Which Lens for Birds?

<p>For a few years I have been trying to develop skill as a bird photographer with my Nikon D5300. I've been frustrated with the limits of my lenses (Tamron 16-300 and Nikon 70-300) as I must be way too close to get sharp detail. I am intrigued by the Nikon 80-400G with it's $400 rebate (until March 7), but the salesperson at my local store suggested the Tamron 150-600. I like the weight of the Nikon as I could use it in the field and the Tamron was a bit too heavy for me to hand hold. I would jump on the Nikon but I'm wondering if I would continue to be frustrated with lack of reach. I thank you in advance for your opinions.</p>

<p>Jean - just a quick comment on sharpness and long telephotos for birding. I strongly suspect your sharpness issues would be significantly diminished if you were shooting on a tripod rather than hand holding. As far as long reach goes, another sharpness consideration especially with longer focal length lenses is the distortion caused by atmospheric heat arising from ground level, which becomes more prevalent in its effect the further you are from your subject. Most really successful bird photographers either learn good stalking skills to move in closer or at least use a monopod for steadiness or a tripod with a gimbal mount.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

I have recently started using a monopod which has improved the sharpness somewhat but it seems that I lose detail unless I am really close, 20 feet or so.</p>

<p>Bird photographers are always frustrated by lack of reach. Even if you have a 600mm lens. Nonetheless in my opinion for bird photography 400mm is really the minimum on an APS-C camera body. Just be aware this may be only the beginning - the next logical step will be to upgrade to a Nikon body that will retain autofocus at f/8 and the addition of a TC-14. And even so, for small passeriformes you will still want to be well within 20 feet. You haven't mentioned where you located, but as a practical matter that may be a much bigger issue than equipment. The three rules for bird successful bird photography are the three rules that determine the value of real estate: location, location, and location. At some locations (e.g., the gulf coast of Texas at the peak of migration) some birds can be simply much more approachable than at other times and places. Do you have access to a good location with a blind (hide)?</p>

<p>I live in Pennsylvania and bird most often locally and in Cape May. Usually we go on a birding trip each year. I'm curious about the camera upgrade, I thought that the DX cameras give me more reach.</p>

<p>The sigma 150-600mm is supposed to be better at the longed for long end!</p>

<p>The D7200 can handle lenses of a darker throughput easily.</p>

<p>Agree with Mike. Sigma 150-600 seem to be the answer (?)....though the "Sport" model of the same lens, despite costing 2X, it offers non-critical improvements on the front-rear end areas. The thing to do, however, is to rent the desired lens...and see if it works for you.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The three rules for bird successful bird photography are the three rules that determine the value of real estate: location, location, and location</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the golden rule is : Patience... Lay low in a hide ( small cammo tent) and get in there before the first light. leave the hide at the spot you choose for at least 3 days so that all wild life got used to it.<br /> If you need to enter the hide , get in there with 2 persons, and let the other person leave again ( birds cannot count..).<br /> Drop some seeds or whatever the bird of choice has on its diet in front of your tent/hide.<br /> If you play this game well , birds will get within feet from your hide/lens without suspecting you beying close.... ( and do not move when they are close...)..</p>

<p>failed load up , srry</p>

<p>mm failed to upload, do it again...</p><div></div>

<p>I upgraded from a 300/4 AF-S with TC-14E or TC-17EII and the old 80-400 to the new AF-S 80-400 for mostly hand-held bird photography. Can't exclude that at some point I might add the Sigma 150-600 S for tripod-based photography and more reach. Would need to evaluate first though if the optical quality is markedly better than what's achievable by mounting a TC-14E/EII behind the 80-400.<br /> Wouldn't dream of using a D5300 (or any D5x00) body for bird photography - upgrade to the new D7200 (or get a refurb D7100) to have access to better AF and a better viewfinder, among other things.</p>

<p>Further stepping up the ladder requires substantially more investment than what appears to be under consideration here. </p>

<p>Depends on what you're shooting but part of the secret is getting closer to the birds rather than getting a longer lens. Over on the Canon FD forum there's a guy who's been posting amazing shots made with a 300 manual focus lens. He has a couple of old tree stumps outside his window with some birdfood to attract the birds. Great closeups, minimal gear.</p>

<p>For birds in flight, I think the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S VR is almost ideal, but it is very expensive for a relatively slow 400mm zoom. The current $400 rebate helps, and it is supposed to end on March 28, not earlier, provided it is in stock. If it isn't, maybe try to find out whether they can give you the price and deliver it later when the store gets it.</p>

<p>One thing to keep in mind about 600mm lenses is that you are experiencing huge magnification, especially on a DX body. If you hand hold, you will have a hard time locating your subject (bird) in the sky, and it is easy to lose a moving target. Therefore, regardless of brand, IMO a 600mm is not necessarily ideal for birds in flight.</p>

