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

[cauger61]

I find that Nikon has telephoto zoom lenses: 70-200 f2.8 and 70-300 f4.5. Where as there is Tamron 16-300 lens with f3.5 and 18-300 f3.5 from Nikon. My question is -- which one of these is good for photographing birds?

[Polar01]

Sanjib most birders I know tend to go long, 80-400mm, 200-500mm, 160-600mm (tamron), 800mm often on a crop sensor camera to get the extra reach. These shooters are into BIF (birds in flight), or those that you can not get or are unable to get close to. Those that shoot what I call BOSS (Bird on Stupid Stick) will usually use more of a mid range zoom 200-300mm range, again often with a crop sensor camera. To get good glass in the 400mm and up range you are looking north of $10,000.00 CDN at the lower mm range and $22,000.00 CDN at the 800mm range. As for the 16-300mm and 18-300mm types of lens, no lens can do it all, there are trade off at both the short and long ends of the focal lengths. If wanting to shoot birds it is a combination of both the lens and the camera type that you can live with.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

+1 to what Allan has written.

If you head out and watch serious bird photographers, they and serious sports photographers are the ones with the most expensive lenses out there. The reason is simple; long focal length lenses are extremely expensive.

I'm not someone who does a lot of bird photography, but would suggest that 400mm is probably the starting point for this type of photography.

[NorthernFocus]

The 70-200mm is pretty short for most birds. As Allan said no lens can do everything well. The lenses with extreme zoom ranges like 18-300 etc, are a compromise of convenience over image quality. If you note, in the professional quality lenses, zoom ranges are held to 3x or less, 70-200, 200-400, etc. With that in mind, of the lenses you listed, the Nikon 70-300mm is probably the best bet. As an option, one of the best value lenses on the market is the Nikon 300mm f4 D. It is very sharp glass and they can typically be found used for $700US or so. However If you are very serious about shooting birds, as has already been pointed out, 300mm is marginal. 400 to 600mm is typical for bird photography.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sanjib,

One more point against a wide zoom range (e.g. 18-300mm) is that they are likely to be slower to Auto Focus (AF), so you're more likely to get a blurry shot (or none at all) with one of those, quite apart from the lower image quality.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm and it is too short really, but is affordable and not too heavy to hand hold.

I may stretch to a Nikon 200-500mm at some point in future for wildlife, but more recently I have been shooting a grand-daughter and she's close enough to shoot with 35 or 50 mm

Cheers, Dave

[rpcrowe]

Birding photography often needs long lenses. A lens of about 400mm could be considered the minimum.

Romy Ocon's Philippine Birds Gallery on pBase can give you an idea about what focal lengths can be used.

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

Moose Peterson is a well respected nature photographer who uses a Nikkor 70-300mm lens when photographing birds that have been attracted by feeders,

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and...otography.html

Getting close to birds is a challenge. Using a "blind" can disguise you and let birds come to you. It may be feasible to shoot with shorted lenses like 300mm if the birds are close enough.

Here are several YouTube videos on bird photography from blinds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fiSfA2TE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWNzGBcmptI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv6RqgSmd_o

[William W]

Hi again,

If I recall correctly, you are a member of a bird photography group . . .

What Camera AND Lens combination do the most successful photographers in that group use?


WW

[Gorilla]

The longer lens is certainly better for birding photography. However, the added utility of the 70–200 mm cannot be discounted. You can carry it with you more easily and use it in a far wider variety of situations. But if you're very serious about birds and other things that are very far away, like footballs :-), then the 400 is the one you're looking for!

[Polar01]

As to Mason's post #8, the 70-200mm is a beautiful lens, wished I owned one, however there is a fault with it. I weights in at over 3-1/3 pounds, there is a reason that it has a collar so you can mount it on a tripod. It is not the type of lens that you attach to your camera body, then spend a few hours wandering out and about the country side with nearly 5 pounds around your neck or in you hand does not make for a good time.

Cheers: Allan

[george013]

As to Mason's post #8, the 70-200mm is a beautiful lens, wished I owned one, however there is a fault with it. I weights in at over 3-1/3 pounds, there is a reason that it has a collar so you can mount it on a tripod. It is not the type of lens that you attach to your camera body, then spend a few hours wandering out and about the country side with nearly 5 pounds around your neck or in you hand does not make for a good time.

Cheers: Allan

I can tell you it's a weight after a while. I bought the predecessor, the 80-200 af-s 2.8. About the same weight.
A 200mm lens is nice to shoot a duck in a pool.
If you ever want something as a 70-200, think on this 80-200. It's second hand half the price of a second hand 70-200, and said to be sharper. It doesn't have vr.

George

[cauger61]

Hi again,

If I recall correctly, you are a member of a bird photography group . . .

What Camera AND Lens combination do the most successful photographers in that group use?


