I've got a hide in my garden which is about 6 - 8 feet away from my damson trees where the birds come to feed. I have a 400mm 5.6 but this often requires the use of extension tubes at this short distance. What would be the ideal lens for this situation? I always use a tripod and fluid video head so I'm not bothered about IS. I'm currently torn between the 70 - 200 f2.8 Canon, a 300mm Canon or a 150/180mm Sigma/Tamron macro.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Shooting garden birds from a hide, which lens to buy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter imagedude
- Start date
at this sort of distance the 300mm F/4 is great (although i have only tried in a store)
I got the Sigma 150-500 OS but this has a close focus of 2.2m or 7ft, so this is probably the wrong lens for you.
My Sigma 100-300 F/4 focusses down to 1.8m or 6ft.. It works well and I would recommend this.
I have used a relations 70-200 F/4 and found 200mm to be too short, but add a 2x Tc and you can go between 70 and 400mm. and you can use the 400 f5.6 for longer work
my advice: either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC
or Sigma 100-300 F/4 plus 1.4x TC (with pins taped to allow AF with 400 F/5.6 as well)
hope this helps.
Will
I got the Sigma 150-500 OS but this has a close focus of 2.2m or 7ft, so this is probably the wrong lens for you.
My Sigma 100-300 F/4 focusses down to 1.8m or 6ft.. It works well and I would recommend this.
I have used a relations 70-200 F/4 and found 200mm to be too short, but add a 2x Tc and you can go between 70 and 400mm. and you can use the 400 f5.6 for longer work
my advice: either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x TC
or Sigma 100-300 F/4 plus 1.4x TC (with pins taped to allow AF with 400 F/5.6 as well)
hope this helps.
Will
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Can I ask what the problem is with using an extension tube? It seems a cheap alternative to a whole new lens. Other than the focusing advantage your sure won't need a fast lens like f/4, much less f/2.8. 300mm f/4 at 6' has a DOF of 0.19", so f/4 would be all but useless.
With that in mind, and if you really don't want to use tubes, the 100-400 will give you a close focus of 1.8m and even at full stretch the f/5.6 max aperture is unlikely to be limiting. 400mm and f/5.6 at 6' has a DOF of 0.14", so you'd probably need to stop down a bit from wide open in any case.
With that in mind, and if you really don't want to use tubes, the 100-400 will give you a close focus of 1.8m and even at full stretch the f/5.6 max aperture is unlikely to be limiting. 400mm and f/5.6 at 6' has a DOF of 0.14", so you'd probably need to stop down a bit from wide open in any case.
I also have a hide approximately the same distance from where the birds feed in my garden. I use a 300 F4 sometimes with the 1.4 teleconverter. The 300 on its own or with the TC is fine for the smaller birds (tits, finches, etc.) but I find that birds like Starlings, Blackbirds, etc. can often be too close to fit in the picture (when I used a 35 mm film body with the bigger field of view, it was OK).
So I think in this situation the zoom option would be better (either the Canon 100-400 or the 70-200 with 2x TC), although normally I prefer the 300 F4 + 1.4 TC.
Hope this helps.
Tony
So I think in this situation the zoom option would be better (either the Canon 100-400 or the 70-200 with 2x TC), although normally I prefer the 300 F4 + 1.4 TC.
Hope this helps.
Tony
Highcountry
Well-known member
I have found that my 70-200mm F4 IS works well for smaller birds including hummers with a 1.4x on my 40D. Without the 1.4x, it works well for the larger birds. A 300mm would also work well in your situation. I would consider what else the lens could be used for before making a final decision.
DavidJJones
Garden Bird & Bug Watcher
That's an interesting opinion, and while I agree about the use of extension tubes, I'm not so sure about your views on the aperture, based on my experience in my garden. Yes, a larger aperture does produce a very narrow depth of field, but it also allows for higher shutter speeds at lower light levels.
