Lenses to achieve blurred backgrounds in wildlife

smr

smr

Messages
1,887
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

If on a used budget of £3-4k and bearing in mind I'd want fast and reliable focus, a wide aperture - f4 would be enough although the wider the better - and as long a reach as possible - what would the best lenses be to look at, with or without TCs? I really like wildlife photos where the subject pops against a really blurred or nicely bokeh'd background.
 
The most used lens of choice is a 500f4 on a used budget. I use a 600f4 as length is king but its a pain carrying that and the tripod. The blur cones from the subject distance to the background however a long focal length gives a smaller area in focus which helps with the backgrounds a lot.
 
smr said:
Hi all,

If on a used budget of £3-4k and bearing in mind I'd want fast and reliable focus, a wide aperture - f4 would be enough although the wider the better - and as long a reach as possible - what would the best lenses be to look at, with or without TCs? I really like wildlife photos where the subject pops against a really blurred or nicely bokeh'd background.
Click to expand...

You will be able to achieve a blurred background easily with any long lens which has an aperture of f4 - f5.6 in actuality at 400mm plus the DOF is reasonably shallow at those apertures.
 
You don't need a wide aperture to blur backgrounds at long focal lengths. I have a 500mm f8 lens, but it has such a shallow depth of field that it's hard to photograph a frame filling bird with both legs in focus. If the bird is standing on grass it's easy to see the very narrow slice of grass which is in focus, with slightly nearer or further grass blurring. In fact I'd rather like to be able to stop this lens down to f11 or f16 when I'm filling the frame with a bird, just in order to get more of it in sharp focus.
 
At that sort of focal length (400+) you will wont have a problem getting blurred backgrounds. Even my budget Tamron 150-600 shot at f11 would have the background blurred, so shooting at f8 or 5.6 would be not an issue at all
 
I have a Sigma 150-600 C lens but it's not going to get me the kind of really diffused background as say a Canon 500mm f/4. That's why I want to know the best option on a used budget around that price bearing in mind as much diffused background as possible and as much reach whether it be with TCs or not.
 
smr said:
I have a Sigma 150-600 C lens but it's not going to get me the kind of really diffused background as say a Canon 500mm f/4. That's why I want to know the best option on a used budget around that price bearing in mind as much diffused background as possible and as much reach whether it be with TCs or not.
Click to expand...

An extra stop of DOF won't make a massive difference at that kind of focal length though. Subject distance as has been said will have far more impact.

Do you have any example photos of what you have taken and what you want to achieve so that people can see exactly what it is you are after? Spending 3K on a lens that doesn't solve a problem that I thought it would would be rather frustrating for me.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
As i said before you can achieve the blurred background by getting close to your subject and having the background further away. It can be achieved by much shorter focal lengths is your close with a distant background or shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

As the man says. Our friendly robin shot in the garden with a 100-400 at f5.6, at about 12 feet away, with the fence behind about 4 feet beyond that, from memory
108016257.jpg


Same bird using a 24-105mm lens at about as close as the lens would focus :D
110456436.jpg



So what are you trying to shoot and where?
 
The big primes will bring you great bokeh but will also give you very sharp details, fast no acrurate AF. If you have the chance to do some comparison shots between your Sigma a big Canon prime it will show you if it is worth the money for you. I made the progression through lenses up to the big primes and no woud not want to go back, yes they are big, heavy and expensive but the results make it worthwhile. When budgeting for a big lens bear in mind if you need to also budget for a tripod/gimbal/bag.
 
Crikey if I was shelling out £3-4k on a lens I'd want to know this already without having to ask others ;) But you don't say whether you're a Canon or Nikon shooter, or something else? But to get max background blur you want a long focal length, wide aperture, close subject distance, large background distance. Something like a 500mm or 600mm f4 springs to mind, if you're happy to carry all that weight. But there's so many variables that you can shoot at shorter focal lengths and obliterate the background such as these recent ones I took at YWP

420mm f6 (shocking light)

DSC_6154 by TDG-77, on Flickr

550mm f8

DSC_5745 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
If you don't mind the weight and can find a nice one within your budget then the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 is VERY hard to beat! Both the Mk1 and Mk2 take extenders well (the Mk2 a bit better) and offer reasonable reach with very fast AF and great tracking.

Compared to the "Zoom" alternatives the Canon 500 mm is a no brainier - so long as the weight is not a problem.
 
Last edited:
Not being funny, but spending that kind of money usually involves a fair bit of research. It's not as simple as putting the question out there as if you're a beginner asking "what kit lens is better?"
 
If you want 'popping' back-grounds you don't need a lens.... you need a 'popping' back-ground!

It's rather like asking "What lens do I need to make my ex-missus look like Kate Moss?".. given she'd balooned from a size 12 to a size 22 by the time I divorced her, I probably would have struggled to fit her in the frame with a fish-eye! I might have had a hope using a reverse panamorphic 'panovision' wide-screen lens, back-wards, but even then!!!!

