need help from some one into bird phography about lenses

ragaikaras · April 30, 2009

I’m using Nikon D 80 Digital with several lenses. My interest is in photographing birds.

Particularly birds in flight, for which I’m using Tamron 70-200 mm lens.

The results are always very small birds, especially when they are far and with poor

Details, sharpness and clarity.

Someone suggest buying “ Sigma 150-500 mm lens” which is within my budget.

The vendor said “ It will not be good for birds in flight, since its angle is very narrow”.

Will 70-300mm be better? Also Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 is with my budget, what do you

Recommend?

I’m now confused and need some advice in what kind of lens I should porches.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

SCL · April 30, 2009

My experience is that depending on the distance from the birds two things seem to help address your question. First, I rarely photograph birds with less than a 400mm lens...like you said they're too small, unless they're right outside your window. The bird photographer, Doug Herr, would probably disagree with me, as his stalking skills and closeup shots are incredible. Second, I acquired a Wimberley "Sidekick" which is a gimbel mount. It takes practice to use it, but my results are often much better with it than without. Overhead shots aren't my thing, and the sidekick would be pretty useless for that, but for takeoffs and landings it works great.

stemked · April 30, 2009

Digital has certainly made bird photography easier, but it is still pretty challanging. Hides certainly are one approach as are remote systems to capture birds at high traffic areas. But realistically the longer and the faster lens usually the more options you have in bird photography. That also usually means sizeable tripods, and Wimberly heads, etc. It can easily cost you in the several thousand dollars to get seriously into bird photography.

Personally I shoot with a 35 year old Takumar 500mm f4.5 (a $350 lens years ago). No autofocus so I don't ever try to catch flying birds. But it is a nice, but rare lens and I can get all sorts of settled birds with it. You can find cheap mirror lenses like 500mm f8, rather slow but can be used in good light. But these lenses are no match for expensive optics with ultra sonic motors.

For Hummingbirds shorter focal lengths work well.

peterblaise · May 1, 2009

.

Earlier: "... The vendor said “ It will not be good for birds in flight, since its angle is very narrow” ... "

</blockquote>

The vendor is not the one taking the photos, so why does their speculative opinion matter?

Magnification is all you are after.

300mm = 1.5 x 200mm, not so good.

400mm = 2 x 200mm, better.

500mm = 2.5 x 200mm, good.

20,000mm = 100 x 200mm, just kidding! (With this lens, you could stay home, in bed, and still get close up shots!)

Go for it.

Plus the zoom from 150mm to 500mm let's you quickly and easily spot and center flying birds in the frame at 150mm before zooming to 500mm to fill the frame. The vendor is apparently not experienced -- and experience is what you asked for.

Also, get a gimbal mount for the lens and your tripod-- great to help you track birds in flight (and a plus sale for the "I can't seem to make a sale" vendor):

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=gimbal+tripod+mount">http://www.google.com/search?q=gimbal+tripod+mount</a> </li>

</ul>

.

mrossi · May 1, 2009

I have the 150-500 Sigma and also a 100-400 Canon L (sorry, not a Nikon user). The field of view is not the issue with birds-in-flight, the lens speed is. I'm extremely impressed with the Sigma 150-500, but it can be a tad slow for small birds in flight. I'd say it makes up for it in with the reach versus cost value point.

The 100-400 by comparison is pretty good for birds in flight, but at the sacrifice of reach.

In my perfect world I'd like a 500mm f/4 prime, I'd miss some things given the fixed focal length, but it would be very nice for quality and speed. That said, I just couldn't drop $6000 on a lens at this time, so for me the 150-500 was a perfect compromise.

For birding in general I know some get by with a fast 300mm prime and 1.4 or 2x tele, but for me I couldn't imagine using anything less than 400mm, and preferably 500mm, unless you're sitting in a blind and the birds are meters away.

derrickdehaan · May 1, 2009

Here is what my experience has been....

I started with a Sigma 50-500. Although not a "stellar" lens, its ok but slow at f/6.3 which often lead me to high ISO and dropped shutter speeds. Bright sunny days or slow birds, not a problem. I always had the lens racked out to 500mm.....ALWAYS. So, I realized I needed a faster lens and knew I wanted to eliminate the cropping I was doing in post. So I went with a 600 f/4 IS. Now I know this is likely out of budget, but what I am saying is the longer the better for birds. In my opinion, the saleman you spoke to was talking out his rear. Try the Sigma and have fun with it. I use a Gimble head, but that Sigma isn't super heavy. The gimble does allow for easier tracking in flight shots however. Good luck with your purchase, and post your results!

Derrick

carl_becker2 · May 1, 2009

I have been doing some bird images. Small birds in the woods near my house. I am on my third lens, a used Nikkor 500mm f4 P manual focus lens. I use it with a TC-1.4e and a D700 on a good tripod and head. I think its best to get as close as possible and still I found I needed more focal length. As the focal length gets longer the field of view gets smaller making it harder to find the bird. Practice makes this easier. I suggest you look for a 500mm lens as fast as you can afford. I gave up AF for lens speed you may not be able to do so. I was looking at older Sigma AF 500mm f4.5 primes but wanted as sharp wide open as possible and to be able to use a TC and from the research I did the Nikkor was my choice.

joseph_smith3 · May 1, 2009

Ragai, you have identified one the classic problem, the need focal length for birds. (And there are some other things too you will soon learn about.)

