Focal length for wildlife photography

[jameshawke]

I currently have a Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6, but I find the reach far too short for bird and wildlife photography. I use a Nikon dx body (currently a D60, but soon looking to upgrade to D5300 or D7100) and I'm looking at 2 lenses: the Sigma 100-400 f5-6.3 or the non VR Nikon 300mm f4 in combination with a 1.4xTC.

 

On a dX crop, the Sigma would give a 600mm focal length, versus 450mm (though over 600 with TC) with the Nikon. I do like the look of the flexible focal length on the sigma.

 

Any advice on which lens would be more appropriate for someone quite new to wildlife photography would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks :)

[heimbrandt]

Look further than the Sigma 100-400. Look into the Tamron 150-600G2 or Nikon 200-500VR. The Nikkor 300/4 and TC-14EII combo is very good, but the zooms are more versatile and offer more reach. For bird photography, reach is critical.

 

If you are considering the D5300 or the D7100, go for the D7100. Many complain about its shallow buffer for burst photography, but with a a fast memory card and some awareness when shooting, that will not stop you from getting excellent action shots. Its af is better that the D5300 and af is important for wildlife. Both offer a substantial upgrade to what you have, but the D7100 will keep you happy for longer.

[ShunCheung]

If you can get the 200-500mm/f5.6, that would be a good choice, but it is bulky like other 500/600mm zooms and AF is on the slow side. Personally I don’t like f6.3 lenses.

[SCL]

I've found for most of my birding shots over the year anything less than 400mm is a waste of resources. Shooting an f/6.3 lens, in order to get good resolution, minimal distortion, CA, usually means shooting at f/8-11. Further, I much prefer prime lenses for this type of work. Also, adding in the cost of a gimbal to properly support and manoeuver the setup means that it isn't inexpensive. I liked using a Leitz 400/6.3 Telyt with my Nikon D100 & 300 for a couple of years, but it wasn't ideal, being a preset. I'd say plan on spending as much as you can afford for a really good birding prime lens....400mm minimum and preferably f/4 or better. You won't regret it,( although if you're married your spouse might demand something of equal value...mine did).

[BeBu Lamar]

I am not a bird photographer so I don't know but can you make friend with the birds and get them to pose for you and make their portraits at close range? (Notice I don't use the term "shoot" as I believe the birds don't like that term)

[JDMvW]

A good wildlife lens should be

1. long
   
2. fast
   
3. small
   
4. affordable
   

To combine the first three, makes the fourth criterion mostly unobtainable. Even 2 of the first 3 is tough

Working from a blind is the way most of the people I know do it without actually befriending the critters.

 

People differ very strongly on the idea of 'baiting' to draw the animals closer.

 

mobile blinds, sort of:

herds of minibu are sometimes encountered

Edited January 26, 2019 by JDMvW

[Gary Naka]

I am not a bird photographer so I don't know but can you make friend with the birds and get them to pose for you and make their portraits at close range? (Notice I don't use the term "shoot" as I believe the birds don't like that term)

 

Unless tame, birds are wild animals and in general do not "friend" humans.

A human is a BIG preditor.

Though there are exceptions.

[mike_halliwell]

For sharpness at the long end, you'd be hard pressed to beat the new Sigma 60-600mm.

 

Though there are exceptions.

 

I've never met such 'friendly', approachable birds as those I've photographed in Florida....:cool:

[Sandy Vongries]

I have used my old 600mm 5.6 to get some very satisfactory wildlife photos using tripod or monopod. The difficulties with that rig are lack of mobility and flexibility if something close pops up, you don't have a very big field of view. A good zoom can handle a wider range of situations and still capture sharp images. Additionally, you can also operate without tripod or monopod which adds flexibility and speed. My current favorite for wildlife from bugs on up is D7200 with an old Nikon FX 75-300 4.5 5.6 - with the conversion factor, 450 at the top end. This one of a sequence taken yesterday. Shortly after this, I came across two coyotes hunting mice - they were out 600 yards and against the light on private property, so not enough lens. I question whether I could have gotten the shot with the 600 - suspect they'd have taken off while I was getting set up. The 75-300 can be found in at very reasonable prices - an old lens, I admit, but my results with it have been so good, I might pick up a spare.

