Bird Photography with a 200mm-Waste of Time or No?

I want to get into bird photography, but do have the money(not just

don't want to spend, do not have) for a fast 300mm+ lens. For my

Canon FD system, I can afford either a f.28 200mm, or a f5.6 300m.

With this in mind, is it even worth it to buy one of these lenses and

try bird photography? Will I be able to get close enough to the

birds to get good enough pictures, or is it a futile exercise?

Well................stick to LARGE birds!

I used a 200mm a lot for sports journalism, usually American football. When I moved

out to a 400mm, it really kicked 200mm butt! I have used 200mm on larger birds and

in areas around feeding stations where human activity and action are common. If you

get patient at stalking and plan the shots, then a 200mm can work for some shots.

Add a 1.4x or 2x multiplier and you have a "new" toy! It's a great way to start and see

if you like the challenges. You can always save for bigger glass AND a tripod.

Yes, it's a waste of time. You need much longer lenses.

completely doable...however ,you will need a very necessary accessory with your 200mm lens .It is known as a portable blind (sometimes called a hide)that you crawl into and wait. These can be set up near nests or feeding areas.If you know the bird/birds are watching the blind...take one other person with you into the structure and let him/her leave right away .The bird will think all is clear and come back to the nest or feeding area (they can only count to one). However, members of the corvidae family (jays,crows,ravens) can count to two...take three people into the blind and get two to leave. More of this info is in any good nature photography book. good luck

Get a sigma 400/5.6 HSM lens. A great buy around 500 dollars. You will run out of subject soon with a 200mm. Good luck

For all around bird photography No. Shooting from a blind or a

floating blind a 200 is perfectly fine. Some of my best waterfowl

pictures were taken with a 200 from distaces of 5 to 8 feet. Set up a

bird feeder on a window ledge at home. Block off the window with some

caed board. Wire some branches to the feeder and have at it. A 200 can

be a great lens. Don�t let gear stop your photography. Yes its true

you probably won�t be getting flight shots at Bosque or heron picture

across the pond in Florida. But later on when you are able to afford

it you will.

Good luck and God�s light to you

 

Ch

David,

 

<p>It is certainly not a waste of time. While you will not be able to make intimate portraits of the birds, you can still make a wide variety of shots that are interesting and artful. Look at Art Morris� <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0817433031/ref=nosim/seantnoonanphoto">The Art of Bird Photography</a> and learn how he started out with a 300mm 5.6. Look at the technical details of his shots and notice how many are made with a 300mm or shorter. Does anyone who thinks a short-ish lens is useless also think Art�s work sucks? Please.

 

<p>What a 200mm will certainly force you to do is get very good at observing bird behavior and therefore learning how to stalk (or wait for) your subject properly. I love it when I'm out in the field and someone sidles up within inches of a bird with their big new lens and tricked out pod and flushes their subject completely out of the area never to return and they say, �there goes a skittish bird.� not realizing they blew the shot. At the end of the day, the person who can read a bird�s behavior and surroundings will come home with far more keepers than someone who relies on their lens� reach to get the job done. Get good at stalking, make sure you like shooting birds, then get the big glass if your Visa can handle it.

 

<p>Sean

<br><a href="http://www.stnphotography.com">www.stnphotography.com</a>

Certainly some birds can't be shot with short glass but if you work hard shots like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1499339"><B>this</b></a> can be taken with a 70-210 f4-f5.6 zoom.

My first attempt to photograph birds was indeed with a 200mm lens. That was before the AF era. I got very frustrated in no time and bought a long lens shortly.

David if you are interested I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO that will fit your Canon FD mount camera (after all it was being used on ours) My wife and I have both used this lens for bird photography and while it is not the best in the world it has produced some very nice photos. We have both moved up to Canon FD lenses, Me with a 500mm f4.5L S.S,C, and her with the 400mm f4.5 nFD I replaced the Sigma with. So this one was headed to ebay. If you are interested email me direct at awahlster@aol.com and I'll send you details and photos of it. It will cost less then a 200mm f2.8 will.

jim is right on...with some time you can get great shots with any lense..but..it ain't easy and you need to really get to know the birds mono on mono....so...sell the car....get a second job..give up smokes and beer....get the biggest fastest glass you can swing...in boating we call it 2 foot itis. IMHO your allways going to want more so start as big as you can.