I am posting an image of a common yellowthroat taken with my D 300, a Nikon 500mm AFS lens with a 1.4x tc. Focal length 700mm. With the mag factor of 1.5 for the sensor in the D 300, effective focal length of 1050 mm. And I was in a blind about 10-12 feet from the bird. There is no cropping involved in the JPEG. It is 100% of what the sensor recorded. That bird might have been 5 inches in length.

If you read the EXIF data in the image you will see that the ISO used to record the image was ISO 3200 and my shutter speed was 1/800 of a sec at f 7.1. The lighting was overcast and I needed a fast shutter speed to capture this fast moover. So you also need a camera body that allows for good capture under such lighting conditions. I personally prefer the softer lighting of overcast days over direct sunlight for most of my bird shots. And if you want to do flight shots you need a body with excellent AF capabilities like the D 300.

My first good bird lens was the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens. I strongly recommend it. It is manual focus but works well with any camera that has a good viewfinder. The lens is chipped or electronic so most Nikon bodies will meter with it. The D 200 and D 300 will. Its matched tc is the 14 B, a manual focus tc.

Joe Smith

Hector Javkin · May 1, 2009

Although <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00PaPz">this thread is asking about camera bodies </a> for bird photography, there is good information about lenses also, particularly in the answers by Mark Chappell, whose web site gallery you can <a href="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/photo_gallery/index.html">see here </a> . For me, Mark and <a href="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/">Douglas Herr </a> (who was mentioned above by Stephen, are the two of the photographers who have offered the most information about bird photography. If you look for their postings on photo.net, you'll get very good advice.

Whoever said that the Sigma 150-500mm was too narrow was giving you bad information. I don't know about the quality of that lens, but the focal lengths (and thus the fields of view) are wonderful for birds in flight -- the wide end can help you locate a bird in the sky, and the long end is pretty good for shooting it.

Although you generally want as much focal length as you can afford and carry, there is something to be said for lenses that can be hand-held and moved quickly to follow birds. I just shoot birds in flight because I enjoy it, and I have gotten a lot of enjoyment from a Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR lens, which is very easy to handlhold. I mostly shoot hummingbirds, and hand-holding has been the best strategy for catching them in flight.

Whatever focal lengths you decide on, a fast-focusing lens is critical, and that usually means lenses with motors, such as Nikon's AF-S or Sigma's HSM. I believe that Douglas Herr often used Leica manual focusing lenses, but they are fast-focusing in his hands. I'll attach an image in which the focus (with my 70-300mm AF-S VR) in which the focus was pretty good, but not perfect. Even with a fast-focusing lens, it's hard when the birds are coming at you and the depth of field is not large. The idea is to try to focus on one eye.<div></div>

madredhen · May 2, 2009

Once you get into small birds you need big expensive lenses and I cannot recommend it because the cost is so prohibitive and the money will never come back. If you don't have the money for the big lens, find a way to get closer to the bird and be happy with that, shooting from a blind can allow great creativity because you typically have a lot more time with the bird.

BUT since you want birds in flight, which fill more of the frame with their open wings and are easier to find with a mid-range telephoto, you can make good pictures with a 300 or 400 anyway, you don't always want 500 or 600. Important is fast focusing and aperature. Nikon and Sigma are good. No more than f4. F2.8 is preferred. Fixed-length lenses are usually sharper and faster but zooms these days can be very good too. Something like 100-300 will probably make you happy and is available in f4 but is more expensive than the 150-500 (which is too slow at f5-6.3). There are no reasonable 400mm options to my knowledge. My BEST CHEAP recommendation: change your Tamron for a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is too slow at focusing, I know because it's what I have and I used to have the Sigma and the Sigma is faster. Use a 1.4x teleconvertor, or if you have to, a 2x, to get the magnification you need. The 2x will get you a 400mm f5.6 without dropping $800 PLUS you keep that sharp, low-aperature lens on your camera to use when the birds are close enough because let's be realistic, if you have both a 70-200 and a 120-400 you're going to leave the smaller lens at home or in the car rather than carrying 2 heavy lenses with you, and that 70-200 f2.8 is the BETTER lens.

If you have a lot of money and want to carry something heavy get a 400, 500, or my preferred, 600mmf4. But they are not always better for birds in flight and they are always expensive and difficult to travel with.

joseph_smith3 · May 2, 2009

For birds in flight I much prefer to use my D 300 body because of the multi cam 3500 DX AF module in it and my Nikon 300mm F 4.0 AFS lens. This combo outperforms my D 200 and the older model Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF lens or the D 300 with the older 300mm AF f 4.0 lens. I do almost all of my flight shooting hand held using panning technique. Sometimes I use my 500mm AFS f 4.0 lens on my D 300 for flight shots of larger birds like sandhill cranes. The lens is tripod mounted on a Wimberley head and panning is also used.

