LENS FOR SHOOTING BIRDS?

<p> hello, its been a while since my last post. i would like to know what is a good lens to purchase for bird taking? i have a canon eos rebel t5. i prefer a lens that has manual focus, if lens has manual an af that is good as well. but from what i've seen alot of higher focal length zooms just have the push/pull focus. what is a good mimimum focal length? an at what high focal length does image begin to degrade in quality? i shoot all kinds of birds. thnx:)</p>

I'll share my opinion and make some generalizatios. A focal length of 400mm is where I'd start out as a minimum. I actually own 3: 100-

400L (old push pull focus), 400 5.6L and the new 100-400L II. The new 100-400L makes the other two obsolete for me and I'll sell them

when I get around to it.

 

The image does not begin to degrade in quality as the focal length goes up. Many a day I wish I had a 600 or even 800mm. Now.. if you

start adding converters there will be image degradation but the only thing that degrades when going to a 600L is your financial situation.

 

It always comes down to budget. How much can you spend?

 

Here is an image of taken with the 100-400L II.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by preferring a lens with manual focus. I've never seen push pull focus but the old 100-400 has push pull

zoom. Manual focus is always present. So is AF.

 

Regards,

 

Richard M. Hatch

esfishdoc.smugmug.com

<p>I second that. What we often perceive as an unsharp lens in long focal length lenses is often the affect of air turbulence of unevenly warm air. The perceived sharpness of a 400, pretty much a traditional standard for telephoto lenses depends a lot on how cold and even the veil of air between you and the subject is. </p>

<p>I've heard that using a red dot sight on the camera helps a lot from some of my friends who go birding often, though it is a bit expensive of an accessory</p>

<p>I agree with 400mm as a good starting point for a bird lens. Given that you're shooting with a Rebel, I'm guessing that a $8,500 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM is out of the question. Under $1,000, you can get a Canon 100-400mm, used Series I or a Tamron 150-600mm, used. You're looking at around $900. Those are very good lenses, capable of very good shots, but not absolutely the sharpest that you can get. For instance, the Series II 100-400mm is much better than the Series I at 400mm, but will cost you twice as much. Another lens to consider is the excellent EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, which lacks IS, but is super sharp and very easy to handle without a tripod. Most people shoot the 100-400mm hand held also. With the 150-600mm, most are using a tripod.</p>

<p>If you buy used, then, if you decide to move up, you can recover your investment easily. I'd suggest stepping in at the $1,000 or less point, then see how active your are and either stay at that level or move up. I started with the 400/5.6 and found myself taking over 1,000-shots per week. I moved up to the 500/f4 within three-months. Each of us will vary.</p>

<p>Super telephoto lenses tend to be very sharp, but there's a learning curve to get good with them. Here's a shot from 150-yards, hand held, 700mm, 80% crop and still sharp:</p>

<p><a title="Get Away From My Fish" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1477/24522608894_056d40dcc4_c.jpg" alt="Get Away From My Fish" width="800" height="641" /></a></p>

<p>I know dozens of bird photographers and not one uses a "red dot sight", whatever that is. You look at the bird as you're putting the camera to the eye. With a little practice, you'll hit the bird 99% of the time, even in flight.</p>

<p>I've been pretty satisfied with the 400mm focal length, although I tried 500 for a year. I'm sort of a contrarian in that I strongly believe the best bird shots aren't necessarily taken with longer lenses, but rather thru advanced stalking techniques allowing one to get closer to the bird. One of our periodic PNetters, Doug Herr, has some marvelous shots in his portfolio taken over a number of years and is also a strong proponent of finding ways to approach the birds to get incredible shots.</p>

<p>MORE POWER!!</p>

<p>Sometimes you can't get close. My eagle shot above was 150-yards away because they were out on thin ice on a lake. I spent 2.5-hours waiting for some action. I DO have a hide and a Gilly suit, but lots of my shots come from moving around to where birds are likely and waiting on action.</p>

<p>Here's a Flickr Album with some of my best shots from 2015: You can review my EXIF information and see that most are shot at 500mm or 700mm, hand held. Your Rebel has a good sensor that will stand up to some cropping. Still, lots of people opt for the 150-600mm to get more pixels on the subject. There's a big difference between 400mm and 600mm.</p>

<p>Of course, getting close with 500mm is always nice:</p>

<p><a title="Bald Eagle Gives Us "The Eye"" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8596/16584746269_f99898bdee_c.jpg" alt="Bald Eagle Gives Us "The Eye"" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

I use the old 100-400 f4 but I have that because it

has image stabilization and I happen to have very

shakey hands (from an injury). However, the 400

f4 prime is probably regarded higher among wildlife

shooters.

<p>The 400/f4 is an exceptional lens, but very expensive.</p>

<p>I use the new Canon 100-400L II IS and can highly recommend it. But a longer lens would be useful nearly all the time. All David says about lomger lenses for bird photography is good advice. Maybe one day I will splash out on one. At the moment I can't really justify the price with the amount of bird photography I do.<br /> <br /> Having said that there is quite a bit of bird photography you can do with a 300mm or sometimes shorter focal length. You just need to be able to get nearer to your subject and find places which allow you to do that. Here in the UK that would be such places as the Farne Islands where thousands of seabirds nest and boats can take you close to where they nest, or Bempton cliffs where you can walk along the cliff where the gannet colony is, or the clifftops on the Orkney Islands etc etc. But 300mm is still rather limiting and 400mm is the minimum to give a wider range of opportunity.</p><div></div>

<p>The best value birding lens is either the Tamron or Sigma C 150-600mm. One step back is the original Canon 100-400L. I would not accept a lens that is a lesser standard than these three. It would be better to wait and save up if these cannot be purchased now. The birds will still be there. Nothing worse than a soft telephoto for birds. As it is these lenses will probably need to be shot at a stop above their widest. Remember that with lenses of these focal lengths the 1/FL rule doesn't apply, try 1/2xFL or 1/1000th minimum. Good luck, but I must warn that bird photography is very damaging to the wallet.</p>

<p>The1FL rule still applies to these lenses. In fact, the IS on the Canon is so good that you can hand hold below 1/100-sec., if you have good technique. The reason that you need 1/1000-sec. and higher is for birds in flight. They move very fast and 1/2000 to 1/3200-sec. is actually preferable. Even perching birds will tend to make sudden, fast movements.</p>

<p>I agree, the old 100-400 is probably the best lens for birds (excepting the 500mm f/4)<br>

the push-pull makes it really stupid easy for BIF shots<br>

<img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1592/24392761883_dbf5d06af0_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>