View Full Version : Bird Photography
After seeing some cracking shots in the bird forum, I fancy having a go. I`m going to borrow a lens initially but I wondered what lens is favourite with most people, if I decide to buy? I`m full frame by the way. My initial thoughts were Canon 100-400L.
With a full frame camera you are going to lose out in the length stakes to us croppers, and as a general rule you can never have enough length, 1.6 on my Sigma 150-500 isn't enough sometimes, though for long glass you are talking serious money. The Canon 400 prime is considered to be sharper and an excellent birding lens. Before committing to large expense why not rent ( or possibly borrow) and see how you get on.
Sadly, Artyman is right. Birding is one of the few areas where the right kit rules, and it's very expensive. Unless you're talking big birds that you can get close to, like captive hawks and owls etc, the minimum kind of firepower you need is a 400mm lens on a crop-body camera. On full frame, you need another 200mm on top of that at least and you're straight into mega-money and massive lenses that are very hard to use. 5DII might struggle to follow-focus birds in flight, too.
If you want to get serious, 7D and a 500 4 seems to be a good combo, but I notice that one or two of TP's best birders are now using a 7D with a 300 2.8 and 2x extender, making a 600mm f/5.6. This appears to be up to the job, plus the 300 2.8 is at least a little more affordable than the really big primes, it retains AF function, plus it's smaller and lighter. You also need a very good tripod, preferably with a gimbal head.
I'm going to give it a go in the spring and will be hiring a 300 2.8 plus extender from StewartR on here www.lensesforhire.co.uk About £150 a week for the two.
arclight
31-12-2009, 08:46
Yes, it's a good idea to borrow or rent to see if this aspect of photography is for you.
Having the right kit is a start, but if you want the sort of pics you see on here you will mostly need to sit in a hide and/or devote time to learning fieldcraft..
To get good bird pics on a casual walkabout usually requires a lot of luck.
If you really get into bird photography it might be worth considering investing in a crop frame specifically for situations where the extra zoom would help.
Wow!! thanks guys, I thought 400 would have been enough but like you say, I`ll borrow a lens and take it from there. :thumbs::thumbs:
Martyn...
31-12-2009, 09:20
Wow!! thanks guys, I thought 400 would have been enough but like you say, I`ll borrow a lens and take it from there. :thumbs::thumbs:
It will be if you can get close enough. Set up some feeders in the garden, put up some camo net between a couple of poles, and sit or stand still and wait.
Patience is one of the most important requirements, and you cannot buy that :D
postcardcv
31-12-2009, 09:29
Wow!! thanks guys, I thought 400 would have been enough but like you say, I`ll borrow a lens and take it from there. :thumbs::thumbs:
As others have said for birds reach is vital and you'll rarely have enough... the 100-400 is one of the most popular birding lenses around and is an excellent starting point. The 400 f5.6 vs 100-400 is often debated on Birdforum and opinion is split, but the basic point is that both are very good birding lenses. If you really get into birding you'll probably end up hankering after a big prime, then it really does get expensive...
The 100-400 wouls it nicely with my existing lenses anyway. :thumbs:
Chilliz, I've just started having a go at this bird photography lark (did you see what I did there?) in the last month. Harder than it looks, but very rewarding when it comes off. Great fun practising birds in flight nonetheless. Pretty much limited to ducks, geese and gulls myself, wishing I had even more reach.
I went for the 400mm prime on my 7D, but I've already splashed out another small fortune on a new tripod with a gimbal head. Slippery slope of empty walletness... :D
What do people think about the 100 - 400L sharpness wise? ...and would it team up with a 1.4TC, I know you would lose a stop but..... :)
lawrenceots
02-01-2010, 20:27
I've just got a 30D and the Canon 100-300 USM seems plenty close for me tbh. Obviously, you're always going to want to get closer at some point, but for the price and focal length, the 300 renge seems excellent to me. :)
The Sigma 150-500 OS is not a bad choice for a full frame both length and price wise
What do people think about the 100 - 400L sharpness wise? ...and would it team up with a 1.4TC, I know you would lose a stop but..... :)
100-400L is a brilliant lens. A great all-rounder - sharp, not too big, great range, close focus, IS, solid build, affordable... That's why it's so popular and holds it's price so well. I've got one. Nothing from Nikon or Sigma can touch it.
It takes a TC quite well but even a 1.4x shifts it to f/8 and so you lose AF on most cameras :(
After 300mm, it gets much more difficult and 400mm or so is really the upper limit before you are forced into very expensive primes.
purpleclouds
02-01-2010, 22:16
For people suggesting 500 f4s etc.. he is starting out, he will be shooting blue tits in his garden on the most part for a good while before wanting to try for ospreys and golden eagles..
The 5D II will be ample for his needs at the moment, yes it has a low fps.. but who seriously has it on anything above 4fps whilst working with skittish birds? I pretty much always use single shot mode with wildlife and trust my (limited) skills than spray and pray!
The 100-400 is a fantastic lens to get started in bird photography, and the lens I began with (well, after a crappy 70-300.. but I wasn't really serious about it then).
