Which Lens for Birds?

[dave_wilson1]

I was talking today with one of the very best and most experienced bird photogs I know. He probably photographs more

birds in a month than some of us will in a decade or more. He is a big advocate of the 80-400. He had the older one and

just recently switched to the newer one which he stated is sharper. I still use an old 300mm 4.5 manual AiS and a 400mm

3.5 ED-IF manual which is deadly sharp.

 

And FWIW he told me that the best bird photog he knows frequently uses a fixed Canon 800mm big aperture lens. I'm not familiar with the line. It seems to be a 5.6 and commands around $13.5K hee-hee. Not this month ;)))) maybe after my tax refund.

[rjmelone]

<p>Hi Jean, It is smart of you to post a question about which lens to buy for bird photography. And you will get many different answers to consider. For me, I always start with a budget and take it from there trying to get the best lens for the buck. One thing that might help you would be to go back to the camera store and try the Nikon 80-400. Since you already own the Nikon 70-300 (as I do), place the 80-400 at 300mm and then zoom to 400mm. This way you can tell how much the extra 100mm will get you. It's really not a lot! Of course you will get better IQ with the 80-400 and faster autofocus, but stopping down the 70-300 can get you some nice shots too! You can go with the new Nikon 300 f/4 with a tc and get excellent results with a good technique. I say good technique because if the subject is sharp to begin with you can easily crop to a size equal to that of the big glass. I do this all the time with excellent results with the previous generation Nikon 300 f/4 and 1.4x tc. I also own the Tamron 150-600 which so far I like very much. It's autofocus is quirky, making you work harder, but I have taken shots of birds as sharp if not sharper than my Nikon 300 f/4. And I'm talking about 600mm! BIF are another matter requiring a faster lens and experienced technique so I not going to get into that. I just trying to provide you with some information, Jean to help you decide. What I would do is narrow your choices down, try/buy each lens you are considering from a place that has a good 30 day return policy and then decide for yourself. Whatever you decide, one of the most important aspects of bird photography is not your focal length (which helps of course) it's understanding bird behavior so you can get close to the action and get as many pixels on the bird as you can. To do this, you don't need to spend thousands. All you need is a $100 camouflaged blind chair. Set this up by a feeder in your back yard, stop your 70-300 down to f/11 and you have the potential of getting more satisfying shots with this setup than if you were to take a thousand shots in the field with a $10,000 rig. All best of success to you, Jean. Rob Melone, your neighbor in NJ.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Which lens for Birds? Full frame only. 300mm is too short. 400-600 with speed, is the best way to isolate, and define sharp images for Bird Photography with impact. Nikons, and Nikkors are the best for this.</p>

[jean_barrell]

<p>I certainly appreciate each of your responses, I have learned so much and now have a clearer picture of what to do. As suggested, I'm going to rent the 80-400. I hadn't thought of that, it's worth the cost to try it out. After that I will try the Tamron and think about the 300f4 PF. I really appreciate the technique posts--I usually shoot in Aperture priority, sometimes setting ISO and sometimes leaving it on auto. I'm going to focus on the shutter speed and see how that goes. BIF are still a mystery to me and I need a faster auto focus. I didn't know about camouflaged bird blind chairs, there will be one with my name on it soon.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Which Lens for Birds?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Professor K. mentioned the three rules for successful bird photography: location, location, location.</p>

<p>C.P.M. van het Kaar gave the golden rule for successful bird photography: patience, patience, patience</p>

<p>In addition to these two rules, keep in mind that one can become a good bird photographer the same way one gets to Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice.</p>

<p>Here are the lenses I use when I practice shooting birds:<br /> 400mm f/5.6<br />500mm f/4<br />1000mm f/11 mirror<br />TC-300 2x Tele-Converter</p>

<p>All are old.<br />All are Nikon.<br />All are manual focus.<br />All have slow f/stops.<br />All can be replaced by much better options.</p>

<p>I rarely practice handheld. I usually use a monopod or a tripod with a Wimberley gimbal head.</p>

