 16x24 mm
CX is 13x16 mm

So think of it this way. If you had a 24x36 inch print and cut a 16x24 inch matte and laid it over the print you would see what the image would be on the DX sensor. If you cut the matte to 13x16 inches and put it on the same 24x36 print you would see the image that would be on the CX sensor.

To get the same image on the FX that you see with the DX you would need a lens with a 50% longer focal length. That is why people say that the effective focal length of a 300mm is equivalent to a 450mm on an FX camera.

[billtils]

Brian, that's why I posted the two kite images, one taken with the FX D750 and the other with the DX D7100. The birds were the same distance from the hide (give or take a few metres of course). There are lots of variables to consider and at the end of the day I'd stick with the best advice to Sanjib in this and any similar situations being to hire or borrow the lens(es) of interest and check it out for yourself.

[cauger61]

Great answer!!

[cauger61]

Don't confuse photographing birds with bird photography. There is a huge difference. In my experience birders and bird photographers have completely different objectives in mind when it comes to image capture. Birders are typically capturing images for identification and/or documentary purposes. The bird itself is the quest. On the other hand, bird photographers are concerned with the ultimate degree of detail and/or capturing interesting behavior. The photograph is the quest, not the specific species.

Only you can decide what is acceptable image quality. But if you find images taken with spotting scopes as described above to be of good quality, then you've likely come to the wrong place seeking advice about equipment. As you pointed out, a spotting scope attached to a PS camera or cell phone is far less expensive than a DSLR plus a quality telephoto lens. Such a set up can also achieve levels of magnification that are not possible with conventional photography. One limitation of that equipment is that shooting birds in flight is not likely possible.

If you also want to have the ability to shoot birds on flight(to some degree), then you may want to investigate something like the Nikon1 system. A Nikon V3 and Nikon1 70-300mm lens is a cost effective means of achieving high levels of magnification(810mm full frame equivalent). The V3 has excellent auto focus capability, high frame rate, and can also capture video. It is also very light weight and compact.

You are absolutely right Dan -- one should not confuse "photographing birds" with "bird photography". This is exactly where the conflict of interest arise between birders and photographers; this I think, is unfortunate too!! While, the photographers are amenable sometimes to take up birds as a subject, the birders are mosly not. This is really very unfortunate for us those who want to identify birds while at the same time technically conscious about photography too. Thnx a lot, for drwaing attention to this very important point.

[cauger61]

What I meant was that I don't have any images of birds that I consider good and worthy of showing the capabilities of the 200-500. I only got it a couple of weeks ago and haven't been out for a bird shoot with it. I consider the two birds at the top fine. The egret in flight was a crop. It was taken with the TC-17E II on the 70-200mm f2.8. If I crop to a ridiculous extreme I get a soft image which still contains a lot of fine detail.



For an example of what the 70-300mm can do I documented my first impressions here. You might be surprised at how small this image is in the original.
That was taken with a D90 DX body.

As budget lenses go the Nikkor 70-300mm VR is a good deal and should be good choice for you.

Great illustration Brian. I am really surprised to see the power of 70-300, from this aeroplane Photograph. Thnx a lot for your very illuminating answer. I am really assured about the choice of 70-300, after this discussion.

[rpcrowe]

I used a 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX as my birding lens at first. It had the length but, did not auto focus as fast or as accurately as I desired. Tokina replaced the 400mm f/5.6 ATX with an 80-400mm zoom. I don't know anything about the quality of that zoom.

I replaced the 400mm f/5.6 Tokina with a Canon 400mm f/5.6L which was a night and day improvement. The auto focus was extremely fast and accurate and the image quality was excellent even wide open.

Although, I now use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens, I would still recommend the 400mm f/5.6L prime for any Canon user who wants a good lens for birding that can be had at a decent price used... You can get one in the USA on eBay for between $700 and $900 USD...

A 300mm focal length can be used for large birds in flight. This image was shot at New Mexico's Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge with a Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens on a crop format camera.



The 300mm f/4L IS lens is another great Canon telephoto lens that can be found at a reasonable price used in the USA. The 300mm f/4L (non-IS) lens is also touted as being a bit sharper than the IS version. You can add a 1.4x TC to either of these lenses and still auto focus and get very reasonable image quality...