Bird Photography - Why 600mm?

[Rod Sorensen]

Although I'm still not quite ready to trade in my car on a long

telephoto lens, I have been researching extensively on what lens to

get and started to save for it. I use Nikon equipment. The one

issue that confuses me is why there is a consistent recommendation of

a 600mm lens over a 500mm lensfor bird photography. If I'm correct

the Nikon 600mm AFS weighs in at almost 18lbs and the 500mm AFS is

about 8 lbs. Is the extra 100mm really worth the 10lbs and ~$2000?

[chris_hansen]

Rod,

My answer would be that little extra bit of reach. I don't own a 600 but I have owned a 500 and sold it and now I have a 400. I find a big difference in using my 400 vs the 500. For birds the 400 is just to short most of the time. So I would say the 600 just gives you that extra bit of needed magnification for a more intimate porttrait. See what other photo netters think. You can use a 400 you just have to use better technique to get closer.

Chris

[joe_fuhrman1]

Rod, the 600mm is really the way to go. Yes it does weigh the most, but with wild bird photography you just have to have as much reach as possible. Not all birds are big wading egrets & herons. If you are photographing a small warbler or other songbirds, you need the 600mm lens for magnification or you images will be just too small. Don't forget that it is not just a 600mm lens that gives you increased magnification, but the additional combination of 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters is also more reach. I also prefer the shorter depth of field with the 600mm. It really seperates the bird from the background, usually throwing the background way out of focus.

 

I started out with a 400mm, then got a 500mm, and now shoot with a 600mm. I still have a 400mm f5.6 that I use for group shots, flight shots, and rare situations where a small bird is very approachable. However, when I start my typical day of bird photography, I always begin with the 600mm.

[jeff_kelley]

Rod, if you keep researching, I'll bet you find many references from those who have gone through the same reasoning. It somewhat depends on how big the birds might be you intend to photograph.... This is a major investment for most folks so to answer your own questions you really should RENT a 400, a 500, a 600, etc. If you are like many other bird photographers, you may soon be wishing you had a 1200!

 

"Try before you buy!"

[paul_ashton]

Joe is right on. I have the 300mm f4 and have to restrict myself to herons and other large shore/marsh birds for the negative-filling shots of wild birds. Cardinals and chickadees at a feeder are another story, even a 200mm lens will get you a full frame shot, perhaps with too much depth of field. I am aiming for the 600mm. . . . one day

[clivecc]

I agree 100% with Joe. My photograhy started with a passion for bird watching in Africa. I soon wanted the images on film and believe me you need to aim for a 600mm lens (I'm talking about wild birds not captive birds here). F4.0 preferably as you will often need converters (and I often go crawling on my belly etc. to get closer). I find anything less than 600mm is too short. I guess a 500mm F4.0 +TC's is the next best thing, but if you can go for the 600mm. I know the thing weighs a ton but I see it as a workout combined with the fun of photography ("kill two birds with one stone"). It will be worth it when you get the results.

[bobatkins]

It's just the reach. The tradeoff is weight. If a 500 and 600 weighed the same there'd be no question which one to pick, the 600 is clearly better whenever you want to photograph small (or large!) subjects from a distance. The weight is an issue if you have to carry the system far in the field, but isn't so important if you shoot from the car, or at least close to it. For bird photography this may often be the case. You typically don't need to climb mountains or hike many miles cross country to find birds - or at least that's my experience as a non-birder.

<p>

BTW any Canon users looking for a EF600/4L can get in touch with me via email at <a href="mailto: bobatkins@hotmail.com">bobatkins@hotmail.com</a>

[ShunCheung]

This quesiton is also answered in the

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/birdfaq.html">Bird Photography FAQ</A> written by Arthur Morris in the static pages for this Nature Forum.

<P>

In the case of Nikon, the 600mm/f4 AF-S actually weights 12.8 lbs (not 18 lbs), which is still considerably heavier than the 500mm version. For that reason I presonally prefer the 500mm/f4 lens. But if you do a lot of bird photography, the samll amount of extra reach in the 600mm/f4 will give you some advantage. Whether that is worthwhile or not is your own individual decision.

[ken_briggs1]

As a matter of curiosity the Canon 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, and 600 f4.0 give the same image size on the film at their minimum focus distance. Maximum magnification is 0.11 acording to Canon's literature. So its just a matter of working distance (approachability) or subject size. Has anyone looked at Elliot Porter's bird photography lately? I'll bet he didn't use a 600 f4.