As I presume you will be starting small.. the key to this is not necessarily (at least for a while anyway) the equipment that rules, as HoppyUK incorrectly suggested. It is the manner in which you go about it.
I go to a local nature reserve which has a fantastic hide for woodland birds, and often 200mm is ample length on a 1.3x crop sensor. How? Well, I set up a perch not too far from the hide window, spread some seed around just below it on the floor.. then the birds use the perch as a quick stop off point before hopping down to the seed below. This gives me a couple of seconds to fire off a couple of frames, and at this time of year the bird traffic is like Heathrow!
The other advantage to this is that you can decide upon the background, light (so long as it fits in with the weather ;)) and so on... you could easily set something similar up in your garden if you get birds visiting, or find a local green patch and do the same.
If on the other hand, you wish to just go walking around some fields then you will struggle with anything less than 400mm.. but that also means you have absolutely no control over the light, perch, background etc.
I know which I'd rather do! :)
I've just got a 30D and the Canon 100-300 USM seems plenty close for me tbh. Obviously, you're always going to want to get closer at some point, but for the price and focal length, the 300 renge seems excellent to me. :)
Yeah but the 30D is a 1.6X crop.
100-400L is a brilliant lens. A great all-rounder - sharp, not too big, great range, close focus, IS, solid build, affordable... That's why it's so popular and holds it's price so well. I've got one. Nothing from Nikon or Sigma can touch it.
It takes a TC quite well but even a 1.4x shifts it to f/8 and so you lose AF on most cameras :(
After 300mm, it gets much more difficult and 400mm or so is really the upper limit before you are forced into very expensive primes.
For people suggesting 500 f4s etc.. he is starting out, he will be shooting blue tits in his garden on the most part for a good while before wanting to try for ospreys and golden eagles..
The 5D II will be ample for his needs at the moment, yes it has a low fps.. but who seriously has it on anything above 4fps whilst working with skittish birds? I pretty much always use single shot mode with wildlife and trust my (limited) skills than spray and pray!
The 100-400 is a fantastic lens to get started in bird photography, and the lens I began with (well, after a crappy 70-300.. but I wasn't really serious about it then).
As I presume you will be starting small.. the key to this is not necessarily (at least for a while anyway) the equipment that rules, as HoppyUK incorrectly suggested. It is the manner in which you go about it.
I go to a local nature reserve which has a fantastic hide for woodland birds, and often 200mm is ample length on a 1.3x crop sensor. How? Well, I set up a perch not too far from the hide window, spread some seed around just below it on the floor.. then the birds use the perch as a quick stop off point before hopping down to the seed below. This gives me a couple of seconds to fire off a couple of frames, and at this time of year the bird traffic is like Heathrow!
The other advantage to this is that you can decide upon the background, light (so long as it fits in with the weather ;)) and so on... you could easily set something similar up in your garden if you get birds visiting, or find a local green patch and do the same.
If on the other hand, you wish to just go walking around some fields then you will struggle with anything less than 400mm.. but that also means you have absolutely no control over the light, perch, background etc.
I know which I'd rather do! :)
Thanks for confirming my thoughts guys, you both seem to like the lens and TBH I think I`ve more or less made up my mind and gonna go for it. I also think it will be very useful for other stuff too. you are absolutely right Purpleclouds, it will probably be in my garden and maybe some waterbirds at reserves etc.
:thumbs:
postcardcv
02-01-2010, 22:27
While it is true that in some situations you can get away with shorter focal lengths (I have taken shots of wild birds at 10mm on a crop body), it's not the case most of the time. I've owned two 100-400s (still got the second one) and have used a couple of other copies in the field, all have been very sharp. I'd definitely take it over any of the Tamron/Sigma long zooms as it is sharper and has faster AF. I don't use mine with a 1.4x as I like to keep AF, but I know others who do and who get good results with it. Pick one up secondhand and if you don't get on with it you could sell it on for little or no loss.
While it is true that in some situations you can get away with shorter focal lengths (I have taken shots of wild birds at 10mm on a crop body), it's not the case most of the time. I've owned two 100-400s (still got the second one) and have used a couple of other copies in the field, all have been very sharp. I'd definitely take it over any of the Tamron/Sigma long zooms as it is sharper and has faster AF. I don't use mine with a 1.4x as I like to keep AF, but I know others who do and who get good results with it. Pick one up secondhand and if you don't get on with it you could sell it on for little or no loss.
I`d probably not bother with the TC as I would also like to keep AF. :thumbs:
purpleclouds
02-01-2010, 22:31
While it is true that in some situations you can get away with shorter focal lengths (I have taken shots of wild birds at 10mm on a crop body), it's not the case most of the time. I've owned two 100-400s (still got the second one) and have used a couple of other copies in the field, all have been very sharp. I'd definitely take it over any of the Tamron/Sigma long zooms as it is sharper and has faster AF. I don't use mine with a 1.4x as I like to keep AF, but I know others who do and who get good results with it. Pick one up secondhand and if you don't get on with it you could sell it on for little or no loss.
Indeed it's not possible all the time but you make your own luck in this game! If you can't get to the birds, bring the birds to you!
Buzzards with some road kill... owls with squeaky dog toys... loads of tricks I've read/heard about over the past couple of years! It depends entirely on how much time and effort you are willing to put in... you only get out what you put in at the end of the day!
