Best used lens for birds?

[derek_thornton]

I can get these for between $1,400-$1,800;

 

400 F2.8 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (52 DROP-IN)WITH CASE 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS

TELEPHOTO LENS

 

 

500 F4 P ED INTERNAL FOCUS (39) WITH FILTER WITH HOOD, CAPS, CASE, 35MM SLR

MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS

 

 

600 F5.6 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (39) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS SUPER

TELEPHOTO LENS

 

All of these lenses are considered BGN or "Bargain" 70-79% of original

condition. Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings and a goodly

amount of brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks that should not

affect picture quality.

 

I do own a set of Kenko TC's. Are these good deals and will that 400mm produce

sharp images with TC's?

[don_cooper]

I'd go with (in descending order) 600, 500, 400. If your primary subject is birds you can never have too much lens. Keep in mind you'll need a sturdy tripod and preferably a gimbal head (i.e. Wimberly or equal) which will set you back another $800+ for any quality setup.

[derek_thornton]

Don, is that a good deal in that condition? I think that was $1,700.

[hayward]

I don't know your background or inclination towards manual focus, but my own attempts at using manual focus with birds at a distance -- especially in flight -- has produced poor results. I'm occassionally tempted to pick up a 600mm AIS, but I think AF is a must.

[derek_thornton]

I have no doubt thought about that. Personally, I have not seen many photos of birds in flight that I like. Even when tack sharp a bird against a blue, or washed out sky just does not appeal to me. Also, there is no way I would pay over 2 grand for a lens, unless I won the lotery.

[alex_lofquist]

The lightest combination here is option #2: the excellent 500 f/4P. If you need a little more reach, add a TC14 B, or an TC14 E (modified by filing down one of the cams). Manual focussing isn't really too difficult if you observe the Focus Verification LEDs. I hope you have a good, and light tripod along with an appropriate head. I use that lens on a Gitzo 1228 CF tripod, Kirk BH-1, and a Wimberley Sidekick. This is light enough for me to carry several miles (and I'm 79 yrs old).

[slopoki]

The 500/4 would be my choice out of the three. I use the 600/4 AF-I in auto/manual mode with good results. With birds your always wishing for just a few more mm's.

Rick

Bird Gallery: http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/gallery/2743415#145818456<div></div>

[derek_thornton]

I was hoping someone could tell me if it is a good buy. I dont want to spend $1,800 on a pile of metel and glass. What I want is quality shots and if I cant get them I want it to be my fault. I do not mind MF or upgrading the tripod. I will be using on a D200.

[franklin_polk]

All of the lenses you mentioned will give you excellent shots, given proper technique. I'd frankly go with the 600/5.6 as it is the longest lens in your price range, which is very important for birds, In addition, it is the lightest option given: 1/2 pound lighter than the 500/4, and almost half the weight of the 400/2.8. The 600/5.6 is at the low end of the price range for that lens, the 500/4 would be a fairly good deal for that price, and the 400/2.8 is fairly close to average prices, if not a little on the cheap end. As a suggestion, to save money, you can go with the Bogen 3421 head, which is more than enough for the 600/5.6, and $40 cheaper than even the Wimberly Sidekick.

[douglas_greenberg]

I'd get the 500 f4, if it's in good enough condition that there are no performance problems. The optics are a newer design than the 600 f5.6., for one thing. The 600mm. is a good lens, but it does exhibit some CA under bright lighting conditions when used on a digital SLR body.

 

The 500 is more usable with TC's, as well. With a 1.4x TC you have a very practical and sharp 700mm. f5.6, and at 1000mm. it's still only f8. The 600 f.5.6 is harder to use with TC's.

 

You haven't said what camera body you are using. The 500 f4. is a "P" lens that includes a maxtrix metering chip, rendering the lens more usable on more different camera bodies.

 

Of course one would like to have AF, but the premium one (still) pays for AF versions of these long lenses is prohibitive for many people. Remember, photographers did very well focusing manually for decades. Particularly if a lens is fast, manually focusing is quite "do-able" for bird photography.

[lee hamiel]

I previously owned the 400 2.8 & although it's heavy it's a great lens especially wide open. Given that you're shooting with a D200 it's my first choice along with the TC-14B which will give you a range of 600 to 840 which is a nice range.

 

I had this lens as well as a D200 but not at the same time - wish I did though as I'm certain it would be a great combination.

 

Franklin has mentioned a great head for the long lenses as well with the Bogen 3421 head which I used with the 400 2.8 lens.

 

Another option for a head would be the Arca-Swiss B2 head which I used with a 300 2.8 AF-I and it handled very nicely.

 

A lot has to do with the proximity of shooting - as an example I have an area nearby that a 180mm lens is ideal as the birds are quite close - other places like the Venice Rookery one needs a longer lens.

 

 

Good Luck

[derek_thornton]

Lee, that is the way I am leaning so far. I just feel like the three extra stops of light beats out the extra 200mm. The 500mm is a close second. So far.

 

Man, I thought it was tough trying to choose a macro. What really bothers me is buying used. We all know that the majority of these big lenses were used by pros who are more careless with their equipment.