DSLR and lens for bird photography.

[ThmsWalsh]

Hello

I have been thinking about buying a DSLR to take hiking and tramping with me, the main purpose would be to take photos of birds both resting and in flight. Same of the photos would be taken under the forest canopy so low light conditions would occur.

With regards to a budget. I have not exactly decided how much I would like to spend, but would like suggestions on a $1500 option and a $3000 option (Give or take 10% or so). Would it also be possible to explain what I would gain from spending more. Like I said earlier, I am mainly interested in a body and a good lens for birding, maybe a couple of lenses but would like to keep any weight and bulk down.

Thanks
Thomas Walsh

[cwphoto]

400D with EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM.

Good combination of long, light, and (relatively) inexpensive.

[RogerCicala]

The low light part is tough. For $1500 I think CWPhoto's recommendation is best for dedicated birding. For $3000 I'd probably stay with the 400XTi ($800), get a 100-400 L for more flexibility ($1300) and add a good walkaround zoom for things that aren't so far away. Perhaps the Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 ($300). That would leave you $500 to invest in a tripod or monopod, memory cards, whatever.

[Rhys]

Hello

I have been thinking about buying a DSLR to take hiking and tramping with me, the main purpose would be to take photos of birds both resting and in flight. Same of the photos would be taken under the forest canopy so low light conditions would occur.

With regards to a budget. I have not exactly decided how much I would like to spend, but would like suggestions on a $1500 option and a $3000 option (Give or take 10% or so). Would it also be possible to explain what I would gain from spending more. Like I said earlier, I am mainly interested in a body and a good lens for birding, maybe a couple of lenses but would like to keep any weight and bulk down.

Thanks
Thomas Walsh

That's a tough one. If you want lens power then there are a lot of 300/400/500 lenses around. The problem is they're all heavy if you buy one that will work well in low light because the front elements have to be bigger.

Low light = bigger front element = more weight = more expensive

For cost you can't beat the XT or XTi by Canon. Having said that, Pentax now have some interesting cameras including their K100D which has anti-shake technology.

Personally, I have tried shooting birds in flight and have yet to get them sharp. I've been using a Tamron 70-300 and find that it's too dark (at f5.6) to allow for a fast enough shutter speed and a bit too slow in focussing.

My advice would be to go for a prime lens and a zoom lens. I can suggest some things but they're going to break your budget:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which will get your all-around shots. ($300)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which should get a lot of stuff. ($800)

I would suggest a teleconverter if you don't want to carry more than that around but your 70-200 f2.8 could well become a 140-400 f5.6 lens which is a bit dark.

Sigma makes a nice 300mm lens but it's $3000 on its own! I would recommend hanging around the POTN bird forum to see what they recommend. I looked in order to try to help but it seems fast + power + lightweight + low-price is a setup that doesn't exist.

[kgosden]

A lot of folks seem to be having success using the recently released Sigma 50-500 on the Olympus E-Series DSLR's. With the 2x crop of the 4/3 mount this yields an effective 100-1000 lens. I believe that the Sigma is selling for ~$1000.

There are a few threads with sample images over on Phil Askey's site http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=20572744

[cwphoto]

That's a tough one. If you want lens power then there are a lot of 300/400/500 lenses around. The problem is they're all heavy if you buy one that will work well in low light because the front elements have to be bigger.

Low light = bigger front element = more weight = more expensive

For cost you can't beat the XT or XTi by Canon. Having said that, Pentax now have some interesting cameras including their K100D which has anti-shake technology.

Personally, I have tried shooting birds in flight and have yet to get them sharp. I've been using a Tamron 70-300 and find that it's too dark (at f5.6) to allow for a fast enough shutter speed and a bit too slow in focussing.

My advice would be to go for a prime lens and a zoom lens. I can suggest some things but they're going to break your budget:
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which will get your all-around shots. ($300)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which should get a lot of stuff. ($800)

I would suggest a teleconverter if you don't want to carry more than that around but your 70-200 f2.8 could well become a 140-400 f5.6 lens which is a bit dark.

Sigma makes a nice 300mm lens but it's $3000 on its own! I would recommend hanging around the POTN bird forum to see what they recommend. I looked in order to try to help but it seems fast + power + lightweight + low-price is a setup that doesn't exist.

Rhys, 200mm ain't gonna be anywhere near long enough.

[cwphoto]

Another option could be Nikon D80 with 80-400mm VR.

[Rhys]

Rhys, 200mm ain't gonna be anywhere near long enough.

