Minnesota Bird Challenge

[andrew_jacobson3]

<p>Howdy,<br>

So, in an attempt to better myself as a photographer, I have taken on a challenge to capture photos of as many birds native to Minnesota as I can in 1 year.</p>

<p>My primary lens for this project is a 70-200 4.0 USM. Its fast enough to get what I need, but the problem is that I can't get in close enough. The birds are still beautiful and the photo is ok, but the idea is to get a nice tight frame on them. Now, admitedly, part of the problem is my clumsy movements through the woods, but the other part of the problem is simply not being able to reach the target.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any solutions/tips/advice for how to get in close enough to these guys? Or better yet, get them to come closer to me.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>For most birds in the wild you'll need at least 300mm focal length and for most bird photographers 400-600mm is the favored range. Under some circumstances birds will allow you to move closer, but in many cases that will more likely scare them off, so the trick is to figure out where to position yourself at the best time/moment to let them come to you. It helps to be as quiet as possible, not only to prevent them from getting too frightened, but also to hear the faintest rustle or peep and thus give yourself the earliest possible warning of an approaching bird. Or you can often approach them closer if you're in your car & shooting through the open window at birds perching on fences & wires etc.</p>

<p>Rather than making the challenge to catch as many bird species as possible in 1 year, it sounds like you may be in a sufficiently early stage of practicing & learning wildlife photography skills to focus first of all on strengthening your skills with a smaller number of species that is locally abundant and/or approachable. That way you'll be able to practice accurate focusing and framing/composing with subjects that are fairly easy to revisit in their natural environment on multiple occasions, until you've become familiar enough with their habits to get shots that aren't just viewfinder-filling but also tack sharp & in pleasing/interesting poses etc.</p>

<p>I've only been doing this a few years myself, but here's more or less how I proceeded in terms of acquiring skills: 1st year - learn the basics of operating my first dSLR & visiting local wildlife areas; 2nd year - focus on accurate focusing with optically good and (relatively) cheap & lightweight manual focus telephotos (like Tamron's adaptall-2 500mm f8 mirror lens and a Canon FD 400mm f4.5 - both from tripod and while handholding); 3rd year - begin getting to grips with autofocus on long teles, explore seasonal changes in best spots for catching birds at closer range for portraits or frame-filling shots (mostly handheld with Minolta AF 500 f8 mirror lens); 4th year - begin working at action and in-flight shots (mostly handheld with Minolta AF 300 f4 apo with or without 1.4x converter); 5th = current year - get into big/monster tele madness with a Minolta AF 600 f4 apo and a serious tripod.</p>

[Mattman944]

Are you a birder, or a photographer? Going for quantity over quality may not improve your photography.

 

I have many excellent shots of large birds, very few of small birds. A goal for me might be excellent shots of 3 new

species of small birds. My scores in my local camera club would determine their quality.

 

Before you spend a year on a project, you really should get a longer lens.

[nathangardner]

<p>I had the same lens for a long time, and while it was very hard to part with (because its such an awesome lens) I ended up selling it to help fund a 400mm f/5.6L for the very same reason you mention. I shoot a lot of birds and the 70-200mm just wasnt long enough. Now I have a gap from 50-400mm, but I get better bird shots, and I don't really miss the gap. You could get a 1.4x extender, but you still won't have the reach and it'll degrade IQ just a bit. If you can't spend much money, then get some camo clothing or a blind and a lot of patience. You'll still probably need that stuff with a 400mm too. There's quite a few bird shots in my gallery with the 400mm if you want to see what it can do. Remember that I'm not a Nat Geo photog, so the shots may not be amazing, but you'll get an idea of how close the 400mm can get. And most of those are cropped a little. I would imagine even guys with an 800mm crop their shots.</p>

[andrew_jacobson3]

<p>Right.. Well I do have a 75-300mm but it is a kit lens and the IQ is not all that wonderful. Now, my budget is rather tight and I really can't afford to spend thousands of dollars on a new lens right now. Does anyone have an opinion on teleconverters?</p>

[andrew_jacobson3]

<p>If you are interested, here is the link to my flikr stream<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfeye15/with/5766382061/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfeye15/with/5766382061/</a><br>

Please let me know what you think</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>That's a nice selection Andrew, your angle of view and the birds' poses are good while the diversity of species indicates you know where & when to find them.</p>

<p>The problem with teleconverters is that they cannot improve the quality of the main lens, as they will magnify its flaws. Add to that the loss of one or two stops of light, plus in many cases more sluggish autofocus, so the catch is that you still need a longer lens first of all, with optics as sharp as you can afford. If I were you I wouldn't look at TCs as a potentially worthwhile addition until after you've started using a lens with better reach and excellent to outstanding optics.</p>