'Subject' is something you have to put in front of a lens.. end of the day its a tube full of glass and air.. there is nothing 'in' a lens that can 'give' you a foreground, back-ground or subject THAT bit is the whole art of photography, and I am afraid it s totally down to YOU, not your credit card!

'Blurry' back-grounds and back-ground bokah are an 'effect' of "Depth of Field".. go research... then do some more, because it most stridently is't all about long lenses and fast apertures, its about camera to subject to back-ground distances, and more, the nature and texture of that back-ground.

If the back-ground doesn't have any texture in it, any 'detail' to be rendered out of focus by selective focusing, if its flat and featureless to start with, it will be flat ad featureless whatever you do with the aperture...

This is a question of composition, not acquisition, I am afraid.
 
Let's have another look at the question asked. :)

smr said:
Hi all,

If on a used budget of £3-4k and bearing in mind I'd want fast and reliable focus, a wide aperture - f4 would be enough although the wider the better - and as long a reach as possible - what would the best lenses be to look at, with or without TCs? I really like wildlife photos where the subject pops against a really blurred or nicely bokeh'd background.
Click to expand...

Okay.
A budget of £3-4k could get you a 400 f2.8, a 500 f4 or a 600 f4, all fast and reliable focus ... of those the best IQ and best TC compatibility will come from the 400 f2.8.
The 600 f4 is probably the best of the long lenses for wildlife but, like the 400 f2.8, it is heavy and it has a large front element so you need to think, can I happy carry that weight around all day and will the large front element restrict me, (e.g. maybe you won't be able to stick it out of a hide window).
IMO the best all-rounder for balance of IQ, weight and size is the 500 f4, I regularly use mine with a 1.4 and 1.7 and occasionally a 2.0iii..
Oh and like you, I like wildlife photos where the subject pops against a really blurred background, sometimes I get that and sometimes I don't. :D
 
smr said:
I have a Sigma 150-600 C lens but it's not going to get me the kind of really diffused background as say a Canon 500mm f/4. That's why I want to know the best option on a used budget around that price bearing in mind as much diffused background as possible and as much reach whether it be with TCs or not.
Click to expand...

Your choices are a pretty much limited to second hand Canon300mm f2.8 plus converters, Canon400mmf2.8 plus converter, Canon500mmf4, Canon600mmf4. New you could consider Sigma 120-300mmSport ( I had one and it was excellent bare and with a 1,4x TC but slow with a 2xTC) or the new Sigma 500mmf4 at £5000 (check out reviews). All of which are excellent and all weigh at least 2-3 time that of the Sigma 150-600C you currently have so a monopod or tripod with gimbal then starts to make sense. If going for the shorter focal lengths are you happy swapping TC's when needed in the field.

I had a Sigma 150-600C then bought a Canon 500mmf4 and loved it so sold the Sigma but after a few months I started to realise the 500mmf4 has drawbacks which are size and weight, so I then spent a fair bit on a decent tripod and a decent gimbal head which then made it even less useful as a pick up and go lens so I ended up getting another 150-600C which I now use as my main lens. The 500mm comes out when I know where I will be walking and it is not miles and I want that extra bit of IQ or need f4. I do hand hold it a fair bit for birds in flight but notice it the next day in my lower back. It is an excellent trackside lens on a monopod for bikes but a bit long for cars on a 1.3x crop body well at least at Brands, I have not done an airshow with it but would probably take the Sigma if I had to choose.

I don't think I would go out and get a 500mf4 or 600mmf4 just for smooth bokeh as the Sigma does a decent job if you get the background right in the first place. Where the Canon 500mmf4 wins is f4 in low light, I do a fair bit of that with owls, the image quality is superior if you nail the focus, focus is a lot quicker, brighter view finder and it looks the nuts. Downside over the Sigma is 1.9kg extra weight, dated OS which is ok but the Sigma's is a lot better, missing 150-499mm and 501-600mm focal length, the need for a monopod and or tripod with gimbal to really get the most out of a long photography session, minimal focus distance of 4.5m over the Sigma 2.7m, you need a much larger bag, the cost and trying to hide it from the Mrs.

This is one of your shots off flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/130378054@N06/35329782596/in/dateposted/ at 300mm f5.6 with your sigma and there is nothing wrong with the bokeh imo or with the subject having that pop out look.

I also picked these out, same place different lens but shows if background is far enough back and subject is close aperture f4 or f7.1 still works.

Canon 500mm@f4, 1/1250 ISO 400 on 7Dii

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) by Martin Billard, on Flickr

Sigma 150-600mm at 600mm @ f7.1, 1/1000, ISO 2000 on 7Dii

Barn Owl by Martin Billard, on Flickr

Regardless of what is said if you have £4000 and fancy a 500mm or 600mm prime just get one, if you regret it, just sell it I doubt you will lose on it.
 
Thanks guys for your replies. It's probably from reading around quite a bit that and looking at photos of featured wildlife photos in magazines etc, that have made me think for a super diffused and clean background then a wider aperture than what my Sigma provides would help.

