Water Birds and a Hummingbird (CC appreciated)

Here are a few waterbirds and one hummingbird showing off its ruby neck, CC appreciated:

Nice pictures sharp. I like all of them.

I am going to make some critical comments because I think that that is the only way to learn. I am not an expert on water birds so these opinions are just my own.

I like your hummingbird shot best, a very good photo. The dunlin shots are good but unfortunately it isn't a very interesting bird. I think that the other shots are just routine except for the very last one.

First some technical points.

Several of these shots are not really sharp, the Dunlins and the hummingbird being the exceptions. You have an adequate shutter speed so you may be up against the limitations of your lens unless these particular shots are heavily cropped.

Secondly, and this is just for interest because there is nothing that you can do about it, the bokeh in the fifth shot is very poor and typical of some telephoto lenses. Very typical is the multiplication of out of focus twigs especially at the top of the image. I have a Panasonic M4/3 telephoto lens that sometimes produces the same kind of ugly bokeh, but my Canon 100-400 never does (it costs about 5 times as much) .

Coming onto the compositions, IMHO water bird shots either have to be extremely sharp, very well lit shots of a beautiful bird, or you have to bring some other interest into the shot. Some suggestions for other interest:

• the bird can be in an interesting setting with reflections in the water, interesting lighting effects in the water or an interesting background.
• you can try shooting from a very low angle.
• you can try to capture aspects of a bird's life cycle, e.g. mating behaviour, fighting, feeding young, etc.
• you can try photographing them under interesting light, especially at dawn and dusk or backlit.
• you can photograph interesting patterns in groups of birds.

Your third shot, of the green winged teals, just isn't very interesting. The birds and moving out of the picture to the right with their heads partially turned away.

Your fifth shot, also of green winged teal, would benefit from being cropped to get rid of the out of focus twigs on the right and to concentrate on the two birds that have their heads sideways on and in sharp focus. Unfortunately there are too many other birds in the shot either with their heads turned away or out of focus in the background. It would be a much better shot if you just had the two sideways on birds.

The shot of the buffleheads is ruined because most of them are turned away and you can't see their eyes. That is a pity because these birds probably have the most interesting plumage.

The last shot is much more better because the surroundings are interesting and you can see the reflection in the water. It is also a more beautiful bird than the dunlins. Unfortunately it isn't quite sharp enough - it this one highly cropped?
--
Chris R

Thank you so much for your comment! I will definitely try out your suggestions. The reason I didn't crop them more then they were is because my 75-300mm canon lens really doesn't focus well enough to produce crisp images unless I am right next to the birds. This is especially troublesome with the green-winged teal, buffleheads and other birds of that sort because once you get 50 feet away from them, they swim to the other side of the lake.

I have been trying to work on getting better composed shots but I think my setup really limits me. I will be renting a 400mm f/5.6 lens in may to take pictures at Point Pelee, and I hope to get some much clearer, well composed pictures which I will post. The reason I didn't crop some of the images were because if I did, they would just look fuzzy because they aren't very sharp.

I would also have to disagree with you about the dunlin. I really enjoy watching them roam around on the shore collecting food. I think that my first image of the dunlin is the second best photograph I posted, my favorite also being the hummingbird.

Thank you for your comment.

I didn't mean to imply that the dunlin shots were poor, just that I don't think that dunlins have such interesting plumage as, say, the buffleheads.

The Canon 75-300 is a poor lens which explains the lack of sharpness and poor bokeh. The 55-250 and 70-300 (all versions) are much better lenses.

I think that you will find the 400 f5.6 to be in a totally different class.

Best of luck with it.
--
Chris R

Oh don't worry I wasn't offended by it. Would you suggest first getting a 70-300, 55-250 or just going straight up to the 400mm f/5.6?

Let's go at this the other way and think about what lenses you might want in the longer term. The 400mm f5.6 is a very good lens especially for birds in flight, but it is fixed 400mm and it doesn't have IS which limits its usefulness for other wildlife photography.

Here are some alternatives to give greater focal length flexibility.

1. 70-200 f2.8L IS with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Pros: outstanding IQ at 70-200 and very fast for low light wildlife photography. Cons: expensive up front. Not as good at 400mm as other options.
2. 70-200 f4L IS with 1.4x teleconverter plus 400mm f5.6. Pros: very good IQ across range. Quite fast for low light. Cons: two lens solution.
3. 70-300 f4-5.6L IS plus 400mm f5.6. Pros: outstanding IQ across range. Cons: No low light capability, two lens solution.
4. 100-400 f4-5.6L IS. Pros: a very flexible lens for a wide range of wildlife photography. Cons: good IQ but not as good as options 1-3 above. IS is older than the others and not so effective.
5. Sigma 50-500 OS. Pros: longest focal length, single lens. Cons: not quite as good optically as the 100-400 (and therefore worse than 1-3) and heavy for handholding.
6. There are other, more expensive options, e.g. the 300mm f2.8L IS or the 400mm f4L IS DO plus teleconverter(s). You might consider these if you are really only interested in bird photography and think that you might get eventually go professional. I would dearly love a 300mm f2.8 but cannot justify the price.

I have the 100-400 but if I were starting out now I would go for option 3 because the 70-300 f4-5.6L IS is a very high quality lens for general purpose wildlife photography and the 400mm f5.6 covers longer ranges and birds in flight. Option 2 would be my second choice.

I have gone through the above because you might want to replace the 75-300 now and delay getting the 400mm f5.6. I think that upgrading to the 55-250 or 70-300 (non L) will be a waste of money in the longer term because you won't be satisfied with their image quality once you get the 400mm f5.6.
--
Chris R

Thanks so much for the different options. It looks to me that option 3 is also a very good choice, but for now I think I'll just stick to my 75-300 mm and just try renting the 400mm f/5.6 one time. If I ever put enough money aside for photography I think I would be deciding between the 400mm and the 100-400mm. I'm not too sure how much I will be shooting bigger animals so the versatility might not be needed but you never know when it will come in handy.

Most important is a sharp lens. Next is getting close enough.

Here is a study of telephotos that I did. F2.8 lens allow the use of teleconverters as the 2x gives you a f5.6 but try to stop down if possible.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1051&message=41146133

The most important part is getting close to your subject. Even with a cheap lens you can get sharp photos if you are close. Then getting a more expensive lens is the next step.