How long should a lens be for birding?

[Marcus Ian]

...If you are shooting for documentation then what ever you can carry.

 

 

True Dat. I know a couple of ornithologists who spend their working days every day tromping all over creation taking pictures of birds, and documenting locations and environment. Obviously their primary goal is documentation, but one uses a Sigma 150-600 on a crop sensor Nikon, and the other uses a Canon SX730 HS. Some of their imagery is quite good, and easily publishable.

[Trigger_Happy]

I'm sorry for hijacking the topic a bit. But if we talk merely documentation, what would be a good setup? My brother asked me the other day and I had a hard time answering. He documents the game on his property and would like to get pictures good enough to be able to distinguish the different features of the animals. We're talking distances of about 100-200m and mostly dusk.

 

I was thinking that perhaps one of those Canon Powershot models would do the trick? Anyone have two cents? Or should he go with digiscoping?

 

And again, apologies to the OP for the hijacking.

[dcstep]

For documentation only, a Powershot or Coolpix "superzoom" would do the trick.

[Trigger_Happy]

For documentation only, a Powershot or Coolpix "superzoom" would do the trick.

Thanks. I've never tried any of them so I don't know how good they are on high ISOs or on longer focal lenghts. But they do have image stabilization so I guess that works for them.

[dcstep]

Thanks. I've never tried any of them so I don't know how good they are on high ISOs or on longer focal lenghts. But they do have image stabilization so I guess that works for them.

 

I've noticed that most birders are not bothered in the least by the same things that would have "us" pulling out our hair. ;-)

[JDMvW]

I bought the older 100-400mm L lens when the newer one came out. Saved a few bucks and it seems more than adequate for my use.

 

Except for one thing -- walking through an open forest, I could see every bird and critter scattering as they spied the "Great White Lens"

Thinking about getting a camouflage cover, or simply getting a "hide".

 

I don't personally find the 400mm long enough for stalking -- as I say, a hide seems superior.

 

At re-enactments, I get cries of "what is that? a rocket launcher?" -not so amusing when you consider that journalists with these long lenses have been targeted in the Gulf region.

 

Good for images of the south end of north-bound animals as they flee "Moby Dick" (the great White)

Edited May 28, 2017 by JDMvW

[Marcus Ian]

I'm sorry for hijacking the topic a bit. But if we talk merely documentation, what would be a good setup? My brother asked me the other day and I had a hard time answering. He documents the game on his property and would like to get pictures good enough to be able to distinguish the different features of the animals. We're talking distances of about 100-200m and mostly dusk.

 

I was thinking that perhaps one of those Canon Powershot models would do the trick? Anyone have two cents? Or should he go with digiscoping?

 

If that's the sole goal (or even if he aspires to something a bit more) , then yeah, one of the 40x superzoom compacts would likely be fine. As I said, one of my high school friends (currently at the University of Botswana) uses a Powershot sx730 hs. He does NOT attempt to shoot birds in flight, but as he's got ~ 960mm of effective FL, and 20mp to crop from that, it works well for him. He's always posting great looking pics of strange (to me ;) ) looking smaller to medium birds, as that's what his research covers. The biggest challenge (so he says) is holding the camera still enough zoomed all the way in, but the IS works well enough to make such shots clear in decent light...

[dcstep]

I bought the older 100-400mm L lens when the newer one came out. Saved a few bucks and it seems more than adequate for my use.

 

Except for one thing -- walking through an open forest, I could see every bird and critter scattering as they spied the "Great White Lens"

Thinking about getting a camouflage cover, or simply getting a "hide".

 

I don't personally find the 400mm long enough for stalking -- as I say, a hide seems superior.

 

At re-enactments, I get cries of "what is that? a rocket launcher?" -not so amusing when you consider that journalists with these long lenses have been targeted in the Gulf region.

...

 

LOL. ;-)

 

The more you use the "big whites" the less self conscious you become. Camouflage leads to a different set of questions, but I leave mine on all the time, even when I was shooting at the Bonzai Pipeline. My stock answer when someone comments or asks about my lens is, "It's like cheating" which leads to a laugh. Next question is, "Are you a pro", to which I respond, "Yes, but I can't pay the rent with it."

 

Hides are great. I have a throw-over that's fantastic, BUT, unless you get there before the sun rises, you still need to follow "the fifteen-minute rule." That means that when you come into a new area, you need to stop moving and sit still for fifteen-minutes before you can expect any resumption of bird activity. It really works, often, even without the hide.

 

For birds, using full-frame, I find 700mm is my go-to focal length. However, 400mm, plus a 1.4x TC, on a crop-sensor will certainly do, in a pinch.