Mid-range, close focus, hand held, telephoto for birds

[bill_horn2]

My prime setup for shooting birds is a Nikon F5 and 600 F4 w/Gitzo

1548. It's great with a 1.4 extender and some added extension for

smaller species at normal distances. But I often miss extremely close

warblers, wrens, etc and need a fast-handling, close focusing

mid-range lens such as a 300 or ??. Art Morris carries a 400 5.6 as

his alternate rig, often hand-holding it. What experience and

equipment type is preferred by others who find themselves in similar

situations?

[john_macpherson]

I dont shoot birds specifically, but for various species I use a 500mm

f4 Nikkor on an F4, but also a Canon 35-350 on an EOS.

<P>

However, a friend of mine uses, and swears by, his 300mm f2.8 with

1.4x & 2x converters. Fast AF with the base lens and pretty slick with

the 1.4x. A wee bit slower AF with the 2x. BUT he doesn't also carry a

600 f4 and F5!

<P>

I guess a 300mm 2.8 is the only option if you are a Nikon user (unless

you fancy a third party lens) as they have few AF lenses in the

300/400mm range for you to choose from. Only problem is the weight of

the 300 2.8 (in addition to a 600 and F5). Maybe an 80-200 AFS and

converters? I guess you know all this though.

<P>

Canon users are fairly well served in this range. Nikon currently not

so well, (PLEASE no-one start a CAN-NIK blah blah blah "Mines is

better than yours" here!)

<P>

If you have not already read this you might find it of interest (but I

think you have read it!):

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000EbZ&topic_id=N

ature%20Photography&topic=

<P>

......and scroll down to Art Morris' comments.

<P>

Hard decision! Good luck.

<

[bobatkins]

I think there's NO doubt that the optimum lens for close focus on small birds with a HAND HELD lens has to be a Canon 300/4IS or 100-400/5.6IS. I know you're shooting Nikon, but you can get an ElanII body for under $300, a small fraction of the lens cost This isn't a Nikon vs Canon statement. One day I'm sure Nikon will have an IS lens which will be just as good, but right now you don't have that option.

[rene_de__heer]

I dont think its a good idea to use Nikon and Canon alongside each other. The philisophy and the way the cameras etc operate is different.

Before i moved from Nikon to Canon, i used the F5 with the 4.0/500 and

used for midrange/close focus the 100-300/F4 Tokian ATX 2 zoom lens.

Its a very good lens and has a good reputation. Its internal focus which is a plus and you still have AF with a 1.4 converter. Worth considering!!

Rene de Heer

[craig_andrew_yuill]

If you are willing to go the third-party route (no, I'm not trying to start a Canon/Nikon vs 3rd-party flame war) then you might also want to consider the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro as well. Most people who own it seem to be satisfied with its quality, and it can focus closer than most other long teles. As Moose Peterson once said, its raison d'etre is that it can do what other [long-tele] lenses cannot. I use a 300mm f/4.5, but often find myself putting a 1.4x converter on it to get that extra reach. A 400 would definitely be better for this task.

[tom_hill1]

Bill,

 

I shoot my F5's with a 500 f4 w/ 1.4 TC-14e on most of the time on the tripod. I also have my Nikon 300 f4 af over the shoulder with another body. The combination works great in high density areas where so many things are happening all the time (Bosque del Apache for example). Unfortunately, at low light, the 300 f4 is limited. But, if you're trying to do hand held flight photography, you'll have to have a high shutter speed anyway. Another thing I do is compensate by pushing my film. In my hand-held body I have E100SW pushed a stop. I've been very happy with the results.

 

Now, I have been known to craw through the muck getting close to gulls, lesser yellowlegs, ducks... with that 300 f4 combo. I've taken sharp pics when lying in the prone position with the shutter down to 1/200 of a sec. Doesn't match image stabilizing technology but it works for me in that situation.

 

Unfortunately, it isn't AF-S technology. TC-14e's don't fit without modification. You can't have AF with a nikon tele-converter. It does have a few short commings for a lens. Still, it does it the job and the images are great.

 

Tom Hill

[bobatkins]

I agree mixing systems (Canon + Nikon) is a bad idea, unless you have a very special need. I think John Shaw added an EOS body and T/S lens to his Nikon kit because it was the only way to get a wide angle tilt lens and he wanted a wide angle tilt lens! Similarly if you want an Image Stabilized telephoto for hand holding, you only have one choice. For some people it might be worth the $1500-$1800 it would cost to gain that capability.

