Bird Photography

chilliz

chilliz

Messages
1,782
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
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.
 
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.
 
chilliz said:
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:
Click to expand...

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
 
chilliz said:
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:
Click to expand...

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...
 
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
 
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. :)
 
chilliz said:
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..... :)
Click to expand...

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! :)
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

purpleclouds said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
postcardcv said:
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.
Click to expand...

I`d probably not bother with the TC as I would also like to keep AF. :thumbs:
 
postcardcv said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
purpleclouds said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
purpleclouds said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 - Shot with 300mm on 1D 3 - slightly cropped

Two - both uncropped with 300mm on 1D 3

Three - Dunnock/robin uncropped with 70-200 on 1D 2

Four - Slightly cropped dunnock with 70-200 on 1D 2 I think

Five - Slight crops for framing 300-400mm on 1D 2

Six - Uncropped, 400mm on 1D 2

Seven - 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.
 
[S3][/S3]
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!
 
chilliz said:
Yeah but the 30D is a 1.6X crop.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
chilliz said:
Nope - I`ve now decided on the 100-400L - when I can afford it. :)
Click to expand...

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
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Effjay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
postcardcv said:
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).
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Effjay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
postcardcv said:
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).
Click to expand...

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 said:
I've shot white tailed eagles at 300mm :D
Click to expand...

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 :(
 
purpleclouds said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
postcardcv said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know, exactly what I've been saying :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top