Birding: Nikon 80-400VR vs E-520+70-300 vs 450D+400mm

[User_1172872]

<p>You might be interested in the following review of the Olympus:<br>

<a href="http://wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-070-300.html">http://wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-070-300.html</a><br>

I have no connection to the author.</p>

[munim]

<p>I posted the question at 1 am before I went to sleep and voila! <br /> 25 responses by 8 am.. thanks all.<br /> What I can conclude so far:</p>

<ul>

<li>Skip the other brands. ;)</li>

<li>The 80-400vr can give excellent pictures. I was worried the pictures get soft at max zoom.</li>

<li>Some suggested the manual 500 f/4 but I don't think I can find it used in Malaysia. Plus no idea on the $$.</li>

<li>Don't eliminate the 300 mm + TC option yet</li>

<li>I need a good tripod & head for non VR lenses. Haven't researched enough into this subject.</li>

<li>Technique & patience not matter what lens used</li>

</ul>

 

[rarmstrong]

<p>Raden, I haven't found the 80-400 to be soft at all. All of my posted shots here were at 400mm. You can even use it, handheld for portraits...like yesterday:-)...</p><div></div>

[michaelyoung]

<p>I have the Olympus equipment you're mentioning. I love it for the things <strong>I </strong> do with it but please allow me simply to skip ahead and say it's unsuitable for bird photography.<br>

I'd also venture to say that any teleconverter, any brand, will make it possible to get some lucky shots but they'll be just that--lucky ones. I guess a good rule of thumb is that a teleconverter, any teleconverter, will double your opportunities but halve your success rate and, potentially, escalate your frustration level through the roof.<br>

Given that bird photography already has a very high "luck" quotient you'll have to be the one to decide what your tolerance level is.<br>

If you're blessed with an abundance of opportunities for bird photography in your immediate area--that's one thing. If you're anticipating travel and all that expense it's another altogether.</p>

<p> </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have wanted to do some bird photography for many years. I usually stroll through the woods and listen / look for birds. I finally purchased a used Nikkor 500mm f4 P and have a solid tripod and good ballhead. Most of the birds I see are Warblers, finches and wrens. Small and quick. I suggest you find a place that has the birds you want to get images of and study where and when they are there. If you can make a blind and have patience then a shorter lens will work. IMHO Shun nailed it. I am very happy with some of my results and am using FX. I suggest you budget enough to get a good tripod and head. If you are going to carry it far lighter is better, at least for me. I usually carry all this about 2 miles Sat. and or Sundays.</p>

[peter_gilbert3]

<p>Jacob is right - the C-AF on Olympus cameras is no match for any bird in flight. <br>

Peter</p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Eric... Uhmm! What is so funny about that? <br>

It is true! C'mon! I see what other people can do and I KNOW what I can do. I've been shooting since 1982 but I was more like a snap-shooter. Since 2006 with a DSLR I became more technical and artistically inspired so I'm trying to learn more. I guess I'm just older and not as crazy so photography suits me! :)</p>

<p>Robert.... Same with you! :)<br>

" yes many people think it, not many say it :-), actually the right phrasing is <br /><br />"I AM IMPATIENT AND WANT MOST BENEFIT WITH LEAST EFFORT" "<br>

It is true that I am not always patient but I am talking about the ability to coordinate your eyes, hands in fractions of seconds to be able to locate a bird, focus the lens and shoot. 90% of the time you need more than 1 shot to get something a bit decent. It is not impossible. If I do it long enough in a few years I'll be able to do it better but maybe by then my eyes won't be as good and then I'll have another problem to deal with.<br>

Basically if you know what you are doing, you don't even need a 300 mm lens. here is an example, PLEASE take a look. It was shot with a 150 mm Sigma lens and this guy has many pictures like it:<br>

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23522<br>

He uses like 5 flash heads, IR control to shoot the camera, well, he doesn't even have to be there.<br>

The truth is, and that is what i really meant, for a person like MYSELF, and I really mean MYSELF, it is easy to shoot with an AFS 300 + TC and CROP a lot than using a 500 mm lens manually! Maybe I am the only one but maybe there a few others like me!</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>OK - I have this set up...</p>

<ul>

<li>300mm f/4 with TC 1.4 (420mm x 1.5 = 630mm FF equivalent)</li>

</ul>

<p>It's great. Works well for BIFs & other stuff like larger birds or birds close.<br>

I have a friend who shoots with</p>

<ul>

<li>70-300 VR for now, and possibly upgrade to an AFS version later, or never.</li>

</ul>

<p>With the D300 & gets excellent shots of BIFs. He's really excellent at it.<br>

I also like Shun's idea of the 500mm P - but it is a MF lens. But for larger birds it will do well for you.<br>

I would stay away from the 80-400VR as it's slow to focus .....<br>

Good luck once you start Birding you'll get hooked & you'll never have enough reach. ;-)</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