<p> </div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Jean, I am attaching a shot from my backyard feeder shot with the newer 80-400mm lens on a D7100. It was shot handheld at 400mm f/5.6 and 1/500 sec. The only post-processing was normal sharpening. I didn't put a lot of preparation into the shot, just walked out and waited for the first bird to land on the feeder. Hopefully this will give you an idea of what you can expect from this combination.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>And here is a 50% crop of the same image to give you an idea of what to expect should you want to crop in a little closer.</p><div></div>

[david_mcmullen]

<p>Jean,<br /> One more thing to consider is that your D5300 does not have the capability for fine-tuning the autofocus. If you invest in a better and more expensive telephoto lens, you might find that even if you do everything perfect as far as your technique and settings, the autofocus is slightly off... i.e., you may discover that your images consistently show sharper focus on the branches <em>in front</em> of the intended bird target ("front focus" error) or <em>behind</em> the bird ("back focus" error). Better cameras allow you to fine tune or adjust the camera's focus for this... It may or may not be an issue for you, but just keep it in mind. If you do have an issue, upgrading to a D7100 might be the least expensive option. The D7200 also allows AF fine tuning, but of course it would cost a lot more.<br /> Dave<br>

PS. If you Google for "How to Quickly Test Your DSLR for Autofocus Issues" you will find a useful method posted by Nasim Mansurov on Photography Life DOT com.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>There's serious and more serious when it comes to bird photography.</p>

<p>I want to be able to move around. I use a 300mm f/4 either AF-D or AFS. With a crop sensor camera on a monopod. Go somewhere you can get close to the birds (Shark Valley, Wakodahatchee, Green Kay, or Ding Darling are my spots). Shoot at 1/800 minimum. F/4 or f/5.6 work well. Works for perched birds or in flight. Expect to do some cropping.</p>

<p>Enjoy!</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The nice thing about the Sigma 150-600m is that the AF Fine Tune exists in the lens, via the USB Hub, and not the body, so you can use a D5300.</p>

<p>That being said, the D5300's AF isn't really up to BIF, but would be OK for semi-static.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>My wife found out that people have been photographing acorn woodpeckers at a park in our county. We went there yesterday with the D7100 and two main lenses: 80-400mm AF-S VR and a 600mm, plus the new TC-14E III.</p>

<p>The setting turns out to be a fairly typical "small bird on a tall tree" shooting environment. The acorn woodpecker is about 21cm/8 inches tall, so it is not a very small bird. But when it is up on a tree at 30 feet, 50 feet, it is a small subject. And you need to be at some distance from the tree to get a reasonable shooting angle, not right from below the bird.</p>

<p>The image below is from the D7100 with a 600mm lens + TC-14e III = 840mm, on a big Gitzo 5 series tripod and Wimbeley gimbal head. This is the entire frame, uncropped, reduced down to 700 pixels.</p>

<p>It should be clear that if this is your idea about bird photography, the 80-400mm AF-S VR is not going to cut it. However, that lens is great under many other bird photography situations. There are various samples in my folder for the 80-400mm zoom: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1057636</p><div></div>

[jean_barrell]

<p>Thought I would write an update: I rented the 80-400G yesterday and am blown away by the difference between those photos and the 70-300. I shot in shutter priority, both on the monopod and hand held and I was very happy with the results--I finally got feather detail on my feeder birds. The AF is a joy. I plan on spending some time tomorrow working on those further away birds.<br>

I find that the lens is really bulky, much more than I am used to, and I wonder about carrying it with me my on birding trips. I'm now wondering about the new 300f4 PF with a 1.4TC--much less weight for essentially the same distance, but without the flexibility of a zoom.<br>

I don't think I am ready for the Tamron, I think I will get more use out of a more mobile (for me) lens. Down the road I'm sure that I'll want more reach--it's a process, I know.<br>

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses, and I sure would love to hear opinions about the new 300F4.</p>

