Best Telephoto for Birds?

Hello, everyone.

 

I am looking to replace a lost telephoto lens for my D70.

 

I had the Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED; however,

I am intrigued by the new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR.

 

Is there much difference between the ED and G lenses?

 

Has anyone had much experience with the VR? Is it worth the extra money?

 

I am looking specifically to photograph wild birds.

 

Thanks, in advance, for your kind assistance!

 

All the best-

Alison

 

http://www.edgewaterparrots.com

 

alison@edgewaterparrotsdotcom

If is into budget I'd get a Nikon 300mm 2.8 (AF or AIS) if that to much I'll jump down to the Tokina 300mm 2.8 (AF or MF)

Hey Alison,

 

I see that you have shot your wild birds with long lenses before and have decent closeups. But, the images you have could do with assistance from a VR lens. Yes, VR is worth the money.

 

Consider the attached shot. It was done with a 400mm lens with VR on at 1/400 and I was about 10 feet away. And this is a full D200 frame image. A 300mm is only going to produce that much smaller of a bird image, as you've experienced. If you really want to get into this, there is no getting around having a rocket launcher for a lens to capture birds.<div></div>

I've been using the 70-300mm VR for birds, but neither it nor its non-VR counterpart are the "Best Telephoto for Birds." Anyone you ask will want a longer focal length and a larger aperture. The 70-300 VR is wonderful for hand-held shooting, when you're moving to keep up with these tiny subjects. I just got the attached photo ten minutes ago (California time.) Please note that it is a 100% crop of the Basic jpeg. I haven't even looked at the raw yet. The background is my neighbor's house.

here is a sampler I have with my D2H/Tokina 28-80mm AT-X pro @ 2.8

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_0050-7.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

300mm is the absolute minimum for birds. But the problem with the 70-300 VR is that it

doesn't take teleconverters. The suggestion of a 300 2.8 is a good one in that it takes

teleconverters. But the price is high and may be out of your range. In that case you should

take a hard look at a 300 f4, either the new AFS or a used ED version. I bought an ED version

from Adorama for a little over $400 USD. Both lenses work well with TCs, and for example a

1.4 TC would give you a 420mm and Nikon's 1.7 would give you 520mm without too much

image degredation.

 

Plus a 300 f/4 will beat the pants off of the 70-300 VR in terms of sharpness.

-- "a 300 f/4 will beat the pants off of the 70-300 VR in terms of sharpness"

 

Well.. there's some truth to it. On a tripod, with a static subject, I guess that argument might be close to reality. I wouldn't say the 300/4 beats the pants of the 70-300 VR, but for prints > 14x11" you could see a difference.

 

BUT-- that is assuming you are pretty stable, and with the case of the older 300, that your AF has indeed locked properly. The VR zoom is SURE to deliver better in both departments. Oh yes, and it does takes a teleconverter (a 3rd party), claiming otherwise is absolute nonsense.

As others have suggested, bird photography generally requires very long focal lengths -- you

can do it with short lenses (300-400 mm is 'short' for birds) but opportunities go up with

longer lenses. Of course, so do costs and the need for heavy, awkward, expensive support.

FWIW, for my own <A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/">bird photography</a>

I'm generally at 700mm or 1000mm (a 500 mm lens + 1.4X or 2X converters).<P>

 

To answer one of your questions, yes, I think stabilization is extremely valuable in long

telephotos, even if you use them on a tripod most of the time.

I think Marcus' suggestion of a 300mm f/4 is a good one, but I think his numbers are a little off. 300mm x 1.4 TC = 420mm. 420mm x Nikon's 1.5 crop factor = 630mm.

I may be stating the blindingly obvious here, but with the 70-300mm VR (which is not a DX lens), you'll actually be shooting the equivalent of a 105-450mm lens on the D70. The 400mm lenses which are being recommended would - of course - give you a 600mm reach !

Petrana wrote about the 70-300 VR:

 

"Oh yes, and it does takes a teleconverter (a 3rd party), claiming otherwise is absolute

nonsense."

 

Well taking a TC and working well with a TC are two different things. Slapping a Tamrom

TC on a telephoto zoom may get you the image, but will the image be any good? Depends

on what you consider good.

 

Maybe you should read Bob Atkins article here on photo.net

 

 

p.s. as far as the focal length with a TC, I purposely didn't include the DSLR crop factor.