Naturally though, as I say... you won't be getting wild golden eagles with 200mm any time soon!
Indeed it's not possible all the time but you make your own luck in this game! If you can't get to the birds, bring the birds to you!
Buzzards with some road kill... owls with squeaky dog toys... loads of tricks I've read/heard about over the past couple of years! It depends entirely on how much time and effort you are willing to put in... you only get out what you put in at the end of the day!
Naturally though, as I say... you won't be getting wild golden eagles with 200mm any time soon!
Sorry, but I think it's bad advice to suggest that the OP spends money on a shorter lens, even to shoot garden birds. To get a good frame-filler of a robin, or blue tit, great tit, chaffinch or some other tamish species that you can get close to, means a field of view about six inches wide. With a 300mm lens on a crop camera that is a distance of just six feet. That's mega close. It's almost flippin macro!
Using a lens that is shorter than you need just results in disappointment, frustration and wasted money. Even with 400mm you are still going to be cropping hard to get a decent image. That is reality.
purpleclouds
02-01-2010, 23:17
Sorry, but I think it's bad advice to suggest that the OP spends money on a shorter lens, even to shoot garden birds. To get a good frame-filler of a robin, or blue tit, great tit, chaffinch or some other tamish species that you can get close to, means a field of view about six inches wide. With a 300mm lens on a crop camera that is a distance of just six feet. That's mega close. It's almost flippin macro!
Using a lens that is shorter than you need just results in disappointment, frustration and wasted money. Even with 400mm you are still going to be cropping hard to get a decent image. That is reality.
So instead, you suggest he goes out and buys a 500mm when he is just trying it out?
You say you will be giving it a go soon... so I am presuming you are trying to tell me what is and isn't possible, when I have a good 3+ years experience on you?
A few of the usual suspects on here will know I am much geared towards the usage of shorter lenses (after much heated debate with Fracster, IanC..) ..however even they acknowledge it is entirely possible to use shorter focal lengths if the setup in the environment is right.
I will reiterate that he will not be getting any of the rarer stuff with a 100-400.. but as he has said, that isn't what he is after at the moment.
It is entirely possible to get the birds he intends on getting, within 6 feet of your camera. As I said in my post, I have them around 3-4 feet away easily with my setup. Tits, finches... you would be surprised how accommodating they will be if there is easy food for them. I have full frame shots of nuthatches at 200mm on my 1D mark 2 (1.3x)...
I will reiterate that if Ian is willing to put it the time to gain the trust of some of his local wildlife, by seeding an area etc (as described above) then the 100-400 would be the perfect lens.
In the case that he decides bird photography isn't for him.. then he also still has a very versatile lens for use in multiple other areas from portraits to airshows. The big primes however, are not as flexible! The 100-400 will be easy to sell on too if he decides he doesn't like it, and won't lose any significant money on it.
100-400 is the lens to get. You've set your mind on it anyway ;) As Phil says it's a good lens for a number of things apart from just birding. And untill you want Golden eagles outside of the raptor centres it's a fantastic starting lens. You can flog it no problem if you get bored with birding. That I'm sure you never will, once you have the bug.
I've had a Siggy 50-500, an excellent copy, and the 100-400 beats it hands down for sharpness.
At the moment i have a 50D c/w the 100-400L and I'm more than happy with that combo.
So instead, you suggest he goes out and buys a 500mm when he is just trying it out?
You say you will be giving it a go soon... so I am presuming you are trying to tell me what is and isn't possible, when I have a good 3+ years experience on you?
A few of the usual suspects on here will know I am much geared towards the usage of shorter lenses (after much heated debate with Fracster, IanC..) ..however even they acknowledge it is entirely possible to use shorter focal lengths if the setup in the environment is right.
I will reiterate that he will not be getting any of the rarer stuff with a 100-400.. but as he has said, that isn't what he is after at the moment.
It is entirely possible to get the birds he intends on getting, within 6 feet of your camera. As I said in my post, I have them around 3-4 feet away easily with my setup. Tits, finches... you would be surprised how accommodating they will be if there is easy food for them. I have full frame shots of nuthatches at 200mm on my 1D mark 2 (1.3x)...
I will reiterate that if Ian is willing to put it the time to gain the trust of some of his local wildlife, by seeding an area etc (as described above) then the 100-400 would be the perfect lens.
In the case that he decides bird photography isn't for him.. then he also still has a very versatile lens for use in multiple other areas from portraits to airshows. The big primes however, are not as flexible! The 100-400 will be easy to sell on too if he decides he doesn't like it, and won't lose any significant money on it.
The OP has a 5DII and if I understand you correctly you appear to be suggesting that he can get good results with a 200mm or 300mm lens. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood, but that's crazy - unless they are stuffed. I have said that the minimum to get anything decent is 400mm on a crop camera.
That is what I use, and I have been shooting birds for a very long time. Mostly unsuccessfully it has to be said, because I have simply never had the reach and if I am going to sit in a hide for hours I don't want to come home to a load of post processing trying to pull three pixels of nothing into a recognisable image. So I intend to change that this year by hiring some suitable weaponry.
