Noob birding lens question

[thielges]

I have the opportunity to travel for a week with a guided birding group. I've never done any serious bird photography or even wildlife photography and am wondering whether my longest lens might not be long or fast enough for the task at hand.

The lens in question is a Sony SEL55210 which is an image stabilized tele zoom for APS-C bodies. At the long end it is about 300mm equiv. and f6.3. I can increase the ISO to compensate for the slow lens though would prefer not to exceed ISO 800.

Am I setting myself up for frustration with this lens? Most of my experience is with static subjects that are similar to landscapes or portraits and I compensate for the slow lens with longer exposures. I prefer not to bring my full sized tripod if that can be avoided though I have a much smaller tripod that I usually bring for travel.

I don't know what hours we will be shooting though expect dawn and dusk lighting on at least some days.

I don't need and cannot justify buying a better lens for this trip though am OK with improvising with what I have. If I know what to expect then it will help me to understand what I will get out of this trip. Thanks!

 

[Newbie Phewbie]

I haven't owned this lens, but it doesn't have a stellar reputation. If you can borrow a 70-350 lens, I think you'll have much better success. Anything bigger and you'll have a learning curve to handhold the gear.

I would experiment beforehand and set your expectations accordingly. I think a good pair of binoculars are more important to enjoy birding. Hopefully, some of your companions will have birding-specific gear and will share images.

With this lens, I wouldn't shoot less than 1/350 sec for still subjects and concentrate on subjects that will fill a significant portion of the frame - say 25% or more. Trying for flying birds will be exciting, but the results may leave you unsatisfied. Even so, tracking a bird through the lens is thrilling. (I struggle with BiF, but still shoot a lot of them or try to)

Experiment with NR programs to see if you'd like the results if you let ISO go higher. I often go to 3200 on my A6700 (noise profile isn't much different from the 6300/6500, 6400/6600)

 

[Krusty79]

I would not recommend anything less than the equivalent of 600mm on a full frame camera. An APS-C camera with a zoom to 300 is the FF equivalent of 450mm. Not enough.

IMO, you're going to be doing a lot of wishing you had a stronger telephoto. You could rent a 100-400 or 200-600. The 200-600 is a great lens for wildlife.

 

[Blufftonian]

I agree with Krusty. The 300 will be too short.

Look into renting a 600. With its Optical SteadyShot image stabilization you shouldn’t need a tripod with it.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Like the others I’d suggest trying to get ahold of a longer lens.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I'll echo Krusty's recommendation of renting either the Sony 200-600 or a 100-400 for the trip. I'll also suggest reaching out to the tour company and asking for their recommendation. They'll know how close you're likely to be, the kind of weather to expect, and the focal lengths that will deliver the goods.

 

[thielges]

Thanks everyone. The jury has come back with a resounding judgement that 500mm should be the minimum length needed. There are many options:

1. buy a nice 500+mm tele lens. I find it hard to justify the cost for a midrange lens and the top end lens is out of the question. I'd prefer to find a prime lens in this category, alas all of the midrange options seem to be zooms. Midrange cost is about $1300

2. buy a cheapo 500+mm lens. While this is about fifty times cheaper than the top end, IQ could be so bad that even options could #4 and #5 could be better. Cost is $75

3. rent a nice 600mm lens for 3 weeks. Cost is about $300

4. buy a 2X teleconverter and slap it on to my 50-210 zoom. That will also impact IQ though less so and in a more predictable way than option #3. Cost is about $500

5. do nothing and reach 600mm with my 300mm equiv zoom lens by cropping in post. on my sony a6000 body. This means settling for 6MP image size. While that seems inadequate by modern standards, I recall that my first digital camera was 8MP and I am satisfied with that period of output. Cost is $0

I have no delusions that my images from this trip will measure up to what experienced bird photographers achieve. Even if I had a top of the line f2.8 600mm lens, I'm still inexperienced with wildlife photography and that inexperience will show through. I'm sure that the best photos I'll see from this trip will be taken by my fellow tour partners The main purpose of this trip is for gaining experience and fun.

