Reading mode: Light Dark

Mid size wildlife/bird camera/lens recommendations

Go to last post
vett93

vett93

Veteran Member
Messages
5,585
Solutions
1
Reaction score
2,175
Location
Silicon Valley, CA, US
I have a Sony A7II with 70-200m F/4.0. It is not quite enough for wildlife and bird photography. I am exploring various options so I can reach out and touch some birds. Three options come to mind:

1. Get a Tamron 150-600mm A-mount and an A-mount to E-mount adapter. This will cost around $1,500.

2. Get a Sony A6000 which is APS-C format and use the Sony 70-200mm lens I have. This will cost about $500. But I only get 300mm.

3. Get a super zoom camera.

Please comment. Thanks.
 
to me the big problem with the sigma and tamron long zooms is they weigh too much for me - i have wrist damage. but even if i didn't they seem a bit challenging, especially after adding 5 1/2 ounces to my rig with the E to A adapter.

i have an A6000, tried the 55-210 with a 1.4 teleconverter, and it just wasn't enough, so i'm going to try a superzoom. i rented an FZ1000 to try tomorrow on some seagulls and pelicans, but the lens is uncomfortably wide to work with. on the other hand, a pretty big sensor for a superzoom, lots of features and you can use the focus ring to zoom if you prefer. there's also a a couple fujis and the FZ200 on my possibles list.

--
my old user profile
 
patticake said:
to me the big problem with the sigma and tamron long zooms is they weigh too much for me - i have wrist damage. but even if i didn't they seem a bit challenging, especially after adding 5 1/2 ounces to my rig with the E to A adapter.

i have an A6000, tried the 55-210 with a 1.4 teleconverter, and it just wasn't enough, so i'm going to try a superzoom. i rented an FZ1000 to try tomorrow on some seagulls and pelicans, but the lens is uncomfortably wide to work with. on the other hand, a pretty big sensor for a superzoom, lots of features and you can use the focus ring to zoom if you prefer. there's also a a couple fujis and the FZ200 on my possibles list.
Click to expand...
 
How is the IQ for super zoom like Nikon P600/610/900?
 
vett93 said:
How is the IQ for super zoom like Nikon P600/610/900?
Click to expand...
Well, the IQ will of course not be as good as what you can get with FF/APS-C + a good lens, but a 'superzoom' can give surprisingly good results if shooting static subjects in good light. If the alternative is heavy cropping of FF/APS-C images because you are 'reach' limited, then it's quite possible that a superzoom could give a better end result.
 
Makes sense. What is the best super zoom for bird photography?
 
For what is worth my daughter has just bought a Olympus OMD 1 with the 300mm lens, reach 600mm. I think her bird shots are as sharp as my 7D 100 - 400mm L series Canon lens. Andy.
 
Steen Bay said:
FZ1000 is just 400mm equivalent at the long end, so not really a 'superzoom'. Won't give you more 'reach' than A6000 with 55-210mm + 1.4x TC (a bit less actually). And FZ200 is 'just' 600mm equivalent and has less MPs than A6000, so won't give you more 'reach' (pixels on subject) either. To get more reach it'll be necessary to get a real 'superzoom' like Canon SX50/SX60 or Nikon P600/P610/P900 (1200-2000mm equivalent), or alternatively APS-C + a long lens like Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm.
Click to expand...
review sites disagree with you - the FZ1000 is often listed in superzoom comparisons and described as a superzoom.
 
Andy 123 said:
For what is worth my daughter has just bought a Olympus OMD 1 with the 300mm lens, reach 600mm. I think her bird shots are as sharp as my 7D 100 - 400mm L series Canon lens. Andy.
Click to expand...
i rented the OMD EM10 and the 75-300mm lens 2 weeks ago. it really wasn't long enough for my BIF pics or some others - the image quality wasn't so stellar that the crops had the detail i'd like to see. that's why i rented the FZ1000 this weekend.

most superzoom camera image quality isn't the best. i've been comparing full size pics, and many have splotchy noise even at ISO 100 in daylight. the fuji X-S1 has a larger sensor (and is somewhat heavier, as well), and its pics are better quality than any others i've compared it to except the FZ1000, which has an even bigger sensor. IMO the canon SX50 has better looking images to my eye than the SX60, and the fuji S1 has better images than the fuji HS50EXR.

the imaging-resource megazoom shootout picked the nikon P600 as the winner in their 6 camera comparison.
 
vett93 said:
I have a Sony A7II with 70-200m F/4.0. It is not quite enough for wildlife and bird photography. I am exploring various options so I can reach out and touch some birds. Three options come to mind:

1. Get a Tamron 150-600mm A-mount and an A-mount to E-mount adapter. This will cost around $1,500.

2. Get a Sony A6000 which is APS-C format and use the Sony 70-200mm lens I have. This will cost about $500. But I only get 300mm.

3. Get a super zoom camera.

Please comment. Thanks.
Click to expand...
a minimum birding lens starts at 400mm FL and the more reach the better! you want the best lens for birding and wild life? how about canon 600 f4.0II or 800 f5.6? you have to have a big pile of cash sitting around you to get one, though :-D if you like to go canon's way, you can get a a new 7DII aps-c camera with very fast shutter speed and great focusing system plus the new 100-400 II tele zoom lens or a 400 f5.6 prime zoom. that would be the minimum, and then sky is the limit :-D sony crap doesn't come close to canon/nikon professional stuff, other wise you would see professionals use them!

syd
 
vett93 said:
Makes sense. What is the best super zoom for bird photography?
Click to expand...
These are images of birds in the wild I've taken with the Canon SX50. I shoot 16:9 by default and almost all are in-camera compositions. Some are from raw, some are JPEG, and some are even JPEGs using the in camera TC feature. Hopefully these will give you an idea of what the SX50 can do hand held with a little practice. These may not be up to the standards you are looking for, but may help you in making your decision (in age order going backwards):





































I hope this helps,

Ed
 
Thanks for the pictures. They look pretty good. Do you have higher ISO pictures?
 
Sony high power telephoto lenses are out of my price range. The Canon 400mm F/5.6 looks pretty good. Expensive, but not way too expensive. Two questions:

1. Does it work with cheaper Canon models like the Rebel series?

2. Does Nikon offer similar kind of prime super telephoto lens?
 
vett93 said:
Sony high power telephoto lenses are out of my price range. The Canon 400mm F/5.6 looks pretty good. Expensive, but not way too expensive. Two questions:

1. Does it work with cheaper Canon models like the Rebel series?

2. Does Nikon offer similar kind of prime super telephoto lens?
Click to expand...
yes, and no ;-) yes, the 400 f5.6 works with all canon cameras very well. as far as i know, nikon doesn't have any lens that matches 400 f5.6. i have had this prime for many years and still enjoying it. in quality, when there is plenty day light, its IQ rivals the big canon white primes! but you do need plenty day light to make everything work perfect. by the way, the auto focus is very fast when there is plenty of light. here are some shots with this prime:

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p485542779

syd
 
Last edited:
vett93 said:
Thanks for the pictures. They look pretty good. Do you have higher ISO pictures?
Click to expand...
I do not usually use high ISO with the SX50, with close to 90% of my images at base ISO. Checking my database, I see that except for testing when I wrote the review of this camera here, I only have 10 images with ISOs higher than 400. One of those is the House Finch in my collection posted above:







Here is a second example form my gallery:





While a number of members have posted reasonably good images at high ISO from this camera over in the Canon Powershot forum, I prefer to use it at its strength below ISO 400.

Ed
 
Thanks again. A high power zoom is indeed useful!
 
400mm with APS-C sensor seems to be the right combo! DXOMarks seems to rate Nikon camera higher than Canon. But Canon has this very special lens. :)

Check out the picture below from my Sony 70-200mm F/4 with FF sensor.



81e2abff15a94ffea42f2ed4fbf463e8.jpg
 
Andy 123 said:
For what is worth my daughter has just bought a Olympus OMD 1 with the 300mm lens, reach 600mm. I think her bird shots are as sharp as my 7D 100 - 400mm L series Canon lens. Andy.
Click to expand...
That's my combo. I like it a lot.







































 
I did some investigation of this 400mm F/5.6 lens. It does not have image stabilization, and Canon camera does not offer in-camera IS. How do you feel about that?
 
vett93 said:
I did some investigation of this 400mm F/5.6 lens. It does not have image stabilization, and Canon camera does not offer in-camera IS. How do you feel about that?
Click to expand...
vett93, i have had this lens for a long time, what i like the most about this lens are light weight, super fast auto focus, and amazing sharp photos! if you make sure there is plenty of day light available, there is no need for IS. it takes a little time to get used to this lens and handholding techniques. the ergonomics of this camera is so nice that you won't feel the weight using it all day! as of last 2 years, i have purchased 2 canon big white primes that keep me very busy and haven't used my 400 f5.6 at all. but i don't worry about lack of IS in 400 f5.6 at all. i really like this lens ;-)

syd
 
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