I photograph birds (and other things) in my garden all year round and much of the time I need to photograph in shade, even deep shade. Then, as even my 300mm f/4 struggles, an f/5.6 aperture would be of little use unless the bird is absolutely still (and there is no breeze!). At that point I often turn to my old 80-200mm f/2.8L (the magic drainpipe, and a super lens). The problem then becomes reach, with the 200mm being too wide for any small birds beyond say 6-8ft and for much of the time I'm 8ft or more away.
I often use a 1.4x converter on the 300mm when lighting is good but for much of the time in the winter months there is just not enough light for this f/5.6 combination. I'm afraid that I ruled out getting the 100-400mm lens because of this limitation, and IS simply doesn't make up for the lack of shutter speed under these circumstances (like Imagedude, I use a tripod).
Having been frustrated by this dilemma, a week ago I did a bit of photographic time (and brand) travel and bought a second-hand Nikon 300mm f/2.8 manual lens to use via a Canon adaptor. It focuses down to a smidgen under 3m (9'3" ), which is a bit too long for Imagedude's requirements. However, for me it is brilliant, and at around a sixth of the price of a modern equivalent I'm very happy! It doesn't have auto-focus but as I've been using manual lenses since the 60's that doesn't worry me - its focus ring turns smoothly and is easily turned with one finger. Put a 1.4X converter on and it becomes a 420mm f/4 lens on a full frame camera or a 672mm f/4 on my 20D!
With no electronics inside it, there is a good chance that the lens will outlive the camera I use (if not me as well!!).
tdodd
Just call me Tim
I'd call it less of an opinion and more an observation, based on simple optical mathematics. I'm merely pointing out the constraints of shooting close up with a long lens.
I completely understand the need for good shutter speeds, but if you can't get the DOF you need then you won't get the picture you want in any case. I was only citing the specific example of a 400mm lens, which is what the OP has, used at a distance of 6', which is what he wants to be able to do. If you can get the image you want with a DOF of 0.14" then knock yourself out.
300mm @ f/2.8 and 6' gives a DOF of 0.13". Even at f/8 that only increases to 0.37". It's just really not much to work with and you'd better make sure your focus accuracy is absolutely faultless. At 9'3", 300mm and f/2.8 gives a DOF of 0.33", while f/8 gives 0.94"
It would be far better to shoot in good light and then you can stop down and get decent shutter speeds without going to silly ISO levels.
Of course, if you are only shooting for small web sized images then the DOF limits can be relaxed. I'm only pointing out the optical constraints and the difficulties of trying to squeeze quarts out of pint pots.
I completely understand the need for good shutter speeds, but if you can't get the DOF you need then you won't get the picture you want in any case. I was only citing the specific example of a 400mm lens, which is what the OP has, used at a distance of 6', which is what he wants to be able to do. If you can get the image you want with a DOF of 0.14" then knock yourself out.
300mm @ f/2.8 and 6' gives a DOF of 0.13". Even at f/8 that only increases to 0.37". It's just really not much to work with and you'd better make sure your focus accuracy is absolutely faultless. At 9'3", 300mm and f/2.8 gives a DOF of 0.33", while f/8 gives 0.94"
It would be far better to shoot in good light and then you can stop down and get decent shutter speeds without going to silly ISO levels.
Of course, if you are only shooting for small web sized images then the DOF limits can be relaxed. I'm only pointing out the optical constraints and the difficulties of trying to squeeze quarts out of pint pots.
Stephen Fletcher
Yes, i did take the photo of the Eagle
Tdodd is perfectly correct, at such short distances wide open, the DoF will be ridiculously small. I photograph small birds from my hide, at about 5 metres with my 500 f4, and have to stop down to f13 to get the whole bird in focus. Yes, the shutter speed suffers, but with good support and technique it is fairly irrelevant having a slow shutter speed. Of course not all images will be sharp due to subject movement, but thats just a fact of life. 1/60 is perfectly feasible for birds, if you have good technique.