[BeBu Lamar]

I have used my old 600mm 5.6 to get some very satisfactory wildlife photos using tripod or monopod. The difficulties with that rig are lack of mobility and flexibility if something close pops up, you don't have a very big field of view. A good zoom can handle a wider range of situations and still capture sharp images. Additionally, you can also operate without tripod or monopod which adds flexibility and speed. My current favorite for wildlife from bugs on up is D7200 with an old Nikon FX 75-300 4.5 5.6 - with the conversion factor, 450 at the top end. This one of a sequence taken yesterday. Shortly after this, I came across two coyotes hunting mice - they were out 600 yards and against the light on private property, so not enough lens. I question whether I could have gotten the shot with the 600 - suspect they'd have taken off while I was getting set up. The 75-300 can be found in at very reasonable prices - an old lens, I admit, but my results with it have been so good, I might pick up a spare.[ATTACH=full]1280535[/ATTACH]

 

You picture shows that a 600mm isn't enough. No wonder I am not into bird photography.

[mike_halliwell]

600mm 5.6

 

Sandy is that un-cropped from FX or what?

 

Makes you wonder if the rumoured 600mm 5.6 PF will ever appear....;)

 

Although I was interested to see the 600mm 5.6 AIS is 'only' 2.8KG

 

My 600mm f4 ED II is 4.8KG!

[Sandy Vongries]

You picture shows that a 600mm isn't enough. No wonder I am not into bird photography.

Actually that was at 450 equivalent, hand held on a gray day.

 

Although I was interested to see the 600mm 5.6 AIS is 'only' 2.8KG

 

Missed your question - Full frame DX D 7200 with FX lens as described.

 

My ED 600 5.6 is just over 3 KG with plate installed, so close enough. Quite a load, and then the tripod or monopod.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Sandy Vongries

[joseph_smith3]

James, I ditto what "SCL" posted. I do a lot of bird photography.

 

I have never used a zoom lens for two reasons--trade off in sharpness at different focal lengths and the zoom mechanism may may make the lens very hard to keep stable.( If the lens barrel moves forward as you zoom out, stability decreases dramatically.)

 

If you want a Nikon 300mm f4. consider the latest version the 300mm f4 PF. If you are looking at the 300mm f4 AF- D version its AF is very slow by today's standards. The AF-S version would be a better choice. That being said, 300mm is not long enough for most bird photography even on a DX body. 500mm or 600mm is what you need.

 

I use my D 500, 300mm f4 PF and a Nikon 1.4x TC when I need a "smallish" system and even that rarely allows for good pictures of song birds. For shorebirds like great egrets and great blue herons, it can work. My normal birding setup is the Nikon D500 and the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens. And sometimes I add the 1.4x tc. When I use the TC I then use them on a tripod and a gimbal head. Wildlife photo equipment requires a systems approach. it is not just the camera and the lens.

 

If your eyesite is good, look for a used Nikon 500mm f4 P lens. It is a manual focus lens but very sharp at f4 and it balances pretty good on a ballhead on a tripod. I used one for about 10 years before getting an AF version. That lens ought to couple electronically to a D 7100--shooting data is transferred to the camera. I am not sure if that will occur with the D 5300.

 

These two links explain the issues in using manual focus lenses on Nikon bodies and specifics for the D7100:

 

Using Manual Focus Lenses on Nikon DSLR Cameras - Photography Life

 

Nikon | Imaging Products | Lens Compatibility - Nikon D7100

[mikemorrell]

FWIW, I think it depends a lot on whether wildlife/bird photography is your major photography hobby and what your budget is.