[glenjo]

<p>70-300 VR for now, and possibly upgrade to an AFS version later, or never.</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR is AF-S so no worries about upgrading. The 70-300 VR AF-S is small and it's possible to handhold shots. I would use a tripod for all the rest.</p>

<p>Wow, some fantastic bird shots! I don't have any as nice as those. Here's a heron at 200mm with the 18-200 and heavily cropped.</p><div></div>

[silverfox]

<p>Avoid the E-520 i was thinking of a similar set up myself (2x crop factor) but i also have a D200. I was shocked at the image quality difference, ISO was poor. It made me respect my nikon more. IMHO Im not saying the E-520 is a bad camera im just saying that for bird photography this camera will not not give you the quality of detail you may want for bird images.<br>

Im just trying to get into bird photography myself and so far im finding it to be an expensive challenging subject. Patience, good light, sturdy tripod, cable release 500mm minimum lens, a hide and a lot of luck seem to be important.<br>

Have you looked Sigma lenses for your D90? Have a look at the 50-500mm f/4 which is in your budget and maybe a good start. Or if you could stretch that bit further, the sigma 300mm f/2.8 or 120-300 f2.8, both would pair well with either a 1.4 or 2.0x tc.<br>

Another thing i have come to realise is that you will struggle to fill the frame with small birds let alone catch them. So try to include the natural surrounding of the birds also which often makes a more interesting picture.<br>

One thing i have learnt is that make sure you buy the one you really want, dont just settle for something that might be ok. Save up and get the one you want.<br>

This is one of the more rewarding types of photography as it is a diffclut subject, it is very addictive, ive found myself hiding in holly trees, crawling through heather and coming home without a single shot, frustrating.<br>

Ive included a shot of a red grouse i took with a 50-500mm sigma on a d200 body. I spent 5 hours creeping up on these birds on a very windy day. They see you alot sooner than you see them.</p><div></div>

[munim]

<p>I like this part:<br>

"a diffclut subject, it is very addictive, ive found myself hiding in holly trees, crawling through heather and coming home without a single shot, frustrating." ... "spent 5 hours creeping up on these birds"<br>

A handful of my work colleagues are into fishing and can't understand what's so great about photography. I always get invited to tag along on their fishing trips (on hired boats) but have never taken the bait so far. On sea trips, there's nothing to see and shoot. I can shoot the fish they land, but that's not interesting. Maybe I'll take the D90 with whatever lens I'm getting on their next river fishing trip.</p>

<p>

<p >By</p>

<ul >

<li >70-300 VR for now, and possibly upgrade to an AFS version later, or never.</li>

</ul>

<p >I meant upgrade to 80-400 VR replacement with AFS if it ever comes out.</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"On sea trips, there's nothing to see and shoot"</em> ... Sure there is! You colleagues, especially when the have 'fish on'!</p>

[rakesh dhareshwar]

<p>With 2000$ , you should be able to find a used Sigma 500 f4.5 AFS. Brilliant for birding . check Jemini Joseph pics with that one .</p>

[rakesh dhareshwar]

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wildbirdimages.com/images/sigma500/DSC_395_DoveVerticalcrop.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.wildbirdimages.com/images/sigma500/DSC_395_DoveVerticalcrop.jpg</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wildbirdimages.com/images/sigma500/cardinalfemale.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.wildbirdimages.com/images/sigma500/cardinalfemale.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00JIda">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00JIda</a></p>

 

[glautermcoelho]

<p>Hi,<br>

The 80-400 VR seems to be very good as you can read from Ken Rockwell's review.<br>

I own a 70-300 VR. It's cheap and funny.<br>

Here's a sample.<img src="http://www.paranasistemas.com.br/owl.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Regards.</p>

<p> </p>

[munim]

<p>Following Rakesh's recommendation, I've checked out the prices for Sigma just for kicks. Here's where I would buy new (USD 4000)<br>

http://yamiya.com.my/store/product.php?productid=18332&cat=0&page=1<br>

Rather hard to find used teles here. </p>

[rayyeager]

<p>Had the Nikon 80-400mm for one day. I returned it the next day for the Nikon 300mm F4. Great results with the 1.4 extender. Coming over from Canon, I expected the 80-400 to be compatible with the Canon 100-400mm. Definitely not the case. For me, the focus speed on the 80-400mm was just unexceptable. Although, others have been happy with it ... Ray.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>I own the 70-300 VR Nikon..it is a very good lens for the money and just requires that you move just a bit closer..or crop your photos..which should not be a problem with the d90 at 12 mp's. I can't imagine having to manually focus on a moving object adjust a tripod to follow that bird and get this all in focus..I agree with Rene..why make it that hard. Highly recommend getting AF and start out with slow movers.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>Example of picture with 70-300vr lens ..cropped but still acceptable.Shot from a kayak..so not as clear as it might have been on tripod.</p><div></div>