If I am recommending the OP to do anything, it would be to hire a something long and meaty before throwing money away on something that will not do the job it was purchased for.
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 01:19
The OP has a 5DII and if I understand you correctly you appear to be suggesting that he can get good results with a 200mm or 300mm lens. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood, but that's crazy - unless they are stuffed. I have said that the minimum to get anything decent is 400mm on a crop camera.
That is what I use, and I have been shooting birds for a very long time. Mostly unsuccessfully it has to be said, because I have simply never had the reach and if I am going to sit in a hide for hours I don't want to come home to a load of post processing trying to pull three pixels of nothing into a recognisable image. So I intend to change that this year by hiring some suitable weaponry.
If I am recommending the OP to do anything, it would be to hire a something long and meaty before throwing money away on something that will not do the job it was purchased for.
Then all I can say is you are doing something very, very wrong...
Here are a few of my own examples for you.. EXIF should be embedded in them all should you wish to check.
One (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=183484) - Shot with 300mm on 1D 3 - slightly cropped
Two (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=167679) - both uncropped with 300mm on 1D 3
Three (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=117194) - Dunnock/robin uncropped with 70-200 on 1D 2
Four (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=115902) - Slightly cropped dunnock with 70-200 on 1D 2 I think
Five (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=108804) - Slight crops for framing 300-400mm on 1D 2
Six (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=107196) - Uncropped, 400mm on 1D 2
Seven (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=91060) - Slight crops (upto 25%) from 70-200 and 1D 2 - birds about 3ft away as I say in the thread..
... and there is plenty more where they came from... so please, do tell me that you NEED a minimum of 400mm on a 5D II... just think of the extra cropping the 20-odd megapixel 5DII has over the 8mp 1D 2 as well...
I said he could get results with the 100-400 easily.. for what he wants, garden/woodland birds and wetland centre type birds (ducks, geese, swans, gulls). If we do some simple maths, 300mm on my 1D is pretty much equivalent to 400mm on his 5D II. My 1D 3 has 10mp.. his 5DII has more than twice that. Aside the focus speed, drive speed etc.. he is in a fantastic position to get bird shots, so long as he is successful in bringing the birds in to range.
I never once said HE could get results with 200-300mm worth of reach, I said I had.. and if he were to concentrate on bringing the birds closer, as I did in my examples, then he too could possibly get similar results. I will reiterate for a 2nd time, that the 100-400mm lens would be an ideal choice for him. Giving him 400mm, not 200 or 300mm...
Your problem seems to be that whilst you are willing to sit in a hide for hours on end... you've never proactively tried to get the birds to come to you. They will. Just have a look at what Fracster and Sawman have done with their hides (there is a current thread at the moment). They dedicate lots of time, and effort... it isn't just about photography.
Ian has the ability to feed the birds in his garden on a daily basis, they'll get used to it, then he can introduce a hide/screen, let them get used to that.. then he can sit in/behind his construction.. let them get used to that, then finally he can introduce his camera..
Simples :shrug:
Ps. I think it's a bad idea to rent a big prime... as then when reality checks in and his budget (which I am assuming he has) limits him to a 100-400, he may wrongly feel it is inadequate and therefore give up on the idea all together.
If anything, he should hire a 100-400 (if not buy)... spend a weeks intense birding with it and see how he gets on. If he takes my tips on board he has no reason to fail... aside no photography skills... which I'm sure isn't an issue ;) :D
Some great captures there Phil. No question :thumbs:
You're advocating fieldcraft, I'm saying you need both fieldcraft and long lenses. I don't see any point in arguing over equipment (especially as we both said how good the 100-400 is) and the OP has plenty of debate on which to base a judgement there, but I will say for sure that for me, shooting birds at three feet distance as you do is just not a realistic prospect. Neither is six feet for that matter, or at least it's extremely rare.
arronbarnes
03-01-2010, 08:40
Some great captures there Phil. No question :thumbs:
You're advocating fieldcraft, I'm saying you need both fieldcraft and long lenses. I don't see any point in arguing over equipment (especially as we both said how good the 100-400 is) and the OP has plenty of debate on which to base a judgement there, but I will say for sure that for me, shooting birds at three feet distance as you do is just not a realistic prospect. Neither is six feet for that matter, or at least it's extremely rare.
To start off with a 100-400 would be an excellent choice. As Phil has so excellently demonstrated it is not always about the length of your lens, it's more about how you use it. Frame fillers are nice, but I prefer to see some of the birds natural environment included as well. Once the op decides that bird photography is for him then a longer lens may be necessary but to state that he needs a 500mm+ from the start is madness. Oh and if you have been trying bird photography for 3 year mostly unsuccesfully perhaps your technique needs to be improved? By the way, 7 years a pro and some of my best and well selling bird images were taken at 400mm!!
lawrenceots
03-01-2010, 09:24
Yeah but the 30D is a 1.6X crop.