 

Sure, you can buy a 600mm (nikon) or even 800mm (Canon) prime lens. With an 2x extender and tripod, you're talking about a range of 1200-1600mm! I don't know the prices but I'm guessing these lenses will be expensive. If wildlife/bird photography is just one of your photographic hobbies (and/or) your budget is limited, then I would suggest getting a 300mm-400mm lens with an extender. I don't have a clue about lens quality. I've read that 'primes' are generally sharper than 'zooms'. And that a 1.4 extender generally delivers sharper images than a 2.0 extender. I'm sure other members who know much more about these kind of things will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I use Canon and many years back, I bought (for an APC camera) a 400m prime with a 1.4 extender to shoot wildlife/birds.. The 5.6 400m lens was by far the cheapest in that range! My reasoning at the time was that the APC crop factor gave me about 1.5 reach over a FF camera (to roughly 600 mm) and the extender increased this to roughly 900mm. The most important reasion was that I couldn't afford anything else :).

 

So, depending on your ambitions and budget, my suggestion is to think about what your main photographic genres are, buy lenses that match (or extend) these and use extenders - as necessary - to extend your reach for wildife/birds.

 

If wildlife/birds really are your photograhic passion and you have the budget, then by all means buy the lenses that willl best enable you to take the shots you want to take.

[mike_halliwell]

or even 800mm (Canon) prime len

Nikon make one too!!

 

AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR

 

It's $16K....:D

[ilkka_nissila]

You can probably get a lot of subjects with 150-600mm Sigma/Tamron or the Nikon 200-500/5.6. These are popular lenses that many use and they're reasonably affordable.

 

I use the 500 PF and 300 PF; the 500 really opened up a lot of possibilities to get bird images. For mammals I am not yet convinced f/5.6 will do the trick in the conditions where I typically encounter them, but for small birds f/5.6 is actually quite shallow depth of field and I wouldn't necessarily want any shallower in many cases. Mammals tend to show themselves to me when it is quite dark and I think the 300/4 has worked acceptably (though faster would be ideal) for some shots of deer.

[SCL]

Worthy of note is another thought and approach. One of our longtime members, Doug Herr, who IMHO is an outstanding wildlife photographer, after all the talk about long lenses, mentions another approach which most of us don't fully engage in. That is stalking our prey....yes, putting on waders, getting in a kayak, putting on snowshoes, taking our time and patiently getting in close. You can use lighter gear and achieve great results. Most of us though just keep our distance and hope to get a strong enough lens to get a "good" shot.

[joseph_smith3]

Here is another option that works very well, if you do not need to make large prints and if your budget is limited. .

 

Check out the Nikon Coolpix P900 (Jpeg only) and the Nikon Coolpix P1000 (RAW and Jpeg). Prices are about $450-$ 900 respectively. I have three friends who use these cameras when taking bird photos. The hardest thing is keeping them steady as the zoom extends. But the zoom range is 83x--24mm to 2000mm (35mm equivalent). Both use a small sensor: 1 /2.3 inch.

 

Nikon Coolpix P900 Review - Photography Life

 

Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review

 

Images taken and when projected thru a digital projector or sent out on line are amazing.

 

And if you are willing to switch brands, consider cameras with 1 inch sensors like those from Panasonic Lumix, Leica, Sony, etc. DP review has info on all of them.

[Gary Naka]

If you are budget limited, like many of us, look at a manual focus mirror lens.

Yeah there are issues with mirror lenses, but look at the positive side also:

pros:

- SMALL and LIGHT, for its focal length.

This makes logistics/transporting the lens much easier than a "stovepipe" lens.

- CHEAP. My Nikkor 500/8 was about 10% the cost of a 200-500 AF.

I do NOT shoot enough long shots to justify a $1,500 lens. So it was the 500 mirror, or nothing.

cons:

- Manual focus,

The subject has to be stationary or moving very slowly, or moving perpendicular to your line of vision (IOW at the same distance).

- Fixed aperture

Exposure control is by ISO level and shutter speed only.

- donut out of focus highlights.

You either don't mind it, or you hate it.

- No lens image stabilization.

Unless you use a camera with an In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS), like the Olympus OM-D EM-1.

- Image quality can be poor

There are some pretty bad mirror lenses out there, so you have to do the research to find the better brands/models and get those, and ignore the trash.