[5711]

<p>handholding 600mm is possible.<br /> handholding 400 too.<br /> but you really need propper technique.</p>

<p>all together i found it to be quite a problem.</p>

<p>if you have high standards, which i do, you even end up beeing unsatisfied with a shot at 85. it can happen so fast.<br /> so going to a 600 and shoot it handhelt...well..print those images to 100x80cm and you will see what i am talking about.</p>

<p>by all means, my good sir, please do get a tripod with a ballhead or gimbal thingy. it will improve your photos sharpness highly.</p>

<p>i wasnt so verymuch impressed by the 80-400..not at all. <br /> so to fight the tele lens issue i decided to take on a job on a regualr basis to get to the 200-400.<br /> ill have it in november.<br /> starting then you will never hear of me again ;)</p>

<p>edit:<br>

concerning the 80-400.</p>

<p>it may be a personal thing but i felt it wasnt as good as the 100-400 from canon.<br>

it was heavier also, and just didint seem as sharp to me.</p>

<p>if youre thinking about getting something in that price class you might aswell consider the tamron and sigma 150-600<br>

lenses.<br>

sounds like a good solution to me as it is to many and therefore it has to be okay, hasnt it?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jean, I suggest that you try the 80-400mm for a little longer and see whether you can get used to it. For bird photography, that is actually a fairly small lens. Anything such as those 150-600mm lens is going to be a lot longer at 600mm.</p>

<p>I always feel that Nikon's 80-400mm AF-S VR has a steep introduction price. The current $400 rebate makes it a bit more reasonable, but you do pay for quality.</p>

<p>The 300mm PF is designed to be small. At this point supply is limited and I think people are better off waiting a little for Nikon to work out some of the initial bugs and for supply to improve, as discussed on this recent thread, among others: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dAWY">The new 300mm F4 PF</a><br>

In case anybody who buys one that has problems, I am sure Nikon will eventually fix it, or better yet, you can just exchange for one that is problem free. But when supply is so limited, you may have to wait for weeks before you can get a replacement. Most likely, you may have to wait a while to get the initial one.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the 300mm PF is a $2000 lens and the TC-14E III is about $500. You are talking about $2500 for the combo, more than the current price for the 80-400 with rebate. And you lose the ability to zoom to the wide end, locate your subject and then zero in. With a long lens, locating a bird flying in the sky with no background reference can be difficult sometimes. For a bird on a tree, you can probably follow the three trunks to locate your subject.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>When the 300mm PF came out, there was a hint that they may be making other, longer primes using PF technology, like 400mm, 500mm or maybe 600mm. </p>

<p>Obviously, no-one here actually knows if and when, but is it something Nikon is likely to do? I suppose it may depend on 300mm sales?</p>

<p>Maybe if your lens store has a Sigma 150-600mm OS S you could rent that for a weekend?</p>

<p>300mm f4 + 1.5 TC gets you to ~450mm f5.6.</p>

<p>600mm f6.3 at the long end for the Sigma and you can locate and zoom in. ~$2000</p>

[5711]

<p>i had two sigmas i did enjoy very much.<br /> on a d1x though.</p>

<p>sigma 300 f4 apo <br /> sigma 400 f5.6 apo - photozone: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/306-sigma-af-400mm-f56-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review</p>

<p>they were also labled "macro" which in that case ment you could focus closer as with other 300mm lenses. years ago i had some shots of animals with that lenses here on ph.net. <br /> on a d1x they were indeed far from bad.</p>

<p>here you can buy them for around 300 euros if you find one.<br /> test one if you can get one.</p>

[jean_barrell]

<p>I returned the rental 80-400 today and the store offered to refund the rental price if I bought the lens today. I now own my own 80-400! Thanks for all the help. Shun, your comment about being able to zoom to the wide end to locate a bird really got me to thinking and I realized how important that is to me. I will find ways to adapt to the weight, perhaps with a Spider Holster or, as the salesman suggested, putting the camera and lens on the monopod and carrying the monopod almost as a walking stick. Off to practice and learn how to use this magnificent lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Excellent.</p>