<p>The Tamron 150-600 is very affordable, but Brad Hill has experienced AF issues, making it no so reliable: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html<br>

The Sigma 150-600 sports version is about the size of 300mm/f2.8, which IMO it too big for hand holding for any extended period. I have never used either 150-600 myself, but I have a 300mm/f2.8 and I find that heavy. A 600mm lens is better on tripod for capturing birds that are on a tree, not ones that are flying.</p>

<p>And as it has already been pointed out, for the camera body, I would upgrade to the D7100 or better yet, the up-coming D7200 for better AF (and more buffer on the D7200). Obviously upgrading both body and lens is going to cost some money, and you want 1 or 2 fast SD cards too.</p>

<p>I purchased the Tamron 150-600mm in December and the more I use it the more I like it. It takes a learning curve with that long a lens. Using a good tripod and ball head is the only way to get tack sharp photos. Handheld is a little tricky with these old wobbly hands. Monopod at the very least. At 600mm it picks up all atmospheric aberrations. Obviously the closer you are, the sharper the photo. I use the D7100 and it focuses very fast. I think for the money you can't go wrong.</p><div></div>

<p>Also, with the 150-600mm one is not required to catch BIF at 600mm. You can obviously zoom as needed.</p><div></div>

<p>IF, and it is a pretty big <em>if</em>,<br>

you can manually focus, which often means pre-focusing from a distance or from a hide, etc.,<br>

AND<br>

you are short of bucks<br>

THEN<br>

GOTO catadioptric (mirror lenses).<br>

A good Nikon Reflex-Nikkor 500mm or a Sigma Mirror 600mm in a Nikon mount can be bought for about US$200±.<br>

With a Nikon-mount 2X tele-extender and an 1.5X APS-C body you can reach up to the equivalent of 1500+mm.<br>

This is for 'sitting ducks' so to speak, not for BIF. <br />Certainly can work for a baiting situation, though you have to consider the ethics of that.<br>

:|</p><div></div>

<p>In some 37, 38 years of using Nikon equipment with perhaps 40 lens purchases, my one most serious mistake was getting the 500mm/f8 mirror lens back in 1987 or so. I was much younger (obviously) and thought that was the way to get a long lens and save money. Mirror lenses are slow and difficult to focus. I ended up wasting a lot of money on film as well as time. A few years later, I finally bought my first big lens, a manual focus 500mm/f4 P, for bird photography and then upgraded to AF-S some years after that.</p>

<p>I shoot Canon, but do lots of bird photography. The entry lenses for bird photography at Canon are a 100-400mm Canon or the 150-600mm Tamron. I'd suggest the Tamron. Several of my friend are very happy with it. If you get really serious, you'll eventually move to a Nikon prime, like the 600mm, but, to start, the Tamron will do. Start with a monopod and high shutter speeds, then move to hand held as you develop some expertise. I know two or three women that hand hold the Canon 500mm primes and all said they "couldn't do it" until they tried and saw their results.</p>

<p>That's a later step, so buy the Tamron today.</p>

<p>Forget about mirror lenses and manual focus. They just don't work with today's camera bodies and fast moving subjects. </p>

<p>Don't write off the old lenses, such as the AF 300mm f/4 (1987-2000 or so). They are running for $350-500 on eBay right now.</p>

<p>This one was shot on a D3s, not optimal for resolution, but good for the quick AF. I say "quick AF," even though the lens is not particularly fast on AF. What I do in those cases is use MF to get close (pre-focusing, that is) and then let the lens do the rest. Then it seems pretty quick.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

<p>The above was cropped out of this file.</p>

<p>The pixel density is very low on the D3s. You could get more resolution with your D5300 using this lens than I could with the D3s. (Sorry for the low exposure. I had pulled it down in ACR to bring out the browns on the crop above.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

<p>For serious bird photography I'd suggest going for AF-S 500/4, 1.4x TC and APSC DSLR such as D7100/ D7200 plus a sturdy tripod. For hand-held flight shots 400 would be the minimum and that can be achieved with AF-S 300/4 + 1.4x TC.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mirror lenses are slow and difficult to focus. I ended up wasting a lot of money on film as well as time. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>However, now with Live View focussing (manually!) and ISO >1600, DSLRs have made it a <em>little</em> bit easier to get a working exposure of >1/1000 to prevent either/both camera shake or subject movement. So for semi-static subjects, bird-tables and such like it's OK. BIF, forget it!</p>

<p>If (when!) they make an affordable AF-S 600mm E f5.6 PF I suspect it would become <em>the</em> choice optic. Who needs f4 these days! It might even be handholdable for a couple of seconds!</p>

