New Lens Or Bridge Camera? (1 Viewer)

I'm currently in a bit of a quandry ..

I have a Canon 70D body and a Canon 100-400 zoom lens but am getting fed up of carrying the lump around and rarely using it. I'm a birder as opposed to a photographer and so the thoughts of something just for record shots/identification shots is more appealing to me than being able to see the glint in the bird's eye. I was originally looking at bridge cameras with the ridiculous zoom capabilities but again it seems that these are quite weighty and I can probably do without the huge zoom bit anyway. I live in Flamborough on the east coast and can see the day coming where I'm walking along Old Fall Hedge for instance and spot something which I'm unable to put an id to. Therefore I think that I do need a camera of some description just because of that if nothing else.

So .. I was either going to ditch the DSLR and go down the 'bridge' route but then I thought that as I have a good DSLR body, why not just get a smaller and lighter lens and keep the 70D body. My reckoning is that most of the pics I need to take will only be a matter of a few metres away but I wasn't sure if I'd still need to go to say a 100mm lens or if I can get away with something shorter and still be able to get decent enough shots.

PS .. I also have a Canon 100mm macro lens but having played around with it I'm not sure that it's made for the job when it comes to birds in bushes. That may well be my fault though if I don't have the correct setup when using it. Thought of it as an option but seem to have failed.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Thanks very much.

I would say check the focal length of most of your historical photos to see what lens you need - using a 100-400 should show you what you needed in the past.

I shoot m43 (G9/PL100-400) which is a lighter smaller combo, yet still with a decent size sensor to get some pretty good images when the chance arises. I am pretty much at full zoom most of the time (so 800mm equivalent full frame) so for me I would want more reach rather than less. But I don’t live in Flamborough!

If looking at a bridge, my essential criteria would involve the combination of sensor size and focal length. Things have moved on in the bridge world since I went m43, but I still don’t think I would want to go back to a bridge myself currently, as sensor size seems to max out at 1” for most - and that would have to be the bare minimum I would consider, the drop i size for you would be greater still.

Thanks very much for that. Historically all of my pics have been at 400mm as I've never used the lens at any other length. Most of my birding was originally in hides where the reach was obviously handy. Since then I graduated to moorland birding so again, the reach was good. Now though I don't need the long reach as I say because it will just be record shots from close range. I guess 20m max maybe.

You have a canon, and i believe canon makes a 70-300 lens which is not the same class but would be of sufficient quality for id shots. One other poster on this forum says that the 400f5.6 is worth it because it is lighter than the zoom, so that would also be an option. I do not believe you would have enough reach with a 100 mm -- but check what images would show if you zoom out completely using your current rig, that would tell you a lot. I also have seen a mention of 18-200 zoom travel lenses for canon, I again doubt those would do what you want.

I myself shoot m43, also using the PL100-400. However, if you want to go that way, there is also the panasonic 100-300 lens which certainly is good enough for id photos and can give some that are actually really good. A pana camera with the 100-300 could give you similar reach to your current setup for about half the weight if I recall correctly.

For bridge cameras, look especially at this thread: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3989219

Niels

Thanks very much Niels.

njlarsen said:

You have a canon, and i believe canon makes a 70-300 lens which is not the same class but would be of sufficient quality for id shots. One other poster on this forum says that the 400f5.6 is worth it because it is lighter than the zoom, so that would also be an option. I do not believe you would have enough reach with a 100 mm -- but check what images would show if you zoom out completely using your current rig, that would tell you a lot. I also have seen a mention of 18-200 zoom travel lenses for canon, I again doubt those would do what you want.

I myself shoot m43, also using the PL100-400. However, if you want to go that way, there is also the panasonic 100-300 lens which certainly is good enough for id photos and can give some that are actually really good. A pana camera with the 100-300 could give you similar reach to your current setup for about half the weight if I recall correctly.

For bridge cameras, look especially at this thread: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3989219

Niels

Click to expand...

njlarsen said:

. One other poster on this forum says that the 400f5.6 is worth it because it is lighter than the zoom, so that would also be an option.



Niels

Click to expand...

I have the 400 5.6 and find it to be excellent. I wouldn't go for the 100-400 as when are you really going to use the 100 or even less than 400 when birding.

I do have a prime 200mm so if I want hummers, I have those two lens.