Yes, sorry I just realised you're going to be using a 5D 2! Looking at it that way, even a 400 is going to be a bit short isn't it, my 300 becomes approx 480 mm so I guess you'd be looking for a bit longer. :)
Yes, sorry I just realised you're going to be using a 5D 2! Looking at it that way, even a 400 is going to be a bit short isn't it, my 300 becomes approx 480 mm so I guess you'd be looking for a bit longer. :)
Nope - I`ve now decided on the 100-400L - when I can afford it. :)
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 09:44
Nope - I`ve now decided on the 100-400L - when I can afford it. :)
Good choice, Sir :)
One day, if you decide bird photography is for you, then you could make the jump to a big prime... your 100-400 to be would be a fantastic accompaniment to one, and the established pros such as Ben Hall still do use them :)
But in the mean time, you've plenty of scope to get out there and have fun... which is what it's all about :D
Sorry, but I think it's bad advice to suggest that the OP spends money on a shorter lens, even to shoot garden birds. To get a good frame-filler of a robin, or blue tit, great tit, chaffinch or some other tamish species that you can get close to, means a field of view about six inches wide. With a 300mm lens on a crop camera that is a distance of just six feet. That's mega close. It's almost flippin macro!
Using a lens that is shorter than you need just results in disappointment, frustration and wasted money. Even with 400mm you are still going to be cropping hard to get a decent image. That is reality.
Not reality at all. I frequently fill the frame on almost every visit when birding and always on a 300mm, no longer. I find there is no need for longer unless you are hunting rare birds.
arronbarnes
03-01-2010, 09:49
Personally I think that the 100-400 is a good choice for you. If you can't get frame fillers with it then try to include some of the natural environment. Even RSPB images do not want frame fillers now. They much prefer the bird / animal etc in a natural setting.
Arron
postcardcv
03-01-2010, 10:11
Not reality at all. I frequently fill the frame on almost every visit when birding and always on a 300mm, no longer. I find there is no need for longer unless you are hunting rare birds.
If all you do is photograph woodland birds at a feeding station then a 300mm might well be enough (with with your Olympus crop factor it's like shooting 600mm on a full frame body), but for a lot of bird photography it will fall short. I think that there is a habit of confusing rare birds with birds that don't come into gardens/feeding stations. There are loads of species which are by no means rare that will not come into a feeding station and will require a longer lens to get decent shots of. Yet I have had genuinely rare birds come well inside the minimum focus distance of my lens. Some birds can be coaxed in close, some can't - a longer lens will put more species within your range.
Expectations is another thing to consider. If all you want to do with your photos is display them on the web then a shorter lens will be fine as you can just crop in hard. If however you want images that will print well then you need to get the bird bigger in the frame, which needs luck, fieldcraft or a longer lens (and often all three).
If all you do is photograph woodland birds at a feeding station then a 300mm might well be enough (with with your Olympus crop factor it's like shooting 600mm on a full frame body), but for a lot of bird photography it will fall short. I think that there is a habit of confusing rare birds with birds that don't come into gardens/feeding stations. There are loads of species which are by no means rare that will not come into a feeding station and will require a longer lens to get decent shots of. Yet I have had genuinely rare birds come well inside the minimum focus distance of my lens. Some birds can be coaxed in close, some can't - a longer lens will put more species within your range.
Expectations is another thing to consider. If all you want to do with your photos is display them on the web then a shorter lens will be fine as you can just crop in hard. If however you want images that will print well then you need to get the bird bigger in the frame, which needs luck, fieldcraft or a longer lens (and often all three).
Just to be clear, I dont use a hide or a feeding station, I dont have any birds visitng my garden. I dont shoot birds from my kitchen window if thats what you think. Sure I use seed, but have no set stations, I just coax in what I can, when I can :D
Rare birds are rare birds, theres no other way of saying it! When I said rare birds I meant "rare" birds. There is no confusion on my part.
For me field craft is the answer, but of course, not the answer for everyone, every one is different :)
lawrenceots
03-01-2010, 10:20
Not reality at all. I frequently fill the frame on almost every visit when birding and always on a 300mm, no longer. I find there is no need for longer unless you are hunting rare birds.
Yes, but your 70-300 f4 becomes 140-600 f4 on your Olympus! Hence you fill the frame. I forgot about this in a previous post too when explaining about my 30D and 100-300 combi!
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 10:27
If all you do is photograph woodland birds at a feeding station then a 300mm might well be enough (with with your Olympus crop factor it's like shooting 600mm on a full frame body), but for a lot of bird photography it will fall short. I think that there is a habit of confusing rare birds with birds that don't come into gardens/feeding stations. There are loads of species which are by no means rare that will not come into a feeding station and will require a longer lens to get decent shots of. Yet I have had genuinely rare birds come well inside the minimum focus distance of my lens. Some birds can be coaxed in close, some can't - a longer lens will put more species within your range.
Expectations is another thing to consider. If all you want to do with your photos is display them on the web then a shorter lens will be fine as you can just crop in hard. If however you want images that will print well then you need to get the bird bigger in the frame, which needs luck, fieldcraft or a longer lens (and often all three).
Indeed. All he wants to do is shoot birds in his garden and water birds at lakes etc. At the moment. Hence why there is no need to go spending thousands before he even knows if he will enjoy it.
By 'rare' birds, I generally understand them as eagles, bitterns (although we have seen some really good close shots on here recently), passing winter migrants (the one offs that get lost!) and so on..