I think what I'll do first is try option #5 at home because it costs nothing and I can start now. I will be able to evaluate whether the results are worthwhile.

If cropping in post fails to satisfy, the next most attractive is #2 (are my motivations showing through? . However it is hard to find objective information on a cheapo lens like the Opteka 500mm Telephoto Lens (non mirror). There's subjective info in some DPR threads though:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4492602

The example images posted are too small to evaluate myself but I can see hints of lens flaws in the bokeh.

I wish could there was an option #6 of a reasonably priced but good quality 500mm prime. The only option for a 500mm prime for the Sony mount is too expensive.

Anything I buy must be usable in more familiar non-wildlife subject matter. I rarely need a long lens though there are times when one could help. Most of the need for a long lens comes from a desire for shallow DOF or tele compression. That and reducing the temptation to trespass when zooming with my feet.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Thanks everyone. The jury has come back with a resounding judgement that 500mm should be the minimum length needed. There are many options:

1. buy a nice 500+mm tele lens. I find it hard to justify the cost for a midrange lens and the top end lens is out of the question. I'd prefer to find a prime lens in this category, alas all of the midrange options seem to be zooms. Midrange cost is about $1300

2. buy a cheapo 500+mm lens. While this is about fifty times cheaper than the top end, IQ could be so bad that even options could #4 and #5 could be better. Cost is $75

3. rent a nice 600mm lens for 3 weeks. Cost is about $300

4. buy a 2X teleconverter and slap it on to my 50-210 zoom. That will also impact IQ though less so and in a more predictable way than option #3. Cost is about $500

5. do nothing and reach 600mm with my 300mm equiv zoom lens by cropping in post. on my sony a6000 body. This means settling for 6MP image size. While that seems inadequate by modern standards, I recall that my first digital camera was 8MP and I am satisfied with that period of output. Cost is $0

I have no delusions that my images from this trip will measure up to what experienced bird photographers achieve. Even if I had a top of the line f2.8 600mm lens, I'm still inexperienced with wildlife photography and that inexperience will show through. I'm sure that the best photos I'll see from this trip will be taken by my fellow tour partners The main purpose of this trip is for gaining experience and fun.

I think what I'll do first is try option #5 at home because it costs nothing and I can start now. I will be able to evaluate whether the results are worthwhile.

If cropping in post fails to satisfy, the next most attractive is #2 (are my motivations showing through? . However it is hard to find objective information on a cheapo lens like the Opteka 500mm Telephoto Lens (non mirror). There's subjective info in some DPR threads though:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4492602

The example images posted are too small to evaluate myself but I can see hints of lens flaws in the bokeh.

I wish could there was an option #6 of a reasonably priced but good quality 500mm prime. The only option for a 500mm prime for the Sony mount is too expensive.

Anything I buy must be usable in more familiar non-wildlife subject matter. I rarely need a long lens though there are times when one could help. Most of the need for a long lens comes from a desire for shallow DOF or tele compression. That and reducing the temptation to trespass when zooming with my feet.

Out of curiosity, where is this birding trip?

 

[Bill Ferris]

Thanks everyone. The jury has come back with a resounding judgement that 500mm should be the minimum length needed. There are many options:

1. buy a nice 500+mm tele lens. I find it hard to justify the cost for a midrange lens and the top end lens is out of the question. I'd prefer to find a prime lens in this category, alas all of the midrange options seem to be zooms. Midrange cost is about $1300

2. buy a cheapo 500+mm lens. While this is about fifty times cheaper than the top end, IQ could be so bad that even options could #4 and #5 could be better. Cost is $75

Imagine a chorus of angels shrieking, "No! Don't buy it!" A cheap lens is a cheap lens. It'll make a great paperweight

3. rent a nice 600mm lens for 3 weeks. Cost is about $300

The consumer zooms (Sony 200-600 and other brand 150-600s) are excellent values. If you choose to rent, I'd recommend going with the native mount Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3.

I do recommend reaching out to the tour company to seek their input. They must have somebody on their team who knows the area, the birds you'll be seeing, and an informed recommendation of a focal length range that will enable bringing home some keepers.

