Best lens for Bird photography

[iolar]

Hey

im newish here so, hi. :)

I was wondering if you guys have an opinion on the best lens for the amateurish/novice bird photographer? I have a Bigma 50-500mm but find myself dissappointed with the results.

Sure its handy enough to carry around but I recently bought a book by a professional Irish wildlife photographer and his main weapon is a Canon 400mm f2.8 . Its expensive, but i might go for it.

Do you guys think , for a kinda beginner, there is a better/cheaper lens for me?

thanks for readin

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

All pictures in my gallery taken with the Canon 100-400IS, and I am pretty pleased with it.

From what I know the Bigma is actally that bad so Iw old be interested to thear what is wrong...

[iolar]

All pictures in my gallery taken with the Canon 100-400IS, and I am pretty pleased with it.

From what I know the Bigma is actually that bad so Iw old be interested to thear what is wrong...


hey jimmy2faces

I guess whats wrong with it is that it doesn't have IS and also you need to get pretty close to the bird to get any sort of decent shot. I need a lens where i can be able to zoom in from a long distance, therefore not scaring the bird away.

My shots never really come out as cyrstal clear as i would wish, maybe thats my failing, Im not sure. I have got some great shots but something to make things easier would be great

[GYRob]

First do you also shoot inflight ? if so the 500f4isL May be the best bet over the 400f28 or the 600f4 its quite a bit lighter and can be hand held for a short time i can manage around 55seconds up to my eye, and it is the main reason i got it over any of the others.
Eddit you carnt zoom with a prim lens.
Rob.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

hey jimmy2faces

I guess whats wrong with it is that it doesn't have IS and also you need to get pretty close to the bird to get any sort of decent shot. I need a lens where i can be able to zoom in from a long distance, therefore not scaring the bird away.

My shots never really come out as cyrstal clear as i would wish, maybe thats my failing, Im not sure. I have got some great shots but something to make things easier would be great

The only way of shooting from real distance is digiscoping I think. Even with a monster lens it helps to be close to the bird with good light to get a pleasing image. From what I know your set up should give you clear results if you were using a tripod on a clam day.

I am just a beginner so others may be along to help...

[iolar]

First do you also shoot inflight ? if so the 500f4isL May be the best bet over the 400f28 or the 600f4 its quite a bit lighter and can be hand held for a short time i can manage around 55seconds up to my eye, and it is the main reason i got it over any of the others.
Eddit you carnt zoom with a prim lens.
Rob.

hey rob, yea i take flight shots too. just looked at the 500f4isl, sounds like a good lens

iolar

[Claymore]

Hi,
Do you use a tripod? if not then i would invest in a decent solid tripod before swapping the Bigma, there's plenty on the forum who get great shots using Bigmas (i have one myself) its hard to get very sharp shots handholding any large lens.
Cheers
Brian

[IanF]

It depends on your style of photography. If you want a handy walk around lens then a 400mm is ideal. Personally at present I prefer my 400mm prime just the cheaper f5,6. It's compact, lightweight and whilst no IS in most situations it can be hand held or other support used. Sometimes I take along a tripod but mostly I use it hand held or with monopod.

If you have the budget and the arm strength for the f2,8 then go for it, though to be honest for the money I'd prefer extra reach and go for the Canon 500mm or 600mm as in my case I'd definitely need a tripod with any of them. If I was considering those I'd also be looking at the Sigma 300-800mm which can produce awesome results. I'm not entirely sure of the usefulness of IS on the 400mm f2,8 lens - it's pretty hefty to hand hold even with IS!

[GYRob]

hey rob, yea i take flight shots too. just looked at the 500f4isl, sounds like a good lens

iolar

most shots in my gallery are taken with it many inflight too.
Rob.

[Gary Clark]

I did quite a lot of research before upgrading from my 100-400 IS. I chose the 500 f4 IS. The opinion I found on the web in quite a few places (not just birdforum) was that it is the best wildlife lens, period. The 600mm would be great if you have a wheelbarrow in which to push it to the blind, then set it on a tripod and sit behind it. The 500 is as much as anyone can expect to deal with in the field; you can handhold it (you won't need to go to the gym to pump iron that day), carry it around, and put in on a tripod by yourself, without a team of helpers. It is razor sharp, and IS is, in my opinion, almost essential for wildlife (again, if you're not in a blind on a big tripod).

[eastwood]

It depends quite a bit on your muscle. Here are the weigh of those lens
300 2.8 + 2X Extender 2815 gm. (The one I am using and its the limit for me to handheld.)
400 f2.8 5370 gram. I know few people use it for bird photo.
500 F4 IS 3870 gram. Many birders use it.
600 F4 5360 gram, still used by some esp people using 1D and 1Ds for the lesser or no crop.
400 F4 DO 1940 gram. A relatively new technology. Mixed feeling from various comments. Met one birder using it, claimed results are very good. Relatively expensive.
My choice in descending order (apart from the 328 I am using) if I am going to increase my gear:
1. 500 F4
2. 400 F4 DO (if price does come down somewhat)
3. 600 F4
4. 400 F2.8
I also own the 300 F4 and leave it in Hong Kong for use when I go back to visit my relatives since I do not want to carry big lens around. I use it with a 1.4X making 420 F5.6 find it a good combination. Of course the 400 f5.6 Ian is using is a very good one too, fast focus, sharp images.
That's purely my personal preference.

