Reading mode: Light Dark

Best long lens for birds?

Go to last post
F

FishHawk

Well-known member
Messages
219
Reaction score
3
Location
US
What in your experience is the best long lens for birds? I'm new at the game and have seen several solutions to the problem. Some shooter use shorter focal length lenses with converter while other go with a longer prime. I guess what I should have asked is a 500mm prime better then say a 300mm with a converter? Thanks FishHawk
 
It depends on your budget.

A single lens is better then the same quality lens + a teleconvertor. But, sometimes a really good short lens + a teleconvertor can be nicer than a cheap long lens.
 
Bjorn_L said:
It depends on your budget.

A single lens is better then the same quality lens + a teleconvertor. But, sometimes a really good short lens + a teleconvertor can be nicer than a cheap long lens.
Click to expand...
Also, the shorter lens + converter can be more versatile than the long lens (assuming we're talking only about primes), as you can remove the converter, if needs be.

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
One thing I find about shooting birds is I always wish I had more reach. I have the 400 f2.8 & all converters. I wish I had the 600 & I do have one on order. And when I do get my hands on it I will probably be using it with a TC some of the time.

Fred
 
FishHawk said:
What in your experience is the best long lens for birds? I'm new at the game and have seen several solutions to the problem. Some shooter use shorter focal length lenses with converter while other go with a longer prime. I guess what I should have asked is a 500mm prime better then say a 300mm with a converter? Thanks FishHawk
Click to expand...
Unless you have a fast 300mm, it is not going to be very practical for birding. If your 300mm is an f/5.6 lens, you can only use a 1.4x teleconverter or at best a 1.7x teleconverter because otherwise you can only manually focus the lens, a daunting task for birds. Further, if the 300mm is a zoom, then adding a teleconverter may degrade the image too much, because most 300mm zooms are not very sharp at the long end.

There are some people who use 300mm f/2.8 lenses with a teleconverter but the combination is neither light weight or economical. With a 2x teleconverter attached, you have an equivalent of a 600mm f/5.6 lens, so it is still very usable.

A cheaper solution is a 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX or Sigm APO Macr, but both are discontinued. You can try to find a used one on eBay and it will cost around 300-500 dollars. A 1.4x teleconverter can be used to bring it to an effective 560mm.

A 500-600mm is of course much more desirafe for birders, but they can cost 4K and up, even for third party lenses. In conclusion, a 400mm f/5.6 lens is the most economical solution, and it is also reasonably light weight. A 500mm ED lens is better but more costly and much heavier.
 
Teleconverters extend a lens usefulness, but they are always a compromise. IMO you're best to buy the lens that will meet your primary needs without relying on TC's. For example, if you're planning on shooting 500mm most of the time, go for a 500mm, not the 300mm + TC17EII.

Think just as hard as HOW you will use the lens. I hand hold much of the time and chose the 500VR for that reason. Even though I'm finding I use the TC17EII a lot these days (mostly with a monopod/beanbag) I'm still glad I didn't get the 600mm because it would tether me to support all the time -- that's just not my style.

And the 300/2.8, even w/TC on DX is way too short for the small birds around here. (though it would be a good combo for BIF).

I am hoping that some day Nikon updates the 800 -- I would like to own that lens.

--
Gary -- D300, glass & NAS -- and a preference for wildlife
http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin
http://photographersonlinemagazine.blogspot.com
 
FishHawk said:
What in your experience is the best long lens for birds? I'm new at the game and have seen several solutions to the problem. Some shooter use shorter focal length lenses with converter while other go with a longer prime. I guess what I should have asked is a 500mm prime better then say a 300mm with a converter? Thanks FishHawk
Click to expand...
Whats in your wallet ;)

I currently have two 300mm lenses. A 300 f2.8 VR 1 and 300mm afs f4. I use both the the TC14eII and TC17eII and they work well together. However, I lust for more reach.

I enjoy shooting birds in flight (BIF) and its very easy to swing both 300's around or overhead handheld to get the shot. I'm sure this would be happered by longer/heavier lenses. I do believe you need two lenses. One for closer images and ease of use and the other a pixel resolving monster. Your going to need support and a gimbal head or the likes of for the latter.

If I were tossing down some coin I would look for a used 300 afs f4 in mint condition and either a 500 f4 VR or 600 f4 VR. I'm not exaclty sure which and both are expensive.

On the other hand, if I were just starting out I would switch to Canon for the longer lenses and pocket enough cash to buy a Nikon D300/s and 300 afs f4 and shoot both sides of the coin.