 

The next best compromise would be a 300/4, but you'll lose 2 to 3 stops in hand holding ability compared to an IS lens. For static subjects this could be the difference between a keeper and a trash image. Worth $1500-$1800 and another body to carry? For some people, maybe.

[bill_horn2]

Thanks for your comments folks. I have several choices, all of which are a bit of a compromise. Unfortunately, both Nikon and Canon have their shortcomings as well as strong points. Too bad they cannot find a way to merge their technologies. Melding RGB metering and IS into both systems would arguably improve them both, leave each with it's traditional loyal followers, and we'd all be taking better photos.

[scott_fairbairn]

At the risk of spreading unsubstantiated rumours, I have heard that Nikon will be introducing a 300f4 AFS soon. Which does make sense as the original 300f4AF has been around for a long time and Nikon is lacking in that focal length. This would likely function well with a 1.4x TC. Supposedly to be released/announced around the upcoming PMA in February.

[david_montgomery]

I have the Tokina 400 f/5.6 that Moose talks about and it's a decent lens. I use it as a hand held flying bird lens with either an F5 or F100. The downside is that it's fairly slow. I like to use 100 ISO slide film and on a bright day I'm lucky to get 1/500sec wide open. As a result I'm experimenting with Sensia II 200 film. Good luck.

--

David

[george_rhodes]

I use the 400mm f4.5 APO Minolta on a Maxxum 9. This combination autocucuses extremely fast to its minimum focus range of 9.9 feet, with no attachments. If I want to go closer, I add my Kenko 25mm extension tube or Minolta 1.4X APO TC, both of which still retain autofocus. The lens weighs 67 ozs, compared to the 44 oz Canon 400mm f5.6, but it is also 2/3 of a stop faster. The Maxxum 9, although lighter than the F5, is still a heavy camera, so this combination might be a bit heavy for a small or lightweight person. However, it works well for me. Whether I use the set up on a tripod or hand-held, I consistantly achieve excellent results. I would love to see such a lens which incorporated image stabilization!

[joe_fuhrman1]

Bill, I have had this same dilema. I have the Nikon 600mm AFS and use it with the TC1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters on a Gitzo tripod, for much of my bird photography. However, there are many times I too need a 400mm f5.6 lens "over my shoulder" for quick action photography of birds that are close.

 

After much research (since Nikon does not make a 400mm AFS like Canon does), I bought the Tokina 400mm F5.6 autofocus lens 1 1/2 years ago. I am convinced this is the best option for you. The lens is older autofocus technology/not S wave, but is the same aperature as the similar Canon autofucus lenses. It is a very good lens, and very sharp. I have done 2 resolution tests and check all my Sensia 100 slides under a light table/loupe; and I can't find any problems with the lens. The lens is also inexpensive; it was $400.00 new, but since Tokina just discontinued them, you will have to find a used one, which should make the price lower. Also the lens has excellent minimum focus of approx. 6.5 feet! I use it alot with extension tubes, for some macro/wildflower photography. The lens is also small in size and weight and is easy to transport. I always have it over my shoulder with another camera body, or sometimes just put it in my rear vest pocket. I just returned from 2 1/2 weeks hauling my big 600mm lens around Japan and found that I used the Tokina alot, because of its easy access to shoot quickly.

 

One negative item is that the Nikon AFS teleconverters will not fit onto the Tokina 400mm F5.6. I have had many photos published with this lens and until Nikon comes out with a 400mm AFS 400mm f5.6 lens, this is what I will use. When they eventually come out with this lens, I will probably get it, as I would sure love to have the ability to use either the 1.4 or 2.0 converter.