You are right in saying that some of the more 'uncommon' birds can be caught through accidental or purposeful attraction to a hide. You have to put in just as much research time (if not more!) as you do shooting time. I spend a fair amount of time each week following various local bird reporting websites, research the locations, see what would be possible there etc. If you just want to roll up at a hide and start shooting then bird photography isn't for you...
If Effjay is filling the frame with an effective 600mm at 12mp, then 400mm at 21mp isn't going to be massively different in terms of pixel density so cropping is possible. Especially if you take in to account artistic license and allow for environment as Arron Barnes says..
You just have to look at wildlife photography competitions to see how the pros and amateurs alike work. I did a tally of all the focal lengths used in the previous years Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. Only 1/10 used 500mm or longer! But again, this depends on your wants... do you want an art shot, or a scientific study?
For what Ian wants the 100-400 would be ideal as a starting point. If he feels the urge to push further then sure, he can expand his focal range. But jumping in the deep end and buying a big lens is going to do nothing for him. If he is given that idea as a basis to start from he will very quickly get disappointed by a lack of results.
He should start from the beginning, and learn about the birds behaviour and how best to utilise it to fit his needs and equipment. Then eventually, when he wants to move on to bigger, rarer species he can up his game in both fieldcraft and equipment stakes.
grumpybadger
03-01-2010, 10:44
By 'rare' birds, I generally understand them as eagles, bitterns (although we have seen some really good close shots on here recently), passing winter migrants (the one offs that get lost!) and so on..
I've shot white tailed eagles at 300mm :D
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 10:46
I've shot white tailed eagles at 300mm :D
The one exception to the rule :D I've seen pictures from some of the boat trips they do up there... madness considering they were pretty much non-exsistant not 15 years ago!
I'd love to go on one myself but never got round to it :(
postcardcv
03-01-2010, 10:46
Indeed. All he wants to do is shoot birds in his garden and water birds at lakes etc. At the moment. Hence why there is no need to go spending thousands before he even knows if he will enjoy it.
Indeed and at no point have I sugested that he should buy a longer lens, I have just warned that bird photography can be addictive and longer lens may well become tempting if he gets into it.
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 10:50
Indeed and at no point have I sugested that he should buy a longer lens, I have just warned that bird photography can be addictive and longer lens may well become tempting if he gets into it.
I know, exactly what I've been saying :thumbs:
grumpybadger
03-01-2010, 10:51
I've been trying to keep out of this but I have to say, the only starter options I can see are
1. 100-400
2. 400/5.6 prime
The 100-400L was my first lens for birding and I used it for ages before finally getting the 500mm. I still have it and wouldn't dream of parting with it - it's a cracking lens with a wonderfully flexible zoom range and easily hand holdable if need be. The IS is a big bonus too.
The only alternative I'd recommend is the 400mm 5.6L which is a tad sharper and actually cheaper, but you'd lose the flexibility of that zoom range.
grumpybadger
03-01-2010, 10:57
Great minds think alike (or is it fools never differ!) ;)
LOL. I'd prefer the former. :D
I agree. The 400mm f5.6 is an excellent lens, but the 100-400mm L is far more versatile and probably a better choice than the prime for someone who wants to try bird/wildlife photography. The OP will still have a first class lens if he doesn't pursue this, and the big primes will still be available if he gets hooked!
Not as popular a lens as the Canon 100-400 but thought I'd just chuck in a suggestion of the Sigma 50-500mm that I use. I've never had a 100-400 to compare it to but for me it's brill, great reach even though a lot of places say it's actually more like 470mm and not 500 and pretty damn sharp even at max zoom. It's never going to be as sharp as a dedicated prime I know but I find it to be a very versatile and sharp lens.
Tommy.
It's worth remembering too, that splodging out that big wedge of dosh on a super tele lens is only the beginning. You'll need some sort of soft long lens case to protect it in transit and to hump it around if any amount of walking is involved. Then you soon realise you need a gimbal head and your current tripod may well need replacing to meet the demands of that heavy lens.
All this gear has to be carted about and it does require a level of commitment which not everyone may want to make. A 400mm lens makes a lot of sense to get some experience and see if you're likely to want to take it further.
I really appreciate all the info and advice guys. :thumbs:
if anyone is going birding dont go with the cheaper end canon 300 lenses. Just to spare u alot of dissapiontment and possible well wishes of slamming the damn thing.
Just today this beautiful rare Great Cormorant was flying about a 100 meters wareabout and I took about 20 photos which non came sharp at all. I had to recognize it through the mess of pixels that i got. Damn thing wouldnt focus properly so in panick i changed to MF and i didnt do a good job anyway :bang:
Byker28i
03-01-2010, 17:21
Can I just add for garden birds, once they get familiar with the feeding spots then you can setup a 100-400 with 1.4tc, manual focus and trigger with a remote, especially if you've got a branch very close that they perch on first.
F8 gives a decent depth of field for this.
purpleclouds
03-01-2010, 17:46
Can I just add for garden birds, once they get familiar with the feeding spots then you can setup a 100-400 with 1.4tc, manual focus and trigger with a remote, especially if you've got a branch very close that they perch on first.
