Poor's man choice....

[joemikel1]

<p>Ok, I have fallen in love with birding in the last two months. I own a d300 and a nikkor 80-400 VR, but as everybody, I need a 800mm or more ;-)<br>

Ok, I can't afford one of those big tele, so to get closer I have decided to buy<br>

a) A camouflage net (maybe a hide soon)<br>

b) A kenko 300 dg 1.4<br>

I know about the limitations that the teleconverter will carry (softness, lack of AF in lots of situations.....) and that I'll have to learn a lot about the behavior of avians.... but I would like to hear practical advices on the use of both devices to improve my shots....<br>

Thanks in advance !</p>

[tonybynum]

a) blind = great idea

b) kenko and 80-400 vr, not much more than a waste if time and money -- save the money.

 

dont spend a lot of time on getting in stellar positions to make great images but miss them cause your gear is not up to the task . . .

 

Practice for now with JUST the 80-400 and the blind, then save up for a 500 f4 P and a good set of legs and head. . .

[rnt]

<p>Many birders use a spotting scope coupled to a camera, usually a light point&shoot. This gives you an instant extreme telephoto in the 1000 to ?000mm range. You'll need a tripod :-)</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>You probably know already, but just in case . . . How large do you print? I have an old manual focus tele. I find that with a D300 I can take a vertical crop from a horizontal or a horizontal from a vertical and get a very nice print.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< Many birders use a spotting scope coupled to a camera>></p>

<p>Digiscoping? Nikon actually has instructions on how to do it -- btw the D300 is one of the camera featured in these illustrastons:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dsystem/index.htm">http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/dsystem/index.htm</a></p>

<p>I wonder if it is practical -- probably not so much in the field where birds are moving around.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Jose, I'm not a Nikon user (Pentax actually) but just about the cheapest way to get an 800mm lens is with a mirror lens. Most likely the lens is f11 (yes, f11), they don't have great contrast and produce highlights that are doughnut shapped. But the lenses can be cheap (think less than $150). I can't say I'd recommend the combo for anything other than general bird identification.</p>

<p>In addition to hides you can also use a variety of remote systems that will take bird photos directly (user controlled or subject controlled-the later referred to as spot focusing). In this case it is hit and miss but you can get outstanding photos with a little luck.</p>

[rnt]

<p>Mary, you wouldn't want to use it for tracking flying birds, but most of the motion problems are going to be on the camera end- that's why a good tripod and a calm day are desirable. A speckled radish grouse moving around downrange doesn't necessarily need a fast shutter speed...</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Jose, that will get you the reach you want but you will hate the quality. Skip the t/c, make the best you can with the 80-400VR, and crop as necessary. Your photos will be much better.</p>

 

[joemikel1]

<p>Thanks a lot. I'll have to save for a good lens.....</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have a D300, I have an 80-400mm VR, and I have a Kenko 1.4x APO. Image quality from the combo is not usable IMO.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[stp]

<p>I have seen a number of outstanding bird shots on this site that had been taken with 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm lenses (sometimes even 200mm). The notion that you need 800mm for birds is, well, for the birds. Put any of these on a camera with less than "full frame" and you have a great birding lens. In the Canon line, the 400mm f5.6 is well known. I recently bought this lens (used), and I've take an incredibly detailed photo of a heron with it. I think with your present equipment you're already in the ballpark. Go to places where the birds are used to people; you can get quite close without the need for camouflage.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< Mary, you wouldn't want to use it for tracking flying birds,>></p>

<p>Robert, I totally agree. It's challenging enough to catch birds in flight even with fast-focussing lenses. I was just providing info about digiscoping -- since you brought it up.</p>