DavidJJones
Garden Bird & Bug Watcher
Yes, I agree with the maths. At the other end of the scale I do a lot of 'real' macro work so I appreciate how important the depth of field factor is. And I think that Imagedude's short hide to tree distance is a particularly problematic one in this respect, and he doesn't mention which direction the hide faces and how much of his field of view is in shade. If I knew the circumstances better I would probably suggest moving the hide back to around the 8-9ft mark to improve the situation. And who's to say that Imagedude won't also choose to use the lens at longer distances when the dof constraints will be less restricting.
It's not simply a case of squeezing quarts out of pints, it's rather having a lens that gives you options. You can stop an f4 (or f/2.8) lens down but you cannot open an f/5.6 lens up. Rather than simply saying that you don't need a fast lens, (if cost isn't the limiting factor) isn't it advantageous to have the capability, even if you choose to stop down the aperture under good lighting conditions?
DavidJJones
Garden Bird & Bug Watcher
Yes, but your reponse illustrates what I have just said to Tdodd. While you choose to stop your lens down to f13 you maintain the option to use apertures as wide as f4 should the need arise. If you don't use f4, and there had been a choice of Canon 500mm lenses to buy, what would have been the smallest minimum aperture that you would have chosen - f5.6, f8.....?
While his maths is quite correct, what sparked my reply was Tdodd's response to imagedude which seemed to suggest that he 'sure won't need a fast lens like f/4'. Isn't it preferable to have that option in reserve even if you only use it occasionally?
Going back to your posting - what ISO setting would you be setting to use 1/60 at f13? It's a cloudless, very bright day today, and at noon in my garden light levels out in the open are allowing those settings at ISO 100, but go into the shade and its another matter, more like 1/3sec at f13. Even ISO 800 only delivers 1/25 at f13, and it's in that shade that most of the action occurs here. In that shade, to achieve 1/60 the aperture has to be be no smaller than f8 at ISO 800. At ISO 100 that becomes f2.8, and that's on the best day of the month so far.
There's a lot of shade in my garden so I need to be realistic and balance the pros and cons - after all, no picture, no record. I would have loved to have had the 300mm f2.8 when a Wryneck visited my garden briefly in September 2007. Fortunately the 300mm f4 was just about enough to grab a single, just about printable picture of the bird in the open on a dull, overcast day. An f5.6 lens just would not have coped with the constant movement of the bird.
And a final note - I've seen a hell of a lot of very good bird photography where the bird hasn't all been in focus so there is room for manoeuvre on this subject without having to stick strictly to the maths.
Stephen Fletcher
Yes, i did take the photo of the Eagle
I agree entirely with what you say, i have f4 there if i need it, all i was saying is i rarely need it. You misread what i said about 1/60 and f13, i never said i use that combination. What i said was i use f13 for small birds at 5 metres. I also said it was possible to get good sharp images of birds at 1/60. Just for the record, i use a 1D at 400 iso, f13, and in the shade i usually have 1/200 for correct exposure. Dont forget i live in Spain, the light here when bad, is still better than a good day for you.
DavidJJones
Garden Bird & Bug Watcher
I agree entirely with what you say, i have f4 there if i need it, all i was saying is i rarely need it. You misread what i said about 1/60 and f13, i never said i use that combination. What i said was i use f13 for small birds at 5 metres. I also said it was possible to get good sharp images of birds at 1/60. Just for the record, i use a 1D at 400 iso, f13, and in the shade i usually have 1/200 for correct exposure. Dont forget i live in Spain, the light here when bad, is still better than a good day for you.
It wasn't so much a mis-understanding, but rather a putting together of your two parameters to give what would seem to be a minimum requirement that would satisfy your aim to get a sharp image with a small bird completely in focus at 5m distance.
f13 and 1/200s in the shade at ISO 400 in Spain - that's just about what it is out in the open in my garden at 3pm this afternoon, although it is failing quite quickly now! At noon, f13 at ISO 400 would have required a shutter speed of 1/13s in the shade in my garden - mind you, ISO 1600 would have just about allowed 1/60s in an emergency!