To Jim Vanson

 

Your photograph of the Mandarin Duck is stunning. Considering the equipment you used, I think it is a good example of talent and drive being more important than equipment limitations. Nice work.

David,

 

I would consider 300mm to be worthwhile for beginning bird photography (200mm is really marginal). It's where a lot of people start out. As mentioned, if you can find some bird feeder opportunities, ponds with ducks, etc. you'll be able to take some good photos. I have been photographing birds in my backyard with a 300mm lately because sometimes I'd rather have the lighter gear. Also, if there is a zoo with an aviary nearby, that can be a place to develop some skill.

 

Enjoy and good luck!

Greg

A while back, I bought a cheap 500mm f/8 with 2x teleconvertor. Even with that combination, it is usually not possible to fill the frame with small birds. (My idea of bird photography is to walk around in the woods and shoot whatever I see). However, a part of the problem there is minimum focusing distance, which is about 30-35' for that lens.

 

With 200mm, you can either get closer, photograph big birds, include more surroundings, etc., but don't expect to fill the frame with a chickadee at the top of a tree.

I went out and did some experiments with my 100-200 zoom today, to see how close I would have to get certain test objects in order to fill the frame with them. I usually wound up right on top of them. Now, I think I would most certainly need something longer for most shots I want to take. I have already, however, taken one bird shot using my 100-200 lens, which I have attached here. Big, tame bird, but I'm proud of it, none the less! So, right now I'm either thinking the 200mm f2.8 with 2x converter, 300mm f5.6, or the Sigma 400mm f5.6.<div></div>

IMHO a 200mm can be useful but to rely on it as your longest lens will lead to a lot of frustration until you have enough experience getting close to the birds w/o alarming them. <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html" target="_blank">Here</A> are several photos made with lenses from 250mm to 300mm.

<I>...a part of the problem there is minimum focusing distance, which is about 30-35' for that lens.</I><P>

Try using a short extension tube to improve the minimum focusing distance. Of course, you will lose infinity but adding a short tube can do wonders up close and you won't lose much light with such a long lens.

Very nice photos, Douglas! I'm inspired. Maybe I can get away with the 300mm f5.6, after all. Which would be great, since its quite cheap.

A lot depends on what is meant by 'bird photography' and the range of intended subjects. If you live in Florida and can approach herons which are used to a human presence, then a smaller lens may well do the job. Some pier loving pelicans can be photographed with a wide angle. :)

 

For increasingly smaller bird subjects which may not be so willing and stationary, the use of increasingly larger lenses and associated teleconverters comes into play... plus extension tubes, as needed.

The answers above prove that you CAN get good bird photos with a 200mm. if you work very hard at it and spend lots of time in a blind, etc., but the truth is that if you really want to do bird photography you will need at LEAST a 400mm. lens. If I were in your position I'd look for a good used Sigma APO or Tokina SD ATX 400 f5.6 lens (they are sold via ebay quite frequently). These are decent starters' lenses for bird photography, but you will find that most of the time even these won't get you as close to your birds as you want to get.

 

I do know some very good bird photographers who consistently get excellent results using 300mm. lenses, but these guys will spend an entire day in one place silently waiting for birds to approach close enough to be photographed.

I have seen some really good bird images shot with super wide-angle lenses too. You certainly CAN occasionally get some excellent bird images with a 200mm lens. But if you want to specialize on bird photography, even from a blind, having long lenses is pretty much a must. A 300mm/f4 or 400mm/f5.6 is not that expensive. That would be a good lens to start with.

I think it is 'doable' in a regular basis with a 300mm.

One house we lived in had a bird feeder on the railing on the deck. I set my camera up next to the feeder with a 50mm lens, then used my 30' air-bulb thingy to fire the camera. That actually worked okay! (had to go back out to wind the film, unfortunately).

You can do some very artistic stuff with a 300, but you will have to learn to compose with a lot of habitat. And if you want to shoot birds everday, you'll get frustrated and want more reach at some point. I am one of a few folks who prefer birds small in the frame *if* the habitat is good. I'd not buy the 200 for everyday bird photography.