<p>The good news is that getting a first longer tele that's both affordable and optically up to speed doesn't have to cost thousands. For example KEH's online catalog currently has a later version Sigma 400 f5.6 apo as well as a Tokina ATX 400 f5.6 in eos mount for respectively $380 and $325. Neither is stabilized or quite in the league of L/ED/apo glass from the primary camera manufacturers, but nevertheless both of those have good reputations, with the Sig slightly ahead of the Tok for chromatic aberration and minimum focus distance but slightly behind on contrast, heft and AF speed (stay clear of the early version Sigma 400 apo however).</p>

<p>Either lens will give you plenty of opportunity to get closer shots as well as providing learning challenge for obtaining sharpest results. If you take good care of one of those then you can always sell it on later for roughly what you paid for it, either if you feel ready to move up to a long $1000+ Canon L lens, or if in case your photography enthusiasm were to wane and you decide to shrink your kit (heaven forbid!)</p>

<p> </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Andrew:</p>

<p>Here's a great and inspiring set of wildlife photos, including many birds: <a href="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/book.html">http://www.wildlightphoto.com/book.html</a></p>

<p>The author includes details about his equipment. Many of the photos were made on film, with manual focus lenses that aren't all that long. Many were taking with focal lengths between 50mm and 300mm.</p>

<p>What I learned from this is that you have two choices: spend money on longer lenses or spend time on honing your tracking and following skills so that you can get get closer without startling the subject.</p>

<p>Maybe think about putting out bird seed with natural backgrounds, and then buy one of these:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=chair+blind#q=chair+blind&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=FwThTdmpLMTr0gG0td2WBw&ved=0CDsQrQQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2b8431119b1b4f3b&biw=1347&bih=1051">http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=chair+blind#q=chair+blind&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=FwThTdmpLMTr0gG0td2WBw&ved=0CDsQrQQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2b8431119b1b4f3b&biw=1347&bih=1051</a></p>

<p>Eric</p>

 

[steve_thompson]

<p>Or you could use a lawn chair and some camo netting. 20 or 30 bucks should cover it.</p>

<p>http://www.cabelas.com/product/Camo-Systems8482-Camo-Netting-GreenBrown/742297.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fcompare_items.jsp%3FcategoryIds%3D%26productId%3D742297</p>

[andrew_jacobson3]

<p>Alright,<br>

I have found an 800mm f8 for relatively cheap. She's a manual, but that doesn't really concern me. What I am curious about is the f8. What do you think?</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Which brand & how heavy is it? If it's the Samyang/Phoenix/Vivitar mirror lens then I wouldn't recommend it because it will have an absurdly narrow DOF and at f8 the viewfinder is dark enough to make accurate focusing even more difficult. See this <a href="http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/reviewitem.asp?c=11&review=2854">sort-of-review</a> at birdwatch.co.uk</p>

[andrew_jacobson3]

<p>Whoops, I lied. It is actually a Phoenix 500mm. It is not a mirror lens</p>

[ljwest]

<p>Andrew - I just picked up a refurbished Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM. I've only had the chance to use it on yard birds, but it has helped me a lot.</p>

<p>You could get the Canon 1.4x III teleconverter for $500, and have up to 280mm available to you and still retain AF. Another option would be the Tamron SP 70-300 F4-5.6 Di VC USD. Very good image quality, at a hard-to-beat price of about $400 (or less) after rebate. I own this lens, and was using it till I bought the 100-400. As a last option, but by no means the least, take out the 75-300 and use it to gain experience at the longer focal length, while saving for a 400mm or longer lens. Some of my shots are on my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/viggen61/">Flickr page</a>. I'm just getting started at this myself, so they're hardly all great shots!</p>

<p>Here's one I took recently with the 100-400. Small bird, close range, still had to crop with my 7D!<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/5744797032_8c6199e6e5_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Andrew, the IQ on your 75-300mm will be better than any cheap f/8 lens. The sad thing is, it takes some money to shoot birds. I have shot birds with my 70-200mm. To do it you will need a blind, several bird feeders and some patience. You can get very close to birds if they can't see you. Doing that will only get you the most common yard birds. I was really unable to shoot birds untill I purchased a 300mm f/4 lens and a tc. That along with a 1.5 crop gives me 450mm and it set me back about $1,500. 450mm and a blind will get you in pretty tight with even the smallest of birds. </p>

<p>If you are just wanting to get pictures of birds and you are not worried about the quality a 500mm f/8 lens will do you fine. With a cheap lens you will lose quality color, sharpness, broad DOF along with the ability to shoot in the "good light".</p>

<p>What you have so far looks real good. </p>

<p>Derek</p>