WW

They mostly use Nikon D5200/D5500/D7200 or D750 or Canon 750D or 700D with 80-400 or 150-600 lenses. But those lenses are a bit burdensome for me to afford at the moment. I, therefore wanted to know if one can start with a mid-range zoom of the order 70-300 or 70-200. But then there appears to be an aperture issue -- f2.8 vs f4.5 etc. Thats why I posted this thread.

[cauger61]

Sanjib most birders I know tend to go long, 80-400mm, 200-500mm, 160-600mm (tamron), 800mm often on a crop sensor camera to get the extra reach. These shooters are into BIF (birds in flight), or those that you can not get or are unable to get close to. Those that shoot what I call BOSS (Bird on Stupid Stick) will usually use more of a mid range zoom 200-300mm range, again often with a crop sensor camera. To get good glass in the 400mm and up range you are looking north of $10,000.00 CDN at the lower mm range and $22,000.00 CDN at the 800mm range. As for the 16-300mm and 18-300mm types of lens, no lens can do it all, there are trade off at both the short and long ends of the focal lengths. If wanting to shoot birds it is a combination of both the lens and the camera type that you can live with.

Cheers: Allan

So far the zoom part of the lens is concerned, it is fine. If one is serious, then he should go for a long zoom lens of min 400 etc. My confusion was, what was more important -- focal length or the aperture? 70-200 is short on zoom as compared to 70-300, but it is f2.8 while the later one is f4-5.6.

[cauger61]

Hi Sanjib,

One more point against a wide zoom range (e.g. 18-300mm) is that they are likely to be slower to Auto Focus (AF), so you're more likely to get a blurry shot (or none at all) with one of those, quite apart from the lower image quality.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm and it is too short really, but is affordable and not too heavy to hand hold.

I may stretch to a Nikon 200-500mm at some point in future for wildlife, but more recently I have been shooting a grand-daughter and she's close enough to shoot with 35 or 50 mm

Cheers, Dave

No Dave, that you are saying 70-300 is too short, but then on a DX (APS-C) camera, will it not come to 105-450mm considering a crop factor of 1.5? Therefore, effectively will one not get a zoom range of above 400mm, which appears to be crucial for photographing birds etc.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sanjib,

But then there appears to be an aperture issue -- f2.8 vs f4.5 etc. Thats why I posted this thread.

Bear in mind that while the 70-200mm is a constant f/2.8 across the zoom range, the 70-300mm is not, it is only f/4.5 at 70mm, by 300mm it is f/5.6 (and some third party ones might even be f/6.3 I believe).

That said, I find the Nikon 70-300mm lens is sharper at f/8 or f/11, so that's what I shoot when I can, raising the ISO as necessary to get the exposure correct, I'll go to 5000 on my D7100 if I have to.
It is the constant aperture of the 70-200mm f/2.8 that makes it such a wonderful lens (e.g. for portraiture), but also what makes it heavy (simply put; the front element diameter/thickness is determined by the widest aperture at the longest focal length).

To be honest, I think you'll struggle with Depth of Field on larger birds if you did shoot at f/2.8, so dropping to f/5.6 - f/11 probably helps - i.e. it isn't something that is that much of an issue IMO.

Focal length is more important.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

No Dave, that you are saying 70-300 is too short, but then on a DX (APS-C) camera, will it not come to 105-450mm considering a crop factor of 1.5? Therefore, effectively will one not get a zoom range of above 400mm, which appears to be crucial for photographing birds etc.

I still think of it as 300mm, even though I shoot DX as you say.

So yes, what I am saying then is that 450mm (FFE) is too short!

[cauger61]

I still think of it as 300mm, even though I shoot DX as you say.

So yes, what I am saying then is that 450mm (FFE) is too short!

OK -- is it then good to go for a 400mm prime, instead of a tele-zoom?

[cauger61]

Sanjib most birders I know tend to go long, 80-400mm, 200-500mm, 160-600mm (tamron), 800mm often on a crop sensor camera to get the extra reach. These shooters are into BIF (birds in flight), or those that you can not get or are unable to get close to. Those that shoot what I call BOSS (Bird on Stupid Stick) will usually use more of a mid range zoom 200-300mm range, again often with a crop sensor camera. To get good glass in the 400mm and up range you are looking north of $10,000.00 CDN at the lower mm range and $22,000.00 CDN at the 800mm range. As for the 16-300mm and 18-300mm types of lens, no lens can do it all, there are trade off at both the short and long ends of the focal lengths. If wanting to shoot birds it is a combination of both the lens and the camera type that you can live with.

Cheers: Allan

In that case, is it suggestible to go for a 400mm prime, instead of a tele-zoom OR, can this be tried -- 300mm f2.8 prime with a TC?

[Polar01]

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

[Saorsa]

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

[rtbaum]

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