[tracker]

Hi iolar,

Im very happy using the Canon 400m F/5.6. I use it handheld at all times and believe it to be a very capable, flexible choice for bird photography, especially flight shots. It focusses fast and can produce very sharp images wide open (f/5.6)

An essential skill required by any serious bird photographer is good field craft and understanding of the birds you plan to photograph. Such knowledge goes along way in getting you closer to your subject and/or help you anticipate their next move.

The Canon 500 f/4 is definitely worth your consideration, and is the lens Im looking to upgrade to.

The gallery here at Birdforum is a good place for you to check out the sort of images various users are getting with all the above mentioned lenses.

[JGobeil]

There is a very steep learning curve when one starts using a big telephoto lens. I suggest you learn for a while before committing to an expensive purchase.

One has to learn how to cope with speed, ISO, DOF, etc - Smooth shutter release has to be practiced, as well as tripod use and a steady hand. Even with your non stabilised Sigma 500-500, you should eventually be able to take very good pictures. IMO, it will then be the time to look for another lens - not now.

Also, don't forget that there is a limit to how far you can reach. IMO, the practical range for a 500mm lens and a tele-converter is about 30 meters. For longer range, I feel that digiscoping is a better suited option.

Your 500mm lens being non stabilised, you should use a tripod at all times. It should be a good solid tripod with a suitable head. If you don't have a good tripod and head you will have to invest there as well and they are quite expensive. Same advice here: take your time, study and shop around. The big gun lenses require solid tripods and gimbal type heads.

[Cashie]

I have opted for the 500 f4 over the 400 2.8 and am realy pleased with it,. even with the 1.4X extender making it a 700 mm 5.6.

[Armani2]

Tripod Birding or Handheld? For Tri Mounted You cant beat the 500 or 600 F/4 , Handheld I use the 400 F/4 DO and have for 4 years along with the 100-400 L, If you are looking for a cheaper lens and can live without IS, the 400 4.6 Is a bargin, then there is te 300 2.8 the sharpest of the bunch, but always seemed to leave me short and the results handheld with the 1.4x were not as good as with the 1.4x tripod mounted, and I dont shoot from a tripod.....
Marcus Armani
http://www.armaniphotography.com

[a.dancy]

I do not see many bird shots taken with a 400 f2.8...I would like to see someones website who uses this lens. I do however agree that one is better advised not to lash out good cash for increased focal length if one has not mastered the basic skills...subject to the many mistakes we all make.

[mjmw]

I do not see many bird shots taken with a 400 f2.8...I would like to see someones website who uses this lens.

I think Phil Hurst does...http://www.philhurst.co.uk/

[postcardcv]

There is a very steep learning curve when one starts using a big telephoto lens. I suggest you learn for a while before committing to an expensive purchase.

One has to learn how to cope with speed, ISO, DOF, etc - Smooth shutter release has to be practiced, as well as tripod use and a steady hand. Even with your non stabilised Sigma 500-500, you should eventually be able to take very good pictures. IMO, it will then be the time to look for another lens - not now.

Very good advice - the 50-500 lens can produce excellent results, my brother uses one and never ceases to amaze me at what he produces with it, also Paul Goode (member on here) used to use one, have a look at some of his shots with it, very impressive.

Getting a better lens will not give you much more reach, but it will give you faster focus and allow good shots in poorer conditions. If you are still after a big prime lens then I'd agree that the 500 f4 is a great choice (it's what I went for), but you'll still need some support (tripod/monopod/beanbag) to get the best out of it.

[postcardcv]

I do a lot of close range hide work and find the Sigma 300mm quite adequate. The 2.8 would be useful...

I think that all of us that don't have a 300 f2.8 would be more than happy to own one. Now how to I convince my wife of that one...

[christineredgate]

I have been reading this thread ,and found it very interesting,but surely the choice of lens depends on ones type of birding.Many birders go off walking,cycling and suddenly see a bird and want to take a quick shot.If one is using one of the heavy lenses eg,500/600,then that means a tripod jobbie,by which time ,ie the time spent setting up the tripod etc,the bird will have flown off.Therefore surely a more portable lens is the answer.100-400/400F5.6 for Canon,or one of the lighter Sigma/Tamron lenses.
Obviously if one is in an area,where there are lots of birds ,or a specific birding locality,then one can set up the larger lenses on a tripod and take shots whereby the birds are unaware of the movement of setting up the tripod etc.

[GYRob]

I have been reading this thread ,and found it very interesting,but surely the choice of lens depends on ones type of birding.Many birders go off walking,cycling and suddenly see a bird and want to take a quick shot.If one is using one of the heavy lenses eg,500/600,then that means a tripod jobbie,by which time ,ie the time spent setting up the tripod etc,the bird will have flown off.Therefore surely a more portable lens is the answer.100-400/400F5.6 for Canon,or one of the lighter Sigma/Tamron lenses.
Obviously if one is in an area,where there are lots of birds ,or a specific birding locality,then one can set up the larger lenses on a tripod and take shots whereby the birds are unaware of the movement of setting up the tripod etc.