F8 gives a decent depth of field for this.
What do you need the 1.4x for in your garden? Take trigger in through a window and sit indoors...
lawrenceots
03-01-2010, 17:52
if anyone is going birding dont go with the cheaper end canon 300 lenses. Just to spare u alot of dissapiontment and possible well wishes of slamming the damn thing.
Just today this beautiful rare Great Cormorant was flying about a 100 meters wareabout and I took about 20 photos which non came sharp at all. I had to recognize it through the mess of pixels that i got. Damn thing wouldnt focus properly so in panick i changed to MF and i didnt do a good job anyway :bang:
Do you mean the 75-300 USM mk3 and the non mk3? Cause I have the 100-300 USM, and it has what I think is called ring type USM, and it is certainly very fast and accurate on my 30D.:thinking:
Do you mean the 75-300 USM mk3 and the non mk3? Cause I have the 100-300 USM, and it has what I think is called ring type USM, and it is certainly very fast and accurate on my 30D.:thinking:
yes i mean the 75-300 mk3 USM. Yes it is fast ok but it changes focus on other objects even between clicking. With flying birds or rare birds who land for a few seconds it is a killer. Lens somehow knows it aint a common bird hence then it starts acting up.
Get a common Stonechat or a robin and the photos are bird forum quality, get a kestrel or the above mentioned bird and u are left with this
http://i46.tinypic.com/2drard2.jpg
granted the photo is cropped and the situation was a bit outta the car and start shooting. That is the best i manged in 20 photos and its with autofocus bbefore applying manual
If that is cropped then i think you were asking a bit much of the AF. It needs some contrast on the target, which at that distance is going to just look black to the sensor and the only contrast is the sky behind so what is it expected to do, the bird at 200ft of the sky at infinity. Autofocus can only make a best guess at what it thinks you want it isn't a miracle working machine. There is of course manual focus, which is what we used to use before we came to rely on electronics to do it all for us. :)
fracster
03-01-2010, 22:25
I've shot white tailed eagles at 300mm :D
Pah, I up you to peregrines at 200mm.......:naughty:
tried manual focus :nuts: but the ferry had just docked in and people around me were passing comments about that dude taking pics of pigeons and the bird was getting further away and it came even worst. Such birds u cant really relay on them to come at 10 ft away from u luring them with seeds. If 300 cant do the job hope the 400 can do a tad better when i sell almost all of my belongings to afford it :shrug:
Pah, I up you to peregrines at 200mm.......:naughty:
captive breed i guess
Richard Peters
03-01-2010, 22:39
I've shot white tailed eagles at 300mm :D
Nobody likes a show off :razz: :D
fracster
03-01-2010, 22:40
captive breed i guess
You guess very wrong mate.............;)
fracster
03-01-2010, 22:41
End of it all, use what you can to get the results you want,if that means a 600, all well and good, if it means a 300 so be it.There is no answer to the argument.
daugirdas
03-01-2010, 22:48
I shot a heron at 200mm and missed as it got too close!
(The next time I needed 400mm and then I completely gave up).
Richard Peters
03-01-2010, 22:53
Herons are quite easy to get near a lot of the time. Bit like Pelicans, you can pretty much stroke them on the head so a frame filler is possible with a wide angle lol
daugirdas
03-01-2010, 23:13
Herons are quite easy to get near a lot of the time. Bit like Pelicans, you can pretty much stroke them on the head so a frame filler is possible with a wide angle lol
Maybe in London :shrug: but not in proper woodlands. Every time I got within 50m they would fly off. 400mm would have handled that (which would be about same as 8MP crop with 5D mkii).
With 200mm I managed to get close enough to tits and other small common birds but they were always in the shade, too little light, and at 1/60s there was camera shake all over place. IS is really a must in these cases.
Geese, goslings, ducks and coots are very approachable though, even with 100mm macro - I've shot their teeth macro! But I doubt OP would be interested in these breeds.
If I ever try myself birding I think about 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x, or 100-400mm IS. It may be a while though as I am more into landscapes, macros and hope to do weddings shortly.
daugirdas
03-01-2010, 23:27
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfish/
I follow his photostream and I think it doesn't get much better than that. I am not sure what he uses, but living in East Asia makes a difference to what he can shoot.
man those flickr photos make me hide myself in shame. They are amazing
Byker28i
04-01-2010, 09:51
Herons are quite easy to get near a lot of the time. Bit like Pelicans, you can pretty much stroke them on the head so a frame filler is possible with a wide angle lol
We've got a heron on our local lake. I often see him around the area as I walk the dog, but you can't get very close to it.
The closest I could get was at 300mm
http://www.pbase.com/byker28i/image/117134629.jpg
Martyn...
04-01-2010, 10:01
Herons are quite easy to get near a lot of the time. Bit like Pelicans, you can pretty much stroke them on the head so a frame filler is possible with a wide angle lol
Richard you will not get within 100m of a Heron at Belvide, unless you are in a hide and one wanders by, maybe the ones on inner city parks have become tamer and used to humans, certainly the ones out in the wilds have not.
fracster
04-01-2010, 10:09
Herons are quite easy to get near a lot of the time. Bit like Pelicans, you can pretty much stroke them on the head so a frame filler is possible with a wide angle lol
Hi Richard, how are you ?