For instance in the latest magazine of Amateur Photographer there's a part about photographing birds and the captions underneath two images taken by different photographers read as :

"A uniform background and wide aperture helps to make your subject 'pop' - a photo of a Northern Gannet taken on a Canon 500mm f4 shot at f5

"Using a long lens with a wide open aperture created a smooth background and interesting bokeh" - taken with 400mm 2.8 lens shot at 2.8

If you check out http://www.dannygreenphotography.com/pages/showcase-gallery.php

All or most of the images on there have very clean backgrounds and he uses primes like the Canon 500mm f4 and 400 2.8s etc.

16%20Harliquin%20Duck.jpg


1%20Red%20Squirrel%20in%20the%20snow.jpg

40%20Ruff%20Lekking.jpg


I understand that he's a professional wildlife photographer and there's a huge amount of experience and skill / talent involved as well but my Sigma wouldn't be able to achieve backgrounds like this at the same distances from the subjects.
 
Dont just go on info in one mag, get out and try different things with the camera. Place an item close to you with a distant background then try going up the f stops to see what you get then try the same with the item further away.

I use a 600f4 and a 120-300 f2.8 for wildlife and both look quite different in the bokeh department, have a look on my flickr, its not all about a clean background though as sometimes you want to show the wildlife in context.
 
Where are you based,? Maybe you could meet up with somebody that has a super tele so you could have a look or rent one for the weekend. Your more than welcome to try my 600mm
 
Cheffievrs said:
Where are you based,? Maybe you could meet up with somebody that has a super tele so you could have a look or rent one for the weekend. Your more than welcome to try my 600mm
Click to expand...

Leicestershire. Just had a look through your photos, absolutely outstanding. Were most of them shot on your 600mm?
 
Danny didn't know how to stop his lens down ;)
Seriously, having looked at your Flikr images a big prime isn't really the answer to achieving those backgrounds. It is the distance from your subject to the background that will have the greater effect, if your subject is close to the bg then even a 500mm f4 won't give you that 'smooth background.

Additionally shooting say a 500mm wide open at f4 your focus needs to be spot on, if something should be sharp but is very slightly out it does detract somewhat.

You need to learn to look beyond your subject and placing yourself in situations to achieve the results you are after.
 
I use f/2.8 lenses (400, 120-300) quite often with 2x TC's which make them f/5.6 lenses. And then I seldom ever use them wider than f/8 due to the IQ loss. About the only time I use wide/max apertures is when the light levels demand it.

smr said:
"A uniform background and wide aperture helps to make your subject 'pop' - a photo of a Northern Gannet taken on a Canon 500mm f4 shot at f5

"Using a long lens with a wide open aperture created a smooth background and interesting bokeh" - taken with 400mm 2.8 lens shot at 2.8
Click to expand...
IMO, these comments are misleading at best, the primary factor is the BG selection. In general, you can't really blur a distracting BG and make it pleasing...you just make the distractions larger. And if the BG isn't busy/distracting to start with, then it doesn't really need to be blurred. If you have 1ft DOF at f/4, having 2ft DOF at f/8 isn't really going to do much to the BG unless it's rather close. That's roughly the difference between f/4 and f/5.6 with a 600mm lens and a subject 100ft away, which is really too far away to get a great image with most smaller wildlife regardless of anything else. But at 50 ft f/8 would only give ~ 1ft DOF, and at the distances we really want it's even less.

A more experienced photographer is going to choose to shoot from an angle that gives the best BG; and then places it as far away as possible if BG blur is a primary concern. This plus choosing the angle/time for the best light and getting as close as possible/ethical are what define the professional wildlife photographer... spending the time and effort required for all of those things to come together in order to get those great pictures.


This was taken w/ 800mm @ f/16 from ~ 10ft, but the BG was approximately 200ft farther. The BG is mush and there is no bokeh to be concerned with...


Immature RTHU by Steven Kersting, on Flickr
 
smr said:
I have a Sigma 150-600 C lens but it's not going to get me the kind of really diffused background as say a Canon 500mm f/4. That's why I want to know the best option on a used budget around that price bearing in mind as much diffused background as possible and as much reach whether it be with TCs or not.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised? In fact I'm surprised you've not realised the level of background separation you can get with the Sigma 150-600 even at f/6.3;

Fin vs Storm Brian by -Odd Jim-

fin with the wind in his hair :) by -Odd Jim-
 
I have a 150-600 C too and apart from the superb clarity the other thing I love about is the lovely oof background I get on pretty much all my pictures

To be fair I have rarely used it on anything other than wide open but the backgrounds haven't been too far distant from the subject in many of the shots.
 
odd jim said:
You'd be surprised? In fact I'm surprised you've not realised the level of background separation you can get with the Sigma 150-600 even at f/6.3;
Click to expand...

Excellent images highlighting it's all about the separation of subject to background as well as f number
 
As it's been said a lot, it is not the lens the main factor!

-the closest your subject will be the shallower will be your depth of field
-then the most subject/background distance the more you through this background in the out of focus area
-then the more uniform is your background the easier it is to smooth out.

Clean and smooth background = 90% the above and 10% shooting at f4 instead of f5.6...
Money, will buy great gears. But great gears won't take great pictures on its own.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top