 

Ken

[bobatkins]

"So its just a matter of working distance (approachability) or subject size"

 

Sure, that applies to everything, though if you take the argument to it's logical conclusion, you can do just as well (even better actually) if you shoot with a 200/2.8 (.16x) or a 135/2 (.19x) or even a 50/1.8 with an extension tube!

 

It's a bit like saying that winning an F1 Grand Prix is just a matter of driving faster. Yes, and that's the whole point. Long lenses mean you don't need to get so close. Getting close is not only very difficult most of the time, it's also more likely to stress the subject into flight.

 

Wasn't Elliot Porter the guy who cut down a tree a foot at a time to (slowly, over several days) lower a nest to shooting height? Maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else though. While you CAN get shots with shorter lenses, it's not always a good idea to try.

[alex_yap]

I am definately in for the 600mm. I just went a sanctuary in my country a week ago (with a 300/2.8L), quite sad coz even the big birds like Herons and Egrets are far away, plus there is no provision for me to go closer. I managed to get some frame filling shots when attached to a Sigma EX 2X TC (getting a 600 f5.6) from a fellow photog there. Size and composition is fine, problem is the Sigma is soft and does vignette. Just ordered a Canon 2X TC. IMO 600 mm is definately IT if you are in for bird photography. Just need to start going to the gym to build those biceps some.

[don_baccus]

I don't know if Eliot Porter did the deed described by Bob, but it is true that bird photography from that era frequently involved doing things that today would be considered unethical and in many cases illegal (properly so) in today's world full of species which are steadily declining in numbers and face a constant reduction in habitat.

 

Other techniques involve slowly and laboriously shooting from blinds, or building blinds close to nesting birds, etc - things that let you shoot from much closer but usually involve a tremendous amount of effort in order to get a handful of images.

 

For the photographer hoping to produce a steady stream of good images, for sale or for personal pleasure, you can't beat length.

[ed_kaar1]

Rod,

 

The confusion on weight may have been caused by a misprint in some older Nikon literature. In the older catalogs the 600 AFS' weight was listed as 284 oz when in reality it is 204 oz. The newer catalogs are updated correctly.

 

Ed

[paul_dibiase3]

One reason that the 600mm or at least a 500mm is necessary is the increasing restrictions placed on photographers and others who visit the bird sanctuaries. One poplular place in my home state has been discovered in recent years by hoards of new bird watchers. As a result, it has been fenced off and a board walk built. Everybody, including photographers, is limited to the boardwalk. No more slogging through the mud and lying down in the mud to get that closeup shot. You get it from the boardwalk or you don't get it. This assumes an ethical photographer, or course.

[terry_danks]

While I appreciate that 600mm is considered "THE" lens to have these days in bird photography, I would not give up my 800mm/5.6 to get one. Birds require reach and the 800 gives me that. Nikon have still retained the 800/5.6 in their diminishing aresenal. It is a great lens, even without AF. The fact that it lacks AF, helps to make it almost affordable. Less than 600mm will certainly make your life difficult indeed in bird photography but some of the best stuff I have ever seen was shot from a blind with a 300mm/2.8. However, do not underestimate the patience required to do that.

That 1200mm/5.6 Canon sure looks attractive . . . ;>)

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I generally agree that 300mm and 400mm lenses can be too short for frame-filling shots of smaller birds. But I've also been amazed at how circumstance and technique can sometimes allow those lenses to be just fine for the purpose. Are the extra mm's really needed? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

I'm coming to believe that the 500mm f/4 might be the best all-around "compromise" for birders, albeit a still fairly-expensive one. It's still got decent reach, even compared to a 600mm lens. The extra 100mm, from 500mm to 600mm (20% extra), isn't as great a difference as going from 400mm to 500mm (25% extra), or 300mm to 400mm (33% extra). Attaching a good 1.4x converter (like the TC14B, or TC14E) to the lens would give you a good 700mm f/5.6, whose reach is not much different from that of an 800mm f/5.6.

 

I'm a little surprised that no one ever mentions 600mm f/5.6 lenses. Nikon makes one (MF only), and it must be less costly and cumbersome than an f/4. That might be worth a look too.

[bob_royse]

If you're going to spend big bucks, just get the Canon 600 f/4 IS lens when it's widely available. If you don't, you'll want it eventually, if you're into bird photography and the money you spend now will seem wasteful.