The majority of herons on the rivers up here are very difficult to get near. As are the gooseanders, but i`m sure you know the reason why.Both these species have amazing eyesight, I put that down to years of persecution and ,alas, ongoing persecution.
PS....That stag in the mist you took is one of my all time favourites...........:thumbs:
postcardcv
04-01-2010, 10:10
We've got a heron on our local lake. I often see him around the area as I walk the dog, but you can't get very close to it.
The closest I could get was at 300mm
Normally I struggle with herons but a couple of years back there was a very easy one locally, I wish I'd had a 100-400 with me that day, 700mm was overkill...
http://www.blueskybirds.co.uk/photos/greyheron_011007_0008.jpg
Byker28i
04-01-2010, 10:45
Nice shot
Ours is generally in the same place everyday at dawn, but I've spotted him around a few different ponds recently as well.
I'm glad that I stumbled upon this thread :). I've been trying to do some bird photography, to fill in time in the winter months and to capitalise on the many visitng (and hungry) species that appear in my local forest at this time of year.
The trouble is, I'm trying to do everything without the aid of a hide or (even) a tripod and remote. What's worse, my main camera is a D700 (not often anyone says that on TP :D) - being full-frame and only 12MP, limits the amount of cropping that I can to do. Then there's the glass :|.
After struggling along with the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR for a year and constantly having problems with poor focusing and softness over 200mm, I went and and bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VR II and 1.7x TC, in the hope that I might get sharp images at 340mm and quick focus. To some extent, I have (the focus is much better and the VR really works), but it doesn't alter the fact that even at 340mm (FX) most small woodland birds still don't come up very large in the frame when you can't get within 10 feet of them :(.
What this thread confirms (the way that I've read it ;)), is that this is one area of photography where the equipment really does dictate whether or not your end result will be 'good enough' - in certain situations, at least.
Still, I do find bird photography has greatly increased my appreciation of nature and the environment (not normally big concerns of mine, as a city-dweller) and I really enjoy my little trips into the woods. So, having been warned about how expensive this branch of photography can be, I think that I'll just try and scale down my expectations, instead of scaling up my lens collection :D.
Get yourself some camoflage cloth to drape over you and the camera, get a monopod then sit quietly and wait for them to come to you, some food as enticement works here :D
It will be if you can get close enough. Set up some feeders in the garden, put up some camo net between a couple of poles, and sit or stand still and wait.
Patience is one of the most important requirements, and you cannot buy that :D
Very true about Patience
Kirk
purpleclouds
04-01-2010, 16:20
Very true about Patience
Kirk
Indeed, I think patience even rules King over equipment most of the time :lol:
Rovers_Andy
04-01-2010, 16:25
I shot a heron at 200mm and missed as it got too close!
(The next time I needed 400mm and then I completely gave up).
What happened to the wide angle Heron shots that appeared a while back :suspect:
Still, I do find bird photography has greatly increased my appreciation of nature and the environment (not normally big concerns of mine, as a city-dweller) and I really enjoy my little trips into the woods. So, having been warned about how expensive this branch of photography can be, I think that I'll just try and scale down my expectations, instead of scaling up my lens collection :D.
Hmmm.. slippery slope methinks. I think you've discovered the simple pleasure of being far from the madding crowd and getting that bit closer to nature, which I'm sure is more than half the attraction, and why wildlife photography is so damned compelling. ;)
fracster
04-01-2010, 17:02
No matter how much patience you have, sometimes you need the longer stuff. I`m not arguing with anyone about it,but in my opinion that is a fact.
Martyn...
04-01-2010, 17:12
No matter how much patience you have, sometimes you need the longer stuff. I`m not arguing with anyone about it,but in my opinion that is a fact.
I agree Ade .... but you can buy the longer stuff, you cannot buy patience.
The point I make is that there are some out there that think the only answer to wonderful bird images is a 500mm or 600mm lens, venture out for an hour or two and get jaw dropping results.
fracster
04-01-2010, 17:17
I agree Ade .... but you can buy the longer stuff, you cannot buy patience.
The point I make is that there are some out there that think the only answer to wonderful bird images is a 500mm or 600mm lens, venture out for an hour or two and get jaw dropping results.
Agree completely Martyn.No matter what lens you have, patience and an understanding of the subject is of great importance.
I've spoken to some hunters in my areas (damn some of em to hell :razz: ) and they tell u the best part of the hunt is actually waiting out in the country with all the peace quiet and serenity around them. The kill for some is a bonus.
I can understand them very well. I do not have the pretty juicy 500s and 600s but I can say that birding is one huge hobby I found me. Lucky me I have the patience and only a cheap 300mm. Now all im trying to do is sell my remote control nitro cars, my pet snakes and my old collection of warhammer figurines and will get me closer to a 400 L :love: to suppliment my patience.
P.S the page before I posted a crepy pic of a black looking bird and was complaining alot vs my cheap 300. I cliamed it was at 100 meters away. In reality it was 300 meters away according to google earth
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.