4. buy a 2X teleconverter and slap it on to my 50-210 zoom. That will also impact IQ though less so and in a more predictable way than option #3. Cost is about $500

Imagine that same chorus of angels and, yes, they're still shrieking.

If you throw a 2x TC on the 55-210 (is it compatible with a TC?), it becomes a 110-420mm f/9-13 lens. Any optical imperfections in the bare zoom will be magnified. You'll be working with minimal light and abundant noise to make all your photos. This is not a good option.

5. do nothing and reach 600mm with my 300mm equiv zoom lens by cropping in post. on my sony a6000 body. This means settling for 6MP image size. While that seems inadequate by modern standards, I recall that my first digital camera was 8MP and I am satisfied with that period of output. Cost is $0

Another option is purchasing a third-party 70-200mm f/2.8 E-mount zoom as an upgrade to the 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3. You can buy used to save a bit on the price and would have an excellent handholdable zoom for action, sports, and birds that can also be used for landscapes, cityscapes, and portraiture.

If you paired that with a rented longer zoom for the trip, you'd have a kit that could handle birds at distance in good light as well as nearer subjects in low light.

I have no delusions that my images from this trip will measure up to what experienced bird photographers achieve. Even if I had a top of the line f2.8 600mm lens, I'm still inexperienced with wildlife photography and that inexperience will show through. I'm sure that the best photos I'll see from this trip will be taken by my fellow tour partners The main purpose of this trip is for gaining experience and fun.

I think what I'll do first is try option #5 at home because it costs nothing and I can start now. I will be able to evaluate whether the results are worthwhile.

If cropping in post fails to satisfy, the next most attractive is #2 (are my motivations showing through? . However it is hard to find objective information on a cheapo lens like the Opteka 500mm Telephoto Lens (non mirror). There's subjective info in some DPR threads though:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4492602

The example images posted are too small to evaluate myself but I can see hints of lens flaws in the bokeh.

I wish could there was an option #6 of a reasonably priced but good quality 500mm prime. The only option for a 500mm prime for the Sony mount is too expensive.

Anything I buy must be usable in more familiar non-wildlife subject matter. I rarely need a long lens though there are times when one could help. Most of the need for a long lens comes from a desire for shallow DOF or tele compression. That and reducing the temptation to trespass when zooming with my feet.

I'd send options #2 and #4 to the dustbin. If renting or purchasing a quality consumer zoom is beyond budget, consider upgrading your midrange zoom to one offering a constant f/2.8 or f/4 aperture. It won't be a birding lens but will deliver markedly better images than the 55-210. If that's beyond budget, use the zoom you have. I like your strategy of doing bird photography with it as a way to learn then lens's capabilities and limits. There are bound to be at least a few photo ops on the trip when a bird will be close enough that 210mm will nicely frame the subject.

 

[Krusty79]

I don't know if this helps you, but I checked lensrentals.com and they want $240 for the Sony 200-600 for 21 days.

I never heard of a 500mm lens for $75!?!

 

[Montanawildlives]

You're in a tough spot. We all are. Good lenses with long reach cost a lot. Taking up wildlife photography as a hobby when I retired was one of the dumbest things I've ever done. And the smartest.

I'd echo some of the other recommendations--renting something around 600mm for a few hundred bucks sounds very reasonable and you'll find out if this is an itch you need to scratch.

 

[Blufftonian]

I agree that your options 2 and 4 should be sent to the dustbin. :-(

Why not a zoom? Tamron's 150-500 f/5-6.7 would make a very decent birding lens. And the zoom range would be excellent for a lot more than just bird photos.

It is available in Sony E mount, has image stabilization, comes with a 6 year warranty and sells for $1200.

I do either that, or the rental option.

 

[thielges]

Colombia!

 

[BirdShooter7]

Colombia!

There are a lot of nice feeding stations in Colombia. You might very well do ok with a bit shorter lens.

 

[thielges]

I'd prefer a prime mainly for its better IQ relative to a zoom. Getting a little boost in IQ eases the pain of shelling out the big bucks. That said I'll look into the Tamron lens you have suggested.