<p>For bird photography, naturally more useful are those lenses that can catch the action quickly. The 80-400mm is slow and thus not the ideal choice, but can probably work well occasionally under some situation with some luck. The TC is not advisable.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>I've gotten decent photos with a 300 f/4 and Tamron 2x. Looking at picking up a Kenko 1.4 soon because at times the 900 mm is just a bit too much with the slow f/8 (even a small bit of wind blurs my shot when on my gitzo). Autofocus can also be really bad at times, but it is better than what I expected with a 2x tele.<br /> <br /> I have a few keepers, but expect to throw a lot of images away.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8844718-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="455" /> <strong><br /> D200, Nikkor 300 f/4 ED IF, Tamron SPF 2x Teleconverter (effective 900mm)<br /> </strong></p>

[keith reeder]

<p>That's <em>very soft indeed</em> , Keith - you'd probably be better off losing the 2x and cropping.</p>

[ujwal]

<p>The hide + and patience + some cropping should give you great shots mate.<br>

I got about 10 really good photos of eagles and kingfishers last time i went to Chitawan National Park in Nepal. I had 40D and Canon 70-200mm F4L IS and my hands and feet (to crawl)<br>

How i wished ...if i only had a 100-400mm lens! I would probably have at least 50 keepers.<br>

All the best.</p>

[slopoki]

<p>A good starting point would be a used 400/5.6 EDIF with a kenko teleplus pro 300 14x. That will give you a f8/840 that is very good wide open. I'm down in So. Florida so lighting isn't a problem with this combo. I use it hand held as well.<br>

Getting good bird shots requires the long fast teles 500/4, 600/4 and TC's . This really opens up the limitations on using slower and shorter lenses. If birds is your passion you will most likely end up with a fast tele down the distant road.<br>

Regards<br>

My Gallery: <a href="http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/">http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/</a></p>

 

[doug herr]

<p>"but as everybody, I need a 800mm or more ;-)"</p>

<p>I'm glad you added the winkie at the end. Patience and field skills can substitute for a lot of mm of focal length.</p>

<p>"If birds is your passion you will most likely end up with a fast tele down the distant road."</p>

<p>I did and I sold the *%@! thing with no regrets. Too big, not portable, and the huge 'eye' of the front element freaked the birds out so that I had to use a TC virtually all the time. Besides the DOF at full aperture was unusable, I had to stop it down virtually all the time so I didn't see the point of torturing myself with all that weight in a lens that drove the birds away.</p>

<p>"a) A camouflage net (maybe a hide soon)"</p>

<p>Can be useful in the right circumstances. You can make an inexpensive hide from PVC pipe and cloth.</p>

<p>"The notion that you need 800mm for birds is, well, for the birds ... Go to places where the birds are used to people; you can get quite close without the need for camouflage."</p>

<p>I agree completely. Here are some sample of what can be done with a 280mm f/4 lens (the brand isn't important, it's the 280's field of view that matters): http://www.wildlightphoto.com/280a40.html</p>

<p>I take the 280mm lens everywhere.</p>

[katherinemichael]

<p>I have a Tamron 200-500mm for my D200 and haven't felt the need to go bigger than that. I start farther out and move in slowly and quietly. Sometimes I need to take a small crop out of the final image. I just dress in very neutral clothes and take my time. I really could not imagine hauling an 800mm lens around. TC's on zooms are never really great quality IME. I think the lens you have with the D300 gives you good reach. You just have to spend more time around birds observing them. Then you will develop ways of getting closer without scaring them away. The hide sounds like a good idea if you know that you will be in one place for a while. It is easier to get close on a trail that is popular. I scope those trails out on weekends and then come back during the week when there is less people. </p>

<p>On another note, I have a friend who has been a hunter for most of his life and he can get me super close to any kind of animal. It might be worth talking to someone like that and getting some tips. </p>

[peter_engel1]

<p>Move slow. if you think your moving slow, slow down some more. One trick go to likely area and sit down don't move for twenty min. Until you become part of the surroundings, then think paranoid then you can move on. Clothing wear earth colors no blue, red, white, greens.<br>

If you really want to get native get a gilly suit and face paint. I guarantee you can reach out and touch them.( : )<br>

What ever you are comfortable with. Remember slow mo and don't move directly at a bird. You don't want to be a threat.</p>