I Understand what your saying but for me if i go birding 99% of the time i take the 500f4 but dont walk more than say 2 miles and take a monopod and carry the kit over my shoulder so nearly always ready for the grab shot's then when im at the spot i intend to shoot often in my popup blind it's a case of sit watch and waite :)
Theres no way i would managed this if i ever went walking or riding far Not that i do.
Rob.

[postcardcv]

I have been reading this thread ,and found it very interesting,but surely the choice of lens depends on ones type of birding.Many birders go off walking,cycling and suddenly see a bird and want to take a quick shot.If one is using one of the heavy lenses eg,500/600,then that means a tripod jobbie,by which time ,ie the time spent setting up the tripod etc,the bird will have flown off.Therefore surely a more portable lens is the answer.100-400/400F5.6 for Canon,or one of the lighter Sigma/Tamron lenses.
Obviously if one is in an area,where there are lots of birds ,or a specific birding locality,then one can set up the larger lenses on a tripod and take shots whereby the birds are unaware of the movement of setting up the tripod etc.

I totally agree that a lens like the 100-400 or the 400 f5.6 are ideal for a birder who wants to grab a shot while out and about. However there is no doubt that if you are going out to do some 'bird photography', the big primes are the ultimate lesnes. I use a 500 f4 whenever I'm out birding and have no problem carrying on a tripod for a full day out (also have ~10kg of other gear on my back). I also have a 400 f5.6 that I take out whenever I'm not birding, just in case... Both are great lenses, but if I could only have one it would definitely be the 500 f4 - it's just stunning.

[iano]

I need a lens where i can be able to zoom in from a long distance, therefore not scaring the bird away.

You already have that capability with your present lense ..... the 400f2.8 wouldn't zoom as much!

My shots never really come out as cyrstal clear as i would wish, maybe thats my failing, Im not sure. I have got some great shots but something to make things easier would be great

I have often thought the same about my 70-300IS lens, but every now and then i get a shot that is just right .... showing me that it is me and not the lense. My advice would be to stick with what you have at the moment and like i am doing, try to learn how to use it to it's best and then decide whether you need something else.

[Roy C]

..... the 400f2.8 wouldn't zoom as much!

It will not zoom at all, it is a prime ;););)
Seriously though, one of the benefits of something like the 400 f2.8 is that you can add a tc to it making it a 560 f4 or 800 f5.6.

[deshojo]

What JGobeil Said!

Read his post. Then read it again. Then note down all the points he makes and think about them individually.
Technique is a HUGE factor in getting good results from a super-tele. Having said that, IS also hepls a lot ;-)

Don't forget the importance of learning good fieldcraft, an often under-rated or ignored point in wildlife photography. It is very, very important to enable you to get closer to those wary animals.

You should be able to get superb shots with your current lens, if you learn how to get the best from it.

[iolar]

Thanks a million guys for your great advice. I've been away awhile so couldn't post back. There is some great advice there, i think the main theme being I should stick with what I have and learn camera and wildlife technique to get a great shot.

I havent bought anything since but have taken some quite nice shots, i think a tripod might be a good idea, but i do like the freedom of being able to carry this camera/lens hassle-free.

thanks again everybody, mainly for your reassurance that this is a good lens.

[rioja]

The 400mmf2.8 would leave you short of reach if you stay put and short of strength if you opt to go walkabout. The 300mmf2.8 is hand holdable,but not exactly lightweight. The 500mmf4 has the reach but really it's a put up and stay put lens.
Personally, one day I aim for both. Currently I have a 300f2.8 and I'm very happy.
I recently went out and about with a friend who has a 500mmf4. He got by far the the best shots from the hide as everything was pretty distant but he missed everything that I didn't on the walk there.
Depends what sort of birding you want to do and where !

[paul goode]

Thanks a million guys for your great advice. I've been away awhile so couldn't post back. There is some great advice there, i think the main theme being I should stick with what I have and learn camera and wildlife technique to get a great shot.

I havent bought anything since but have taken some quite nice shots, i think a tripod might be a good idea, but i do like the freedom of being able to carry this camera/lens hassle-free.

thanks again everybody, mainly for your reassurance that this is a good lens.

Hi Iolar,

Pleased that you're getting on better now with the 50-500. I used one for quite a while and was very pleased with the results but I hardly ever used it handheld. I'd try a tripod/monopod/beanbag/hide windowsill/friends shoulder and see if the results improve. Apart from flight shots I never got a decent handheld shot with it.

Hope that helps

Paul

[Bubbs]

Have a look at what this guy uses...he's one of the best.

http://www.pbase.com/dophoto

[Roy C]

Have a look at what this guy uses...he's one of the best.

http://www.pbase.com/dophoto
The 500 f4 is generally regarded as The birding lens but at almost £4k it should be pretty decent.