[nature photographer]

There is a previous thread on this subject that covered the 300 to 600mm lens questions regarding bird photography here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000clq

 

While I would not give up my 600mm, my lens of choice for bird photography would be my 300 mm f2.8 with teleconverters for songbirds. Larger birds such as Egrets, Herons & etc are ideal for a 600mm, but there is just no way to get "frame filling" shots of a 4 - 6 inch songbird with a 600mm f4 lens even using teleconverters and extension tubes. The min. focusing distance just is not there. If you don't mind the birds image size taking 1/8 to 1/4 of the slide frame and not much detail then the 600mm is fine.

 

If I had to have just one lens for bird photography, it would be a 500mm f4 which has a shorter min. foucsing distance than the 600mm but still has a bit of reach especially with teleconverters.

[bobatkins]

"there is just no

way to get "frame filling" shots of a 4 - 6 inch songbird with a 600mm f4 lens even using teleconverters and

extension tubes"

 

That's just not true. Take the Canon 600/4L. It will give you .11x at it's closest focus distance or .16x with the EF25 tube. At .11x a 6" bird will be 17mm (about 1/2 frame), with .16 it will be 24mm (about 2/3 frame). Add a 2x TC without the tube and you'll get a full frame shot. With the tube and TC you'll get a full frame shot of a 4" bird.

[c._allan_morgan]

Bob Atkins:

 

Your memory serves well. Elliot Porter was the photographer.

 

C. Allan Morgan

[matt_hagadorn]

Craig wrote: <em>The extra 100mm, from 500mm to 600mm (20% extra), isn't as great a difference as going from 400mm to 500mm (25% extra), or 300mm to 400mm (33% extra).</em><p>

 

True, but that isn't really the way to look at it. You're really interested in image size, and a 600mm lens yields an image that is 44% larger than a 500. This is a lot more significant than thinking of it in terms of a 20% increase in focal length.

[scott_fairbairn]

Being one who just recently picked up a used 600f4 AFS and having used a manual focus 500f4 P, I have the following observations. I weighed mine on my house scales, 600afs +F5 +mounting plate+ lens hood+ homemade flash bracket = 19.5 lbs. I mainly photo birds and I often found the 500 too short even with the 1.4x. Using the 600 +1.4x is working out very well and I can see why it is so popular. The past couple of years I have had some trouble focusing , so the AF has been a great benefit. But , the 600 is a very different animal to use. The size and weight are very different from the 500mm , so if you plan to do much carrying, the 500 might be the better choice.

[ShunCheung]

The problem is that Scott's 19.5 lbs hasn't included your favorite ball head and a sturdy tripod. If you add the weight of an Arca Swiss B1, which is already a bit marginal for a 600mm/f4, and a Gitzo 410 tripod, we can easily be pushing 30 lbs. A carbonfiber tripod will save you a few pounds.

 

I think the main issue comes down to whether you need to carry it around. Unless you happen to be an unusually strong hiker, a 600mm/f4 is mainly for shooting from near your vehicle.

[nature photographer]

"That's just not true. Take the Canon 600/4L. It will give you .11x at it's closest focus distance or .16x with the EF25 tube."

 

My Canon 600mm must be off then because I just got back slides where I photographed Yellow-rumped Warblers eating berries in Coniferous trees at the closest possible distance without bluring the image. I had a 1.4X and 25mm of extension. The warbler is approximately 5 inches in length. As I measure the birds in the slides they average 9mm in length. I know that some shots of the warblers were at the absolute minimum focusing distance because I had to move my tripod back to get them in focus.

 

I just printed a page on my printer where I printed 1 inch to 8 inch blocks. Sometime over the next weekend I will photograph with and without teleconverters and extension tubes at the closest possible distance to measure the actual results with the various combinations.

[bobatkins]

Well Canon specs the 600/4 as 0.1x at close focus.

5" is 127mm. 0.1 x 127 = 12.7mm, so WITHOUT the TC or

the extension tube a 5" subject should be 12.7mm long at

close focus (6m). With the TC it will be 1.4x as big

(18mm) and with the EF25 it will be even bigger.

 

Are you sure you didn't have the focus range

limiter switch set to the "15m to infinity" position? At 15m

with a TC and EF25 you'd get somewhere about the magnification

you sugest you're seeing.

 

You don't need to shoot film to check. Just take a ruler and see

what length fills the viewfinder at close focus. Depending on the camera

the viewfinder may have anywhere from 90-100% coverage, but that's a small factor