I have tried bird photography in film with a 300mm f4 and Nikkor 1.4 TC. My results where no where near what I wanted. Of course this changes in digital but my min. would be a 400 and I would stay away for TC's if at all possible. I don't care for a TC on my 180 f2.8 AF either. IMHO its better in the long run to get the best lens for the application. Of course reality can ruin your day. I am waiting for an old Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF manual focus to use on my D200. Hopefully I can shot wide open with excellent results but this will be for mammals not birds. I would rather have a 80-400 than use a TC on a 70-300 f5.6 but still for me a prime is better.

-- "but will the image be any good? Depends on what you consider good"

 

Mr. Atkins doesn't professionally shoot with the 70-300VR, but I do. From what I gather, he's also not the authority on Nikon either.

 

The 70-300VR teams rather well my the Kenko Pro 1.4x DG. Image quality is not stellar, but at f/8 it is very reasonable. It will not compete with a 300mm prime + TC, but you can certainly have excellent 14x11" prints made with what it can deliver. It is however, much easier to hand hold than either prime lens due to the VR and it's lighter weight.

<p>Bob Atkins may not shoot Nikon, but he knows that most 70-300 (100-300) lenses

follow a pattern: they are very good (even excellent) from 70-200, and performance drops

off

at 300mm. Apparently the 70-300 VR is no exception:</p>

 

<p><a href=http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70300_4556vr/

index.htm>Photozone's 70-300 VR Review</a></p>

 

<p>As far as handolding a telephoto zoom, unless shooting birds in flight, I would want

to use such a lens on a good tripod. YMMV. </p><div></div>

Markus, I'm no pixel peeper, and I do not sell MTF charts. I know what the 70-300 is capable and incapable of. This shot below represents a good sample of what this lens can do.<div></div>

The 300/4 and a Nikon TC will run you $700-$1000 or so more than the 70-300 vr and 3rd party tc.

 

I like my 70-300 vr. But having seen the results others get ( T. Hogan on his site) and others on FM, etc., and friends, I'm under no illusions that if you spend more, you can get more!

 

At 300mm, a tc moves the 300/4 to 5.6. The vr needs to be at f8 and then you loose another stop. Now you are getting into shutter speed ranges where vr won't do what you need - only shutter speed stops subject motion.

<p>Petrana, </p>

<p>I don't doubt that the 70-300 VR is a good lens. The problem is that, IQ aside, it's

too slow to start putting TCs on it. 300mm (420mm FOV) at f8 is not conducive to getting

fast shutter speeds, except in bright sunshine. And quite honestly, as the subject of this

post is "Best Telephoto for Birds", I'm suprised that there is so much talk about the

70-300 VR. If you just want to experiment with bird photography and want a good

telephoto zoom that won't break the bank for other subjects, the 70-300 VR might be

worth considering. </p>

 

<p>The AFS 300 f4 which B&H sells for $949 (grey) is one of the better deals in the Nikon

line-up. If that's not in your budget, the older AF 300 f/4 ED can be purchased for

approx.

$400. You'll get all of the IQ of the AFS lens, with slower AF. For songbirds that is not a

problem. For birds in flight, it may or may not be a problem. Either way you'll get

outstanding IQ, beautiful bokeh, etc. </p>

 

<p>One of the best bird photographers in the world talks about the Canon 300 f4 IS L as

a

vital piece of gear in his photography. This bird photography FAQ applies to

Nikon as well. Incidentally, I just read on BirdsAsArt website that Arthur Morris has

switched to Nikon as they gave him a full supply of gear including the excellent AFS

200-400 f4.</p>

 

<p><a href=http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_3is.html>From BirdsAsArt FAQ re: 300 f4 L

IS</a> A good read for anyone interested in photographing birds. </p>

Markus, there is no doubt that the 300/4 AFS is sharper with or without a TC; the 300/4 is equal or even better optically. However, the 70-300VR represents a major leap forward for Nikon, serving as Nikon's answer to Canon's highly acclaimed 70-200/4L and the newer 70-200/4L IS. It's no perfect tool, but for $600 including the TC, it's a substantial bargain.

 

If you have the justification, then a 300/2.8 VR will be an even better tool for the job. Team it with the 1.7x TC, and you are probably getting the best tool Nikon can offer for the job, VR and all. However, I do not believe that is what Alison had in mind when she had posted her question.