Ray
 
In my view the best combo for FX is the 200-400 f4 and a 600 f4, plus TCs. The 200-400 f4 plus TC-14E is also a pretty good one lens solution for DX. For DX I prefer the 500 f4 for a long lens, and either the 300 f4 or 300 f2.8 VR for a short lens.
--
Jim
 
400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.

It must be something about having a piece of glass wider than the bird.

I don't have either of these lenses, but I do a lot of birding, and those are the two lenses I see most among those who do this really seriously.

The least expensive and lightest lens I see consistently great results from, from those who work really hard at getting great results at the limit of their equipment, is the 300mm f/4, sometimes with a tele extender, usually with DX cameras.

I use the 70-300 VR on my D200, but it's not for the kind of shots these guys take - it just lets me take the photo home for a little more thorough research on the ID. Before I bought the 70-300, I tested the 70-200 with extender and the 80-400. I decided that neither of these alternatives provided sufficiently better quality than the 70-300 to justify the price just for birding. If I was going to get serious, I decided I needed at least the 200-400 or the 300 f/2.8 with extender, and that even there I was stretching it.

For a lot less the 70-300 provided the info I needed for identification, and I decided I would let the pros take their time and their exotic lenses and get those great shots. I'd just buy the books.

It's lots of fun no matter what lens you use. Enjoy!
--
Pat
 
Geomaticsman said:
I am hoping that some day Nikon updates the 800 -- I would like to own that lens.

--
Gary -- D300, glass & NAS -- and a preference for wildlife
Click to expand...
The old 800 works pretty good still!











Of course your are pretty grounded by the 12 lb weight so I also employ a 400/5.6 for my action and BIF work.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
 
I guess the expense of the longer lenses is a big factor for most of us. I bought a 600mm AFS used lens because my 300mm F4.0 lens was always much to short even on my D200 camera with the 1.4 converter on it. I now have a D700 camera which really increases the need for the 600mm lens. It's a monster to handle only with a strong tripod, hell I can hardly carry it. Even the 600 seems short when I am out looking for king fishers or any leary birds. Even with a tripod I have to be careful to shot fast shutter speeds such as 1/500 on a tripod at birds that are not moving. I always use the shutter delay or cable to keep camera steady. I am using the kirk b-1 ball head at this time and it is a very strong head. I really need a good gimbal head for the 600 lens. This will be my next purchase and a good one runs over $500 ugh!!!

If you use the 600 correctly it will take better quality photos then a shorter focal length with a 1.4 or 1.7 convertor attached.
 
JimPearce said:
In my view the best combo for FX is the 200-400 f4 and a 600 f4, plus TCs. The 200-400 f4 plus TC-14E is also a pretty good one lens solution for DX. For DX I prefer the 500 f4 for a long lens, and either the 300 f4 or 300 f2.8 VR for a short lens.
--
Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I haven't been impressed with the images I've seen of the 200-400 when using TC's. That lens just doesn't seem to like them. To me its a 200-400 and thats it but for over 6k na. I'll take the 300 afs f4 and a tc and a 500 or 600 f4 VR for the long haul. How about a sigmonster? To big for me to think about hauling around but maybe I could adopt a sherpa.

Cheers,

Ray
 
All these comments make sense. For cheap, you could try to find an old Nikon 300 f4 AF non "s" variety which works wonders with the Kenco pro TC 1.4. That is what I use as a walk around long lens. Its really easy to carry but takes a steady hand or a monopod since its not stabilized.

The best expensive solution is the Nikon 500 f4 vr which supports TCs quite well, if needed, and can still be handheld in short burst; handheld is not so easy with the 400 or the 600.

Of course, the Nikon 200-400 is a joy to use because of its quality and flexibility, not quite as sharp as the 500 in my opinion, and its support of the Nikon or Kenco TC 1.4 without much focus speed or IQ degration. Peter.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries
 
Thanks guys for your comments. I have the 70-300vr and it's a nice lens for the money. I'm trying bird photography and if I get serious I'll probably get the 500 vr .

I'm a retired digital food photographer and enjoy the challenge of bird photography. The frustration of shooting wild birds is you can't pose them like you want to. Great shot of that Kestrel , that's what I'm after. Thanks FishHawk
 
If you already have a 70-300VR, I would recommend going in a slightly different and affordable direction than fast primes with or without TC's. A modest investment is either the sigma 50-500 or 150-500. The aperture at the long end is 6.3, not great, but likely sufficient for sunny day birding, and you get the reach in a relatively inexpensive package. I would recommend stretching the sigma zoom to the limit then getting the 500 VR because of its better IQ/bokeh/speed, than just jumping to the 500, and the gimbals, and ballheads etc right away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top