Which lens would be best for bird photography?

Chilt

Chilt

Messages
738
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Right.. I aint really got great amounts of money. But the sort of lenses ive seen are.

70-300mm Canon
300mm (IS i think) Canon
400mm 5.6 Canon
150-500mm Sigma

Im just not sure what to get? Any help would be great.

Thanks

Nick
 
Last edited:
Out of the above I'd pick the Canon 400 F5.6L, it'll be the sharpest of the bunch and a good focal length too.

You get more reach with the sigma but it may not be as sharp at the long end. The 300 IS will be sharp too but you may well find yourself wanting more length with smaller birds. IS isnt really a big advantage with moving things.
 
350wedge said:
Out of the above I'd pick the Canon 400 F5.6L, it'll be the sharpest of the bunch and a good focal length too.

You get more reach with the sigma but it may not be as sharp at the long end. The 300 IS will be sharp too but you may well find yourself wanting more length with smaller birds. IS isnt really a big advantage with moving things.
Click to expand...

Ahh right, Cause i had the 70-200 4.0 and sold it cause i was struggling to get focused images.. And i was thinking it was down to it not having IS?

Nick
 
What exactly is your budget?

There's also the canon 100-400L for around the same (probably a bit more) price as the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6.

The 400 f/5.6 prime is the sharpest you'll get at this focal length until you move into the huge supertele territory, and very fast focussing. It's a favourite with bird shooters for these reasons. Downsides are it doesn't have IS (though for birds you'll often need fast shutter speeds or be in a hide with support which makes IS superfluous anyway), and it's close focussing distance is very long (3.5m, most of the time this is inconsequential for birds, but trying to get a nice full frame shot of a small bird like a blue tit from a garden hide and feeder setup etc. could throw up problems).

If you're looking to shoot just birds, I'd be looking into the 400 f/5.6 for your purposes :)

Chilt said:
Ahh right, Cause i had the 70-200 4.0 and sold it cause i was struggling to get focused images.. And i was thinking it was down to it not having IS?

Nick
Click to expand...


IS should have nothing to do with getting focussed images, all IS does is stabilise and allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without camera shake introducing blur. This is only any use on static or barely moving subjects, since moving subjects need fast speeds to eliminate motion blur
 
Last edited:
I have seen some great images taken with the Sigma and if using a Tripod then you can get some great deals on the non OS versions, I have seen the 150-500 at £600 new.
 
squishy said:
What exactly is your budget?

There's also the canon 100-400L for around the same (probably a bit more) price as the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6.

The 400 f/5.6 prime is the sharpest you'll get at this focal length until you move into the huge supertele territory, and very fast focussing. It's a favourite with bird shooters for these reasons. Downsides are it doesn't have IS (though for birds you'll often need fast shutter speeds or be in a hide with support which makes IS superfluous anyway), and it's close focussing distance is very long (3.5m, most of the time this is inconsequential for birds, but trying to get a nice full frame shot of a small bird like a blue tit from a garden hide and feeder setup etc. could throw up problems).

If you're looking to shoot just birds, I'd be looking into the 400 f/5.6 for your purposes :)




IS should have nothing to do with getting focussed images, all IS does is stabilise and allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds without camera shake introducing blur. This is only any use on static or barely moving subjects, since moving subjects need fast speeds to eliminate motion blur
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. It seems the 400 is looking the winner at the moment.. And well.. Not tooo sure yet. Might need a pay check to just help me. Im just scared if i get it and all of my pictures are blur cause of no IS :S.
 
Whilst the Canon 400 prime is the sharpest of the lot, the lack of IS may make it's use more troublesome. On a price performance basis the Sigma 150-500 is your best bet, the OS system is awesome, I got some cracking shots with mine, I've just sold it having changed to the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which I use with a 2X to give me 600mm. If finances forced it I would happily get another 150-500.
 
I'd recommend one of the Canon primes, but are extremely good lenses. If you go for 300 f4 you'll want to add a 1.4x tc, the 100-400 is definitely worth a look too. For me the 400 f5.6 is the fastest focusing and might just have the edge in sharpness (though in real world shooting there is basically nothing in it). The 300 f4 focuses much closer (which is great for butterflies and dragonflies) and has IS which is useful. The 100-400 has IS and decent close focus (only 30cm longer than the 300) and is a very versatile lens, in my opinion the one to go for is interested in other wildlife too.
 
As a Nikon user I would still recommend the Canon 400mm 5.6 as the results I have seen from them are superb.
 