Best zoom for birds? Obviously the Nikkor 200-400/4. Why do people say "best" in the subject and then ask about consumer lenses and cameras in their posts?

I have been shooting wild birds since 1979 i use a nikon afs 300mm f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter on a tripod (no vr) and the nikon 80-400 VR with a SB 800 flash on a D2X handheld (and the D2X high speed crop mode), these to combos are the best Ive used so far (there are beter, but i cant aford beter)

Sorry, but if someone's true interest is BIRD photography, then 300mm. maximum focal length is going to lead mainly to chronic frustration. Sure you can get a few good photos with a 70-300mm. zoom (and I take it Alison has done so), and Juanjo shows that with some large, perched birds that have become accustomed to human presence you can get a good photo with even 80mm., but the truth is that birds generally are wary and most of them are small. You NEED to have longer focal length(s) available.

 

If one is really wed to 300mm. the 300mm. f4 (any version, really) is a good choice. I have used a 300mm.f4D combined with a Kenko Teleplus Pro 1.4X and the results are EXCELLENT. However, I also have a 500mm. f4P available to me, and when combined with teleconverters this can get me out to 1000mm. and beyond. For my usual bird photography I use the 500mm. plus a 1.4x teleconverter. That's 700mm. on a digital SLR, which may seem like an awful lot of focal length. But believe me, it's NOT overkill, and I think most bird photographers would agree with me.

 

As for Alison's situation, I think that she either should go the 300mm. f4 plus teleconverter route (MUCH better than trying to use a TC with a 70-300mm. zoom, ugh), or she should move up to an 80-400mm. VR zoom.

Douglass, there is no need to go overboard. The 500/4 is a wonderful lens... but 700mm? Perhaps because I'm female I cannot understand this...

<p>Douglas is absolutely right. The premier lens for bird photography is a 600 f4. I know it

is extremely expensive, but that is what the top pros use to get all those wonderful images of

birds. Particularly small bird that are not tame. Many recommend at least a 500 f4, but 600

f/4 with and without TCs is what you need.</p>

 

<p>Don't believe me, you can look here at the answer <a href=http://www.birdsasart.com/

faq_focallen.html> (Art Morris Bird Photography FAQ)</a> to this same question. </p>

Markus and Douglas are correct, in the sense that 500 or 600 mm lenses are routine

equipment for professional or serious amateur bird photographers. For the most part,

birds are (a) small and (b) shy, and you need all the focal length you can get -- and very

often, much more than you've got, no matter how much that is.<P>

 

Besides the reach, 'big glass' teles offer an extremely shallow dept of field that can nicely

isolate the subject, even from a very cluttered and distracting background. Often this is

extremely helpful in getting a clean image. A few examples -- all at 700mm or 1000

mm:<P>

 

<center>

fasciated antshrike:<BR>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/Panama/fasciatedantshrike6.jpg"><P>

 

olive-sided flycatcher:<BR>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds4/OSF2.jpg"><P>

 

least sandpiper:<BR>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds2/leastsandpiper04.jpg"><P>

 

black-bellied plover:<BR>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds2/BBplover14.jpg"><P>

 

Anna's hummingbird:<BR>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds4/Annasmale1.jpg"> <img src

="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds4/Annasmale5.jpg">

</center>

Petrana, this is not a macho or phallic thing :)). Taking photos of very small birds is hard, hard, hard.

 

Another article you (and anyone else interested) might read is this one by longtime Nikon user Moose Peterson:

 

http://www.vividlight.com/Articles/704.htm

 

He favors 800mm. as an ideal focal length for bird photography. He once used an 800mm lens, but now he uses a 600mm. plus 1.4x (or 1.7x) teleconverter. That's a lot of lens, but he argues that this is necessary to consistently get adequate images of small birds.

 

Sure you can sometimes obtain good images of fairly large songbirds like Robins with a 300mm., and if you have excellent stalking technique you can get some "see?" photos of smaller birds this way. I know some fine nature photographers who, through patience and stealth, have done very well using only a 300mm, sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter. But if one can possibly afford to go longer, it sure helps to do so. It's often said that no bird photographer ever laments that his or her lens is "too short."