 

[thielges]

Coincidentally my more serious wildlife shooter buddy (who mostly shoots underwater) and I were discussing this exact topic yesterday. One of the lodges we stay at boasts being able to shoot from your balcony, implying that the site attracts birds. There will be field trips where a longer reach might be desired though.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Coincidentally my more serious wildlife shooter buddy (who mostly shoots underwater) and I were discussing this exact topic yesterday. One of the lodges we stay at boasts being able to shoot from your balcony, implying that the site attracts birds. There will be field trips where a longer reach might be desired though.

It certainly doesn’t hurt to have more focal length. I did a trip earlier this year to the Colombian Andes and the feeders allowed for very nice results from a 100-400 or 100-500mm lens. The antpitta feedings typically happen in low light but at close range.

 

[Blufftonian]

I'd prefer a prime mainly for its better IQ relative to a zoom. Getting a little boost in IQ eases the pain of shelling out the big bucks. That said I'll look into the Tamron lens you have suggested.

I get what you are saying, but with my Nikon 200-500 zoom, and my 3x more expensive Nikon 500 PF you'd practically need a microscope to discern differences in IQ. The zoom definitely does have softer edges but given that it's a FF lens that I use on a crop-sensor body that becomes pretty moot. The prime's advantages are that it is brighter by at least half a stop (in spite of them both being f/5.6), that it is better built, and it is much lighter weight and easier to carry and use.

 

[JerseySailor]

After seeing all of the recommendations to take the Sony FE 200-600 G, I'm shaking my head in disbelieve. I own that lens, and it is a heavy mother. I only use it when I absolutely need the long reach, and then, always use a monopod, if not a tripod to hold it. It is my go-to lens when I am shooting bald eagles in New Jersey at 1/4 mile distance, but certainly not for normal walk around use

My go-to lens for what you described in walk around birding is my Sony FE 100-400mm GM. It is almost half the weight of the 200-600, and handheld shooting is great with it.

Since you are shooting APS-C, the FE 100-400 on your camera is equivalent to a 560mm lens on a full frame camera. Add a 1.4 TC, and you are now at the equivalent of 840 FF equivalent, but still a heck of a lot lighter than the FE 200-600G,

In planning your trip, you not only have to plan on a good lens, but also light enough to carry for hours, easy carry, and the ability to shoot without a tripod to stabilize the heavy 200-600 lens. Since I own them both, and use them on my APS-C Sony A6500, as well as my full frame A7R-IV, I'm speaking from experience, not just guessing!

I found it interesting that other than Krusty79, most of the repliers who were urging you to get the heavier 200-600mm lens - don't own it themselves!

 

[BirdShooter7]

After seeing all of the recommendations to take the Sony FE 200-600 G, I'm shaking my head in disbelieve. I own that lens, and it is a heavy mother. I only use it when I absolutely need the long reach, and then, always use a monopod, if not a tripod to hold it. It is my go-to lens when I am shooting bald eagles in New Jersey at 1/4 mile distance, but certainly not for normal walk around use

My go-to lens for what you described in walk around birding is my Sony FE 100-400mm GM. It is almost half the weight of the 200-600, and handheld shooting is great with it.

Since you are shooting APS-C, the FE 100-400 on your camera is equivalent to a 560mm lens on a full frame camera. Add a 1.4 TC, and you are now at the equivalent of 840 FF equivalent, but still a heck of a lot lighter than the FE 200-600G,

In planning your trip, you not only have to plan on a good lens, but also light enough to carry for hours, easy carry, and the ability to shoot without a tripod to stabilize the heavy 200-600 lens. Since I own them both, and use them on my APS-C Sony A6500, as well as my full frame A7R-IV, I'm speaking from experience, not just guessing!

I found it interesting that other than Krusty79, most of the repliers who were urging you to get the heavier 200-600mm lens - don't own it themselves!

It’s all relative. My travel lens is usually a 500mm f/4 that makes the 200-600 seem light. It is, as you point out, important to consider how much you want to carry. Also the particular itinerary will make a big difference. Colombia has lots of nice feeding stations. If your itinerary includes those you are more likely to be ok with a lens like a 100-400mm.