<p>I wonder what the IQ is like from the 2000mm (equivalent) on the new Coolpix? With VR and the ability to zoom, it <em>might</em> be possible to pick up a BIF at fairly wide and zoom in whilst shooting and tracking?</p>

<p>Thank you for so many considered responses. This is a long learning curve for me but I am enjoying the ride.<br>

As to my camera, I bought the D5300 last summer after cracking the lens on my D3100 and my DH might shoot me if I replaced it. I am glad to hear that the sale on Nikon lenses will last through March. I got the March 7 date from an online chat with Nikon--perhaps they would like to spur quick sales?<br>

I'm still confused about which lens to buy. For those who recommend the 300F4 there is also a new, lightweight 300F4 PF at $2000, which would also involve purchasing a TC. Perhaps I put too much emphasis on weight, but I am no spring chicken and not getting any younger. I see varying reports on the Tamron, some love it, some feel they cannot get the fine feather detail they would like. I like the versatility and weight of the 80-400 but am concerned that I will continue to be frustrated with lack of reach, but as some of you have pointed out, a longer lens might bring a new set of problems.</p>

<p>Jean</p>

Jean,

 

Just a little background..

 

I owned the 1st version of the Nikon 80-400, sold it and upgraded to the new one now, and also own the Nikon 400 f2.8

VR. I have shot Nikons for over 40 years and now use 2-D800 bodies. I am tremendously happy with my gear and

results. My most important tip for you would be to start first always working to achieve the highest shutter speed possible

with whichever lens you choose. Your keeper rate will be much better and you can glean probable causes for your

imperfect shots by evaluating your shutter speed and comparing hits and misses. I have found nothing more important.

After reaching some level of competence in shooting long lenses you can then begin to refine your shooting technique

using all of your camera controls...but first shoot at 1/1000th sec and higher every chance you get to let your lens show

you what it can do so you gain confidence in your equipment.

John

<p>Jean, the topic of bird photography has been discussed many times on photo.net, especially the Nature Forum http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/. And of course it has been discussed even more on outside forums.<br>

Unfortunately, bird photography, especially birds in flight, along with indoor/night sports photography, typically demands some expensive equipment. The only exception is that if you have very low quality requirements and don't mind some slightly blurry images; that is why most of us who are into bird photography have fast, long lenses and cameras with fast AF.</p>

<p>You need to first determine whether you are considering non-flying birds or birds in flight. For a bird standing on a tree, unless your budget is over $5000, I would go for the Tamron (or Sigma) 150-600 on a tripod. For a long lens, it is very affordable. I have handled that lens inside a camera store but have never used one. Construction quality seems acceptable but I wouldn't say it is solid. It is a slow, f6.3, 600mm lens. As long as you have some time to acquire focus, it should be fine.</p>

<p>For birds in flight, Nikon's 80-400mm AF-S VR is almost ideal, at least under good light. I reviewed that lens for photo.net in 2013, where <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1867013">John Rogers</a> above commented in that review: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-80-400G/<br>

I have plenty of experience with various Nikon big lenses from the 300mm/f2.8, 200-400mm/f4, 500mm/f4, to 600mm/f4, but not the 400mm/f2.8, which John owns. Optically the 80-400 is almost as good as those big teles, but it is slower. 400mm/f5.6 is fairly easy to hand hold for an extended period and it is about as long as you want to find a subject in the sky. The advantage of a zoom is that you can zoom to 100mm or 200mm, locate your subject and then zero in. But 400mm is not dramatically longer than the 300mm you currently have.</p>

<p>I have seen people hand holding 200-400mm/f4 and 500mm/f4 lenses. I have done that occasionally. I am a 6'1" middle-aged guy and weight over 200 pounds, and I have owned some 500mm/f4 since 1992, when I was much younger. IMO it is not practical to hand hold those big lenses. I have seen people do it; it always amazes me.</p>

<p>To get sharper images, as pointed out earlier, you want a fast shutter speed for flying birds and accurate AF. AF works better when more light hits the AF module. I prefer f2.8 when possible; otherwise at last f4 or f5.6. 600mm/f6.3 is not the way to go. Unfortunately, there is no free lunch. As you can read in my review and the follow up comments, AF on the 80-400mm AF-S VR becomes iffy under dimmer light.</p>

<p>P.S. Nikon's lens rebate: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00d81Y"> Nikon USA Lens Rebate thru March 28, 2015</a><br>

I just checked, both Adorama and B&H have the 80-400mm AF-S VR in stock. There doesn't seem to be any shortage now as that lens is two years old and was also discounted a year ago. Most people who want one should have it by now. So you have some time to think it thru and evaluate other options.</p>