<p>That is essentially the same trick a lot of bird watchers use with telescopes. My wife is a bird watcher and her scope has a 20-60x zoom. You use a separate pair of binoculars or 20x to locate those distant subjects. Once you have your subject in view, zoom to the 60x end to get a magnified view. If you start from 60x, it'll be next to impossible to find your subject.</p>

<p>I would suggest not to hand hold your bigger lenses why you are not shooting. A monopod is a possibility and there are other options. I am sure there are various ways to make the weight more acceptable.</p>

[dilom_ski]

<p>Hello fellow wildlifers!<br>

Today was a bad day for shooting.Again.My d7000 with Nikkor 500mm f4 P was a disaster again.I see the birds clearly in focus in the VF, the focus assist says in focus too.Take the pic and see after that is totally backfocused.Many times.Other dude tried it too, same effect.Getting really tired of this things.A while ago I was shooting the great bittern eating fishes - 100 pictures, ALL not in focus.Really hurts at the end of the day.<br>

Question is - what if I sell the P and my other 300mm f4 af screwdrive lens and just buy a 300mm f2,8 af-s II?<br>

Its it a good choise, af enough fast for action and good with use of 1,4 and 2x convertors?Thanks in advance for any opionions!</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Dilom, if you use Live View focusing, are they sharp?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Hi Dilom, as Mike says, use live view to manually focus to check whether your 500mm/f4 P is good or not. If you cannot find a bird that is stationary for long enough for you to fine tune focus, try to find another subject that has details but doesn't move.</p>

<p>I used to own the 500mm/f4 P back in the 1990's, i.e. pre-digital, so I am not sure how it would perform on modern high-pixel density DSLRs. But it sounds like perhaps your lens, and maybe your D7000 also, needs some adjustment by a technician.</p>

<p>If you are into bird photography, as a lot of us suggested to Jean the OP for this thread, you want something longer than the 300mm/f2.8. Back in 1998, I upgraded from the 500mm/f4 P to the 500mm/f4 AF-S, which I own to this day. That lens is approaching 20 years old now.</p>

[dilom_ski]

<p>Liveview sharpness is better, but I guess also because its set to iso 100 (no auto iso in liveview, that I use when shooting birds otherwise).But still, its not perfect.And to compare, I tried the body with my AI 50mm f1,4 lens, which showed also backfocus, in and out of liveview.I guess the fault is more to the body, and I will check the lens with d7100 when I get the chance soon.Otherwise a truly great lens, the P, but way to many missed shots can ruin every day of shooting.Opinions on the 300 2,8 AF-S II?The 500 f4 AF-S is a bit expensive for me now.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>How can it possibly be back-focusing when you manually fine tune focus in live view?</p>

<p>My experience is that starting from 16MP in DX, i.e. the D7000, the high pixel density starts becoming very demanding on the lenses. When I switched from the D300 to the D7000 back in 2010, I had to start stopping down the 500mm/f4 AF-S to f5.6 in order to get the best results. One might think the difference between 12MP (D300) and 16MP is not huge, but 16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses. The same continues to 24MP.</p>

<p>I am sure the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II is great by itself, but if you need a 2x TC on it constantly, it won't be nearly as good any more. I would rather get an older version of the 500mm/f4 AF-S without VR than the latest 300mm/f2.8. Personally, I just switch off VR on those long lenses.</p>

[dilom_ski]

<p>I dont know really, but both need to be adjusted.</p>

[dilom_ski]

<p>I read that you can correct backfocus like this with adding shims.<br>

The shims are placed in between the underside of the prism and the focussing screen.<br />AF function is not affected by the focus screen or shims.<br />If you focus the subject in the viewfinder to be sharp, but the image is focussed further to the backround this is back focus. To correct this you need to fit a THICKER shim in place in between the prism and the focus screen. <br /><br /><br /></p>