[BeBu Lamar]

Worthy of note is another thought and approach. One of our longtime members, Doug Herr, who IMHO is an outstanding wildlife photographer, after all the talk about long lenses, mentions another approach which most of us don't fully engage in. That is stalking our prey....yes, putting on waders, getting in a kayak, putting on snowshoes, taking our time and patiently getting in close. You can use lighter gear and achieve great results. Most of us though just keep our distance and hope to get a strong enough lens to get a "good" shot.

That what's I thought. Just like pro sport shooter shoot at the side line not like the amateurs from the seat. Although it was not a right thing to do but when my niece graduated from college I simply walk right to where she received her diploma and made the shot. People pissed off but too late I already got the shot.

[ilkka_nissila]

That what's I thought. Just like pro sport shooter shoot at the side line not like the amateurs from the seat.

 

Some accredited shooters at sports venues actually shoot from an elevated vantage point on purpose, to get a different angle on the subject. The audience aren't really at such a disadvantage, and the closest seats are almost indistinguishable from sideline seats in terms of photographic opportunities. Whether the audience members have the skills to get good shots is a whole another matter, however. Sometimes their vantage point is better than what the pros have.

 

Although it was not a right thing to do but when my niece graduated from college I simply walk right to where she received her diploma and made the shot.

 

As long as every parent/relative/friend doesn't do that, it's not so bad.

[ilkka_nissila]

putting on waders, getting in a kayak, putting on snowshoes, taking our time and patiently getting in close. You can use lighter gear and achieve great results. Most of us though just keep our distance and hope to get a strong enough lens to get a "good" shot.

 

I can't really believe that this is an issue. I suspect most photographers are all too aware that taking shots using long lenses from long distances does not yield as good results as from a closer distance, and do their best to get closer.

 

If all the people working in offices in big cities go to the nearest wildlife hot spots and try their best to get close to the wildlife it could be a problem for the wildlife. For example if there are 20 photographers, or 50, it's probably best that they keep their distance. However, if you are a solitary photographer living in the remote countryside, then I don't see there is any problem in spending time familiarizing with wildlife and letting them get familiar with you. They have plenty of space to escape to, if the photographer gets too close for comfort. But this only works if relatively few people do it.

[mike_halliwell]

Although it was not a right thing to do but when my niece graduated from college I simply walk right to where she received her diploma and made the shot. People pissed off but too late I already got the shot

Don't be that guy. No-one likes that guy.....:(

[Gary Naka]

I can't really believe that this is an issue. I suspect most photographers are all too aware that taking shots using long lenses from long distances does not yield as good results as from a closer distance, and do their best to get closer.

 

If all the people working in offices in big cities go to the nearest wildlife hot spots and try their best to get close to the wildlife it could be a problem for the wildlife. For example if there are 20 photographers, or 50, it's probably best that they keep their distance. However, if you are a solitary photographer living in the remote countryside, then I don't see there is any problem in spending time familiarizing with wildlife and letting them get familiar with you. They have plenty of space to escape to, if the photographer gets too close for comfort. But this only works if relatively few people do it.

 

No, there are MANY who do not want to do the work/effort to get up close.

They rather pick off the animal from a distance, where they can do it in relative comfort.

- I don't want to get wet, I don't want to get muddy, I don't want to crawl in the grass . . .

[Gary Naka]

Although it was not a right thing to do but when my niece graduated from college I simply walk right to where she received her diploma and made the shot. People pissed off but too late I already got the shot.

 

Dang right, it was not the right thing to do.

With that kind of selfish attitude and arrogance, you lost any respect you had.

 

I had to deal with just your kind of parents when I was shooting a graduation last year, for the school.

This parent did not care about blocking the view of anyone, including the handicapped lady in the bottom of the pix. She was there 45 minutes before, and he just walked into the tapped off procession aisle, blocking her view, to get the picture of HIS kid. And he stayed there blocking her, and me. It was all about HIM, no consideration for others. :mad:

 

If that was a sporting event, the referee would stop the game and have him kicked off the field.