I have many friends who take excellent images with the Sigma 50-500mm lens. If this lens is used with a tc, they have found that best results are achieved when the tc is added for focal lenghts only beyond 500mm. In other words, use the full zoom capabilities of the lens first before adding any tc for best results .

Joe Smith

macpherson · May 3, 2009

Bird photography is an exception to the rule that the equipment doesn't make the photographer.

It's really as simple as this; if you don't have a really good telephoto (400 mm minimum in my opinion), your images will suffer. If you try to use shorter focal lengths, you'll have to be closer to the birds (who don't much like you being close) - and that severely limits your chances of getting great images.

I'll second the thought expressed above that it's bad advice to say that the "narrow angle of view" of the Sigma 150-500 makes it unsuitable. The angle of view has a direct relationship to focal length - you just can't have a long focal length with a wide angle of view. If you did, you would have a "wide-angle telephoto" lens. The two just can't co-exist.

It's possible that what the vendor meant to say was that the narrow angle of view makes it hard to find and track birds in flight, and that is true. However, if you intend to photograph birds, it is a skill that can and must be learned.

The "two eyes open" technique works for me. With my right eye looking through the camera, I leave my left eye open, looking at a superimposed image of the focus points in the non-camera eye. By placing that focus point on the bird, you'll be right on target.

I've been shooting birds for quite some time and have both the lens I started with - a Sigma 50-500 and a Canon 600mm f4.

At $7K+, the 600mm is an enormous investment, and when the time comes to spend that kind of money on a special purpose lens, you'll know it. The Sigma 50-500 is an excellent lens - especially at the $1K price point. Yes, it's dark and it lacks image stabilization. But there are some newer Sigmas that have it.

Their Optical Stabilization (OS) will allow you to use faster shutter speeds than you otherwise could, and with the comparatively slow apertures of the Sigma (~f6.3), you'll need it.

So my take on the whole thing is that for shooting birds, focal length is the #1 priority. #2 is IS / OS / VR.

Save a few bucks for that big Sigma and go have a ball!

Charlie

sandor_a._feher · May 4, 2009

For BIF I prefer simple 300mm f4 lens. For still either 500mm+ or 200-400mm f4 Nikon.

sandor_a._feher · May 4, 2009

For BIF I prefer simple 300mm f4 lens. For still either 500mm+ or 200-400mm f4 Nikon.<div>

00TG7o-131531584.jpg.1fa54b224cd63ea3d503bfc3414388f6.jpg

</div>

ragaikaras · May 5, 2009

I would like to thank all and every one who contrbute an answer and advise to my question about The proper lens to purches.

robbie_robertson · May 5, 2009

To echo an earlier comment, I have the Sigma 50-500mm HSM, and it shoots soft at the high end. It's all I could afford, so I have to live with OK shots that would be great shots if they were sharp. I'll be spending LOTS of money on a 500 mm+ lens at some point in the future.<div>

00TGbI-131847684.jpg.ddeb60a7b1b6e7e6203a0e80d5c7fb4d.jpg

</div>

wpahnelas · May 5, 2009

i suggest you buy the nikkor 70-300 VR lens and start learning how to get close enough to birds to make your shots with that before investing heavily in a lot of expensive gear. i use one myself, and it can be very effective -- especially on a DX body like your D80.

i don't take issue with those who have recommended the longer lenses. i personally believe you'll gain a lot more skills and appreciation for the art of making bird photos if you start by working at closer distances.

sure, it's more difficult. you have to have patience, and some luck. but if you're serious about capturing birds and their fascinating behaviors, it can be to your advantage to learn to work close. after all, birds do a lot more than fly.

by the way, it's okay if you have to crop an image some to fill the frame. or to add sharpening in post-processing. those perfect pictures you see in magazines didn't necessarily come out of the camera that way.<div></div>

sandor_a._feher · May 6, 2009

Robbie, I don't think the problem is with the Sigma lens. Rather your technique, know the limitation of the lens, use tripod in this case with smooth panning.

Could post the exif file?

robbie_robertson · May 8, 2009

Can't do that from work... Where by the way I should be working... Dunno about technique. As I recall that was taken at 1/1000, ISO 320, Manfrotto monopod. Note there is no motion blur at the wingtips, so I don't think the panning is having much impact at that shutter speed. I can also take stills from a tripod, and it's simply soft at the long end.

craig_meddaugh · May 14, 2009

Robbie, I'll agree that the 50-500 is soft at the long end (mine definitely was), but that sort of shot is asking too much of any lens as you are more or less out of pixels when your subjects are so small. This is doubly true given what appears to be rather poor atmospheric conditions you were dealing with.

As for the original post... while I've only played with the 150-500 briefly, it is certainly a much better option than either of the others and I suspect that it will spend most of its time between 400-500mm which is about right for bird-in-flight work, though I will confess that i often use a 600 for such sorts of things. Guess you can never have too much focal length. Anyway, save your pennies for the 150-500 and good luck to you.

Sign In

need help from some one into bird phography about lenses

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in