We live in a very different league when it comes to daytime light levels.....
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Actually, given the stated need, I was just trying to save imagedude some money and questioning the need for another lens at all in order to shoot from a distance of 6' to 8'. Who wouldn't want f/4 in preference to f/5.6, and f/2.8 in preference to f/4, but that luxury comes at a price. The 70-200/2.8 is £925 at the moment and the 300/4 is £1100. I was questioning the value that would be gained from paying that price, given the shooting scenario described. If I ruffled any feathers then I'm sorry.
If you want to introduce other scenarios into the equation, like shooting at longer distances then, as useful and interesting as that discussion may be, it doesn't seem to address the topic of this thread, or the reasons stated for acquiring a new lens.
tdodd
Just call me Tim
DOF is influenced by sensor size, focal length, aperture and subject distance. There is an online DOF calculator here - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. The calculations there assume a specific final print/image size when viewed from a specific given distance. I think the standard is a 9"x6" print viewed from 10". If you enlarge more or less, or view from other distances then the DOF calculation will vary in a corresponding inverse ratio. e.g. if you enlarge to 18" x 12" for viewing from 10" then, because you are doubling the image magnification you will be halving the acceptable DOF.
Well, yes, but with the 600mm lens your subject will have to be 6X further away than with a 100mm lens in order to maintain subject size within the frame. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion here about shooting garden birds at between 6'-8'.
If you keep the same subject distance - let's say 6' - and use an aperture of f/5.6 then your 100mm lens will have a DOF of 2.68" on a 1.6X crop body. If you were to shoot with a 600mm lens, everything else being equal, the DOF would be 0.05", which I really don't think would have much practical use for bird photography.
Last edited:
DavidJJones
Garden Bird & Bug Watcher
No feathers ruffled here Tim. My comments were based on my experience in very similar circumstances to imagedude. Based on what he said in his first post he is actually looking for a lens to supplement his 400mm. so it made sense to discuss the aperture issue, especially as you raised it.
Of course it's cheaper to just use extension tubes, and there are many times when they are very useful, as long as you remember that they do reduce the effective aperture of any lens you use, so that f5.6 starts heading towards f6, depending on how much tube you add. Also, I don't think it's wandering from the topic to consider that imagedude may want to use the lens outside of that one scenario.
The two lenses that Imagedude is looking at, the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4 are, as you say, rather pricey to buy new, but they are readily found on the second-hand market as people who have the ready cash go for upgrades. My 80-200 f2.8 and 300 f4 (non IS) were both aquired this way for a combined cost of a couple of hundred less than the price of a new 70-200/2.8. Both are optically and cosmetically excellent, and I use them a great deal.
I see in the 'for sale' forum that there is an 80-200 f2.8 for sale by Robert Scanlon for £270ono - a nice lens for someone on a budget.
However, as good as I think that lens (and I assume the modern equivalent) is, he may find that 200mm may fall a bit short and 300mm may be a more suitable option. If that is the case then the 300mm f4 L is the lens to go for. Of course, if imagedude doesn't need IS then a second-hand, non-IS lens may be a good option, although its nearest focusing distance may be a bit long at 2.5m. In both cases it is possible to get the larger aperture option without breaking the bank quite so much!
Just a thought - while we have been discussing depth of field there is another factor that is relevent to Imagedude. I've just set up my 5D at 2.5m (just over 8ft) from a wall and measured the field of view available with both 300 and 200mm lenses at that distance. My 300mm lens (at its minumum focus distance) gives a field of view measuring 27.5x18.4cm. The 200mm lens gives 40.6x27.1cm. To put these into a small bird context context, a Blue Tit is up to about 12cm long, and a House Sparrow 16cm.
If I have time later I'll rejig these figures to represent the lenses used on a 20D or similar (and at the minimum focusing distance of the 300mm f4 IS, which is less than for the older lens.