[john_macpherson]

"I dont think its a good idea to use Nikon and Canon alongside each

other. The philisophy and the way the cameras etc operate is

different." (Rene) AND "I agree mixing systems (Canon + Nikon) is a

bad idea, unless you have a very special need." (Bob)

<P>

Well Rene and Bob - while you two are sitting around philosophising, I

will 'use the tools' and happily continue to get the shots, and go

home with a sore shutter finger and not a sore throat! :-)

<P>

<P

[terry_danks]

A few posters have stated they feel it a poor idea to mix systems. While not totally oblivious to the inconveniences entailed therein, I plan on doing exactly that. The need expressed here is for a "hand held" telephoto that will allow quick composition on birds that are too close and flighty to bring a large, tripod mounted lens to bear on them. This is a tailor made situation for Canon's IS wares. Why "make do" with less appropriate gear? For the cost of another body? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My EOS-3 should arrive in the mail within the next 48 hours . . . an IS lens will follow in a month or two. I think they will coexist rather nicely with my current Nikon gear and look forward to using this new technology. When I read that Canon was to expand IS across all their big telephotos, all thought of waiting for Nikon to bring out an AF-S version of their 300mm/4 or 400mm/5.6 vanished . . . and I dismissed the 300/2.8 AF-S Nikkor too, fine lens that it surely is.

[ShunCheung]

If you are talking about shooting birds in flight, I think the Canon EOS 100-400mm/f5.6 IS zoom is almost ideal for it. IMO a zoom is a major advantage for flight shots because the subject distance changes quickly and a zoom lets you make quick focal length adjustments. However, most likely you'll be using a high shutter speed to freeze the motion, hence IS (image stabilization) isn't that important. Among the Nikon lenses, the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S with either the TC14E or 20E will work very well for flight shots. I have done it with the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S also, but that lens is very heavy to hand hold and of course expensive.

 

However, if you are talking about hand holding to shoot a still bird, I think IS will be a major advantage because you will be hand holding with the option of a slower shutter speed. In that case you are better off getting an EOS body and a Canon IS lens and suffer the inconvenience of using mixed brands. Otherwise, try the Nikon 300mm/f4 and accept its limitations (e.g. no AF-S) or switch to Canon altogether (or wait indefinitely for Nikon to introduce new technology).

[clivecc]

There are a lot of reasons to get a cheap body and the 300mm F4.0 IS. (1)Optically it is pretty good. I have done some side by side comparisons to the old 300mm F4.0 (with and without TC's and on tripod) and I cannot see a difference. If any, it is so slight that it is not worth worrying about and I'm fussy. (2) Closer minimum focus distance (1.5m) is a major plus giving 0.25 magnification if I remember correctly. (3) IS for hand held shots for shutter speeds over about 1/60 sec eliminating the tripod in hard to get areas or constantly moving subjects. You are probably going to get slightly sharper results with IS turned off on a sturdy tripod at the lower shutter speeds, but you at least have the option and the shots you wouldn't have got with the attached tripod.

[knut_sverre_horn]

Check out the 80-200 AF-S with a 1,4 TC. I've been told it's a nice combo.

[arthur_morris_birds_as_art]

Was reading through lots of recent posts tonight. Having just returned from Alaska, I tried to resist butting in, but in this case I simply could not. Two items:

1- Bird photographer and good friend, Tom Vezo, who does a very good job of keping bread off of my table, has been shooting two systems for years with obviously great success. He owns a couple of F-5s and shoots primarily with the 600mm AFS and TCs. Many years ago, after briefly trying out my toy lens, he purchased the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens (and an A2 body) and has sold hundreds of the excellent flight shots that he has made (and continues to make) with this lens. About two years ago he added the 300 f/4 IS lens and returned from a Galapagos trip stating that he made almost all of the trip images with this lens. Shooting flight with Canon hand-holdable telephotos on a sunny day is as close to point and shoot photography as you can get as most exposures (with Evaluative Metering) will be perfect at zero (or +1/3 or 1/2).

2-Despite the introduction of the two handholdable IS lenses, the 400mm f/5.6L lens remains the world's premier lens for phoptographing birds in flight. Period. It is sharper and far lighter than the 100-400mm IS Zooo lens, and has (obviously) greater reach than either of the Canon 3000mm f/4s. And most folks do not realize that when photographing birds in flight on sunny days, IS cuts down on the speed of intial AF acquisition and is best turned OFF! Therefore, there is no advantage to using an IS lens for flight photography on sunny days (where you will be using shutter speeds in excess of 1/500 sec at f/5.6 with 100 speed film.

For additional INFO, visit my web site at www.birdsasart.com. New York City area photographers please note that I will be doing two "Art of Nature Photography" Full Day Seminars in late summer 2000. See web site for details. Best and great picture making to all.

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART