Is a 55-200 enough for casual birding or go all in at 100-400 on aps-c?

[fascinating-geology]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.

Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.

Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.

So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.

The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.
Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.
Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.
So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.
The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

Looked up the crop factor for the X-t2 and it's about 1.5.

When starting again with photography in the digital age, I promised myself not to make the same mistake... lugging around heavy gear, always being tired and frustrated because it took too much time to set up a tripod to shoot birds ...

... and bought a lightweight combination: 7D with a 70-200 f/4 L.

It worked, due to the crop factor (better: pixel density on the small sensor) of the 7D and this fantastic lens. But it was difficult, even for an experienced birder who has learnt to approach birds the hard way.

After two years I bought the great 70-300 L and found out that this is a good setup for birds. Compact and lightweight and cropping is easy so you really have an effective 400 mm or more, dependent on the situation.

Now, since a year, I have the 7DII with 100-400 II but I have to say, I'm almost exclusively shooting wildlife and landscapes with an occasional visit to the zoo to relax, because the animals can't fly/run/crawl/dive away. Call me a fanatic who - for research purposes - also needs record shots of hawks, falcons, harriers etc. at a mile and more.

So, it is possible to shoot birds with the 55-200, especially in forests when they can be very close. Lakes, mountains, coastal areas are something completely different, for shore birds even a 400 will not be enough.

Considering the price difference and the versatility of the 55-200, you might start with that one. See if you really enjoy it, there is a steep learning curve, shooting birds is more than geese in a park. If you like it, it will change your life and you will buy a 400

--
TheBlackGrouse
Active Outdoor Photographer

 

[PeteQuad]

Birds are small and far away. If you are sure you want to spend time chasing them, I really think 200mm will only frustrate you.

If you have never done so before, I also recommend getting some binoculars and trying to figure out what some of the species are. Collecting new species and entering sightings into ebird really motivates me these days.

 

[Paul B Jones]

200mm is not enough reach for birds. If you go with it, you are unlikely to secure satisfactory images and won't learn if you enjoy bird photography. At 400mm you can obtain decent bird photos, and will be in a better position to judge if the hobby is for you.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

The OP is specifically asking about price and use. Being 4 times more expensive a 100-400 is only used for animals and some sports. It doesn't get much other use being big and heavy. If you don't like shooting birds, in the end you have to sell or it will stay at home.

Why didn't I buy an expensive full frame and 11 mm wide angle? i have no idea if that adds something to my landscape shooting. If not, I have a problem because selling lenses is not my thing. Which is important, some of us really seem to like that part.

I really enjoyed shooting with the 70-200 L but as a first and not too expensive choice I would take a 70-300. That's a multi-purpose lens, did a lot of landscapes with it.

In practice, many 500-600 mm shooters don't get the images I'm shooting with 400. The reach is heavily overrated, 80% of success depends on your approach, stalking abilities, knowledge of birds and camera handling.

Of course there are limits, 200 mm is risky but 300 is enough on a smaller high density sensor.

--
TheBlackGrouse
Active Outdoor Photographer

 

[drj3]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.
Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.
Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.
So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.

The attached image is taken at 420mm on a 2X crop (840mm FF field of view) from about 140-150 feet of two ducks on a pond. A 200mm lens on the Fuji has a 300mm FF field of view. The 55-200 is a good focal length for photographing relative tame deer, but not really very good for birds.

The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

--
drj3

 

[A c M]

I started with a 70-300mm Tamron and used it for many years. Even though I got some satisfactory results, I always found myself wanting more reach. I found myself in a similar situation to yours; my budget would not allow a better lens. I am currently using Canon's 100-400mm with markedly better results. However, I still find myself wishing I had more reach. 200mm is not enough lens in my opinion to get consistent results. It would probably be fine for the zoo and ducks in the parks etc. and that may be what you need to get hooked. My 2 cents...Hope this helps with your decision.

 

[AwesomeIan]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.
Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.
Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.
So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.
The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

Go for the 100-400. This will do the trick. A 200mm lens definitely has its place in your bag but isn't long enough for serious bird photography.

 

[Phocal]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.
Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.
Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.
So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.
The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

Go for the 100-400. This will do the trick. A 200mm lens definitely has its place in your bag but isn't long enough for serious bird photography.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite

While I tend to agree that longer is often times needed. It is possible to photograph even very elusive birds with only 300mm of effective reach if you have good skills in the bush, or swamp as is my case. My main wildlife lens is an Olympus ZD 150mm f2.0 and with the 2x crop factor gives me 300mm of reach. I combine it with a 1.4x or 2.0x TC's to get me 400mm or 600mm of reach when needed. But I always strive to get close enough to use no TC.

The following 3 photos all shot with only 300mm of reach and not a one off..............I do this all the time.

 

[AwesomeIan]

Recently got a Fuji X-t2 camera. Now I know Fuji is not known for wildlife photography. I like the camera a lot.
Now I'm looking at this as hobbyist. Something to do from time to time. Nothing major nor everyday. Weekends and days off. On a nice walk or trips.
Fuji makes a 55-200 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is really meant to sports and wildlife. But it's 4x the price of the 55-200. The 55-200 is slower than the 100-400 in AF. That I know.
So I was curious how close does 200mm get you to birds up in trees or sitting in the middle of a lake.
The kit lens 18-55 was what I used this weekend and I just couldn't get close enough. I always scared the birds away.

Go for the 100-400. This will do the trick. A 200mm lens definitely has its place in your bag but isn't long enough for serious bird photography.

--
Blog
http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite

While I tend to agree that longer is often times needed. It is possible to photograph even very elusive birds with only 300mm of effective reach if you have good skills in the bush, or swamp as is my case. My main wildlife lens is an Olympus ZD 150mm f2.0 and with the 2x crop factor gives me 300mm of reach. I combine it with a 1.4x or 2.0x TC's to get me 400mm or 600mm of reach when needed. But I always strive to get close enough to use no TC.

The following 3 photos all shot with only 300mm of reach and not a one off..............I do this all the time.

I think its fair to say you want a minimum of 300mm equivalent. The more the better though. I personally use 150-600 on full frame and still wish I could get closer sometimes (i.e. a eagle sitting in a tree where ultimate stealth wouldn't make a difference).

--
Blog

http://iangeglia.wix.com/mysite

 

[Mo Kwart]

The Fuji crop factor is 1.5, so the 200 becomes 300 and the 400 becomes 600mm equivalent.

The XF 55-200 f3.5-4.8 is an outstanding lens, very sharp. It uses the older focusing motor and is not as fast to focus as the newer lenses. It weighs 580 grams.

The XF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is also an outstanding lens utilizing Fuji's latest focusing technology. There are better wildlife lenses out there, but this lens brings Fuji to the wildlife club. It weighs 1375 grams plus camera so is not for your casual walk around.

Bird and wildlife photography has a learning curve regarding times of day, traits and habits of the wildlife. An eagle or heron may sit still for a portrait where a smaller bird might be hopping around and jerking back and forth.

The equipment also must be studied as today's equipment has a zillion options, some of which will make or break your success rate. The X-T2 is a wonderful camera and is packed with options, particularly focus options that directly effect birding.

I could not make up my mind about the 100-400, so I rented it some months back for a few day excursion to Point Reyes, California. Each day my success rate improved, but the lens definitely must be taken seriously or no reason to invest.

I recently bought the lens and have barely used it, but cannot wait for the next outing.

I am including a few photos from my California trip, the first XF100-400 experience and a few from a recent shoot in the Jerusalem Bird Observatory, Israel, my second shooting experience with it. Even though I carried a tripod, they are all handheld which you can do with the XF100-400. It is clear that they would be sharper with a tripod.

the 55-200 can give you beautiful results if you learn the subjects habits and go after reasonable targets. You will never have enough reach as I am finding that 600mm equivalent is also not enough.




Point Reyes






Point Reyes






Point Reyes






Point Reyes




Jerusalem




Jerusalem




Jerusalem





Apologies for being long winded. Hope I've helped a bit.






--
Mo Kwart

Moshe Kwart’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[fascinating-geology]

Awesome thanks so much. I was curious what you thought of the build quality of the 100-400. I purchased the Fuji partly because of the metal lenses. Something it didn't seem Canon had even on the L lenses.

But then I read that the 100-400 was mostly of plastic build to save on weight. This is of grave disappointment.

What do you think?

The Fuji crop factor is 1.5, so the 200 becomes 300 and the 400 becomes 600mm equivalent.

The XF 55-200 f3.5-4.8 is an outstanding lens, very sharp. It uses the older focusing motor and is not as fast to focus as the newer lenses. It weighs 580 grams.

The XF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is also an outstanding lens utilizing Fuji's latest focusing technology. There are better wildlife lenses out there, but this lens brings Fuji to the wildlife club. It weighs 1375 grams plus camera so is not for your casual walk around.

Bird and wildlife photography has a learning curve regarding times of day, traits and habits of the wildlife. An eagle or heron may sit still for a portrait where a smaller bird might be hopping around and jerking back and forth.

The equipment also must be studied as today's equipment has a zillion options, some of which will make or break your success rate. The X-T2 is a wonderful camera and is packed with options, particularly focus options that directly effect birding.

I could not make up my mind about the 100-400, so I rented it some months back for a few day excursion to Point Reyes, California. Each day my success rate improved, but the lens definitely must be taken seriously or no reason to invest.

I recently bought the lens and have barely used it, but cannot wait for the next outing.

I am including a few photos from my California trip, the first XF100-400 experience and a few from a recent shoot in the Jerusalem Bird Observatory, Israel, my second shooting experience with it. Even though I carried a tripod, they are all handheld which you can do with the XF100-400. It is clear that they would be sharper with a tripod.

the 55-200 can give you beautiful results if you learn the subjects habits and go after reasonable targets. You will never have enough reach as I am finding that 600mm equivalent is also not enough.


Point Reyes


Point Reyes


Point Reyes


Point Reyes


Jerusalem


Jerusalem


Jerusalem

Apologies for being long winded. Hope I've helped a bit.

--
Mo Kwart
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127948553@N05/albums

 

[Bobby49]

When I first started photographing birds, I was using a 500mm lens that wasn't sharp enough. I shifted to a Canon 100-400mm lens, and it was pretty good. After a while, I realized that I needed a longer lens. I used a Sigmonster 300-800 for a while, but it wasn't sharp enough. I ended up using a Tamron 150-600 which I like. I still have the Canon 100-400 for backup.

 

[Mo Kwart]

Fujifilm XF100-400: In response to your question, I am not clear as to what is plastic and what is metal. I think that I am sensitive to quality and it feels like excellent quality when holding and using the lens. I must say that when I rented the lens from lensrentals.com (they get a 10 out of a possible 10) it came in a beautiful protective case that I thought was part of the package. My new lens came with a simple felt lens bag. For the price the lens shade could be a few microns thicker for a more solid feel. I am a happy camper and just need to learn how to use it better.

My Canon 300 has a super solid built in shade and came in a protective case.

I suggest that you spend some time on the Fuji X forum here on DPR. There are many with more experience than me with both lenses.

 

[Mo Kwart]

Another point: I did not purchase the 100-400 in the US and paid full price. The major US shops have run a sale a few times adding the Fuji multiplier for $100 additional. I would love to have it and will probably buy it at full price. It might be worth waiting for another sale if you by chance are in the US.