Canon 400 mm 5.6 L, fabulous lens, very very sharp, great build quality, light, quality all the way, unless you can spend many 000's on fast glass this is probably the best affordable bird lens. Zooms may appear more flexible but many will say that you will end up using them at the long end most of the time anyway, so the prime gives you a real 400mm and quality, did I say it was sharp!!

Regards Neil.
 
There's also the sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 OS that a few wildlife people have raved about that's in the same ball park as the 2 canon's. The 400mm f5.6 would be the sharpest lens of the bunch and fastest focusing, depends if you want a prime or zoom. If you want a faster lens, then there's a significant jump up in $$$ for the next lenses.
 
I have a 400mm f5.6, bought second hand off here. Cracking lens with the only real downside being the poor close focussing which has cost me a couple of shots, most of my stuff on my flickr is with the 400mm and on an old 20D body.

General consensus is it is a little sharper than the 100-400, but when you remember the zoom is also an 'L' standard lens there isn't much in it unless you're a major pixel peeper, and it focusses a lot closer than the prime.

Lots of people like their sigmas but a lot report slight softness at the long end. If budget allows, go for one of the canons and utilise your superb sensor's pixel density to make up for missing out on the sigma's 500mm
 
Thanks for all the feedback guys, so far people are more for the 400mm. Just need to know how to get into good positions for the shots :/
 
300mm can be good.



TawnyOwl1copy.jpg


Sometimes more is better.


Osprey15.jpg



Basicaly, it depends on distance to the subject.
 
Last edited:
Why don't hire a couple them to try them out before you make the investment ?

I've always fancied the 400 f2.8 but just can't stretch to that sort of money. The 300 f4 is very light, but I've found that 300mm is a bit short, especially for garden birds, you really need to get up towards 400mm in my opinion.

The 100-400 is a very versatile lens which can be used for all sorts of wildlife as well as birds. It's not bad for motorsport either if that tickles your fancy.

I've played with the 150-500 and got a couple of decent images from it, but it is heavy, and rather slow at the longer end (f6.3 IIRC).

Steve
 
Last edited:
Of the lenses you mention I would certainly go for the 400/5.6 if it is just for birds. Hand holding with no IS is no problem whatsoever as long as you keep the shutter speeds up (pretty easy these days with better high ISO performances) The lens is mega sharp wide open and AF speed is lightening quick.
I had the highly rated Canon 300mm f2.8 IS for a couple of years and can tell you that the 400/5.6 is right up there with the super tele's as far as IQ is concerned (albeit it is slow at f5.6).
 
The price and OS of the Sigma is very good.

It can take pictures of birds, maybe not as well as it's Canon counterparts, and it shouldn't be overlooked either.

These are both at 500mm. Taken last week.

Azure Winged Magpie by ACW#, on Flickr


IMG_0773 by ACW#, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I will throw in a couple of shots taken with the 400/5.6 recently to give the OP some comparisons of IQ. I bought this 400/5.6 second hand for about the same price as a new 150-500.

goldfinch1c.jpg


spoon3.jpg
 
Last edited:
FWIW these are my thoughts.

I bought the 150-500 after research & A LOT of scanning photos shot with the lens. I bought new & locally so that I could test & be happy with the results. I accept it's a compromise but after a lot of practice I feel like I'm getting results comparable with some of the best examples I saw when researching.

The OS is brilliant & I do use it for birds, most of the time the light here is poor & I often shoot @ 500mm around 1/100 sec. Obviously this wouldn't work with BIF but when on perches they do sit still long enough for you to get the shot. I have read the internet rumours that the new 50-500 OS is sharper wide open than 150-500, I haven't seen any real evidence of this.

However, if I had my time again I think I would get the 300 IS + 1.4 tele! This gives great versatility & 420mm with IS.

I find I need to get close to fill the frame with a small bird, so need close focus.

I need to be able to "zoom out" when larger birds turn up, like woodpeckers, at the moment that's easy, I'd have to get good at swapping the tele in & out. I've never shot below 300mm.

I'd happily buy an L secondhand & for the way I shoot I think it's the perfect solution. :thumbs:
 
I vote the 70-300.

Did i mention i have one for sale at a very reasonable rate ;)

Seriously though its a very good lens and from the reviews i read its considered by some to be a 'hidden' L lens.

Ive never used any of the others tbf.
 
Ummmmmm! Im still stuck on what to get! :(! Such a hard choice! Im thinking 400mm vs the 150-500. But then again someone said about the 300mm + 1.4adaptor.. Umm!!! I just dont know! LOL

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top