Yes but with a TC it becomes long enough. The problem is that on his budget he is restricted in the length of lens he can get. The other problem - if he gets a lens darker than f5.6 I know the XT won't focus. Heck, I get an err99 with my 70-300 occasionally and wonder whether it's to do with light levels.

[cwphoto]

Yes but with a TC it becomes long enough. The problem is that on his budget he is restricted in the length of lens he can get. The other problem - if he gets a lens darker than f5.6 I know the XT won't focus. Heck, I get an err99 with my 70-300 occasionally and wonder whether it's to do with light levels.

I hear what you're saying, but if his primary interest is birds the TC option could be a bit frustrating.

I know it would frustrate me if birds were my gig.

Isn't the 400 f/5.6 only about USD1k?

[Shosta]

I'm in the same boat just now.
I bought just two weeks ago a D80 and I'm choosing a long tele.

I'm going first for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The 70-200 can be used for portraits and weight less than long Telezooms. And I'll add a x2 teleconverter for versatility (that converts the sigma in a f5.6). Two birds with one stone: ;) portrait lens and a Sigma&TCx2 "140-400 f5.6"

For far birds (in a lake for example) 500mm at least is a must. So I think 'Bigma' 50-500mm or Sigma 80-400mm OS are good choices. They can be used with the TC (manual focus), they are big and weigth a lot. I feel I'll use the Bigma like a spotting scope with a tripod and when I have time to setup everything.

So in the end I'll go for two lens.

[ReF]

canon 400 f5.6 - sharp, fast AF, stuck at 400
canon 100-400 - known to be a bit soft at 400. i also felt it was soft when i briefly shot with one. good range, IS, can't remember what AF was like
sigma 50-500 - supposed to be very similar optically to the 100-400. big range, AF is supposed to be fast
tamron 200-500 - AF is said to be slowish - doesn't sound like it'll work for birds in flight but i've never used one
canon 70-200+2xTC - optically not as good as the 100-400 from a test i saw
canon 70-200+1.4xTC - sharp, pretty fast AF, a little too short for birds unless the birds are HUGE and/or you are VERY VERY close.
canon 300 f4 IS + 1.4x TC - briefly shot with this combo on a 30d. center AF point wouldn't focus on flying birds/AF felt VERY sluggish. could've been a problem with the camera or lens, or just how that particular set up is. the TC was my own and works fine.
sigma 80-400 OS - no HSM - who's idea was that?

if you really want to shoot birds and can't get close enough to just touch it, you'd want at least 400mm on a crop body. seems you can never have enough reach when shooting birds

[Rhys]

The Sigma 50-500 is very attractive but it's f6.3 at the long end which makes it difficult for AF.

Don't forget also that optimal sharpness for any lens is 1-2 stops down from the maximum aperture. So for an f2.8 lens read f5.6. For an f6.3 lens read f11.

[Rhys]

This is an interesting lens for bird photos:
Sigma Zoom Super Telephoto 300-800mm f/5.6 EX APO IF HSM
Unfortunately its $6,000!

[ThmsWalsh]

Thanks for the interesting replies.

I would add. Most of the flying birds would be out in the open where light levels should be more accurate. When in the forests the birds would be flying around behind trees so quickly I doubt I would be able to target the camera let alone focus for the shot.

The primes do sound interesting, and I know that Pentax does meant to have a good collection. Previously I kind of dis-regarded them because of the lack of any decent telephoto zooms. I was thinking that I would lose flexibility with the use of the prime?

Maybe the Pentax K100D with a PENTAX-FA* 400mm F5.6 ED [IF] . Would need to research the lens a bit more....

The Olympus with the Sigma 50-500 is also interesting, but the AF ability might be a problem. I really like the direction Olympus have been heading with the 4/3 mount, especially if it results in more compact lenses and bodies.

[jeisner]

IF you're using Pentax I would recommend the Pentax F*300/4.5 (or FA*) you can add a cheap 1.4x teleconverter like the Tamron 1.4 and the results are still very good...

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/extreme-tele/F300f4.5.jpg


Taken with K100d and F*300/4.5 (hope it works linking to pbase has been a bit funny lately)...

http://www.pbase.com/joele/image/67797688/original.jpg

[Rhys]

IF you're using Pentax I would recommend the Pentax F*300/4.5 (or FA*) you can add a cheap 1.4x teleconverter like the Tamron 1.4 and the results are still very good...
Taken with K100d and F*300/4.5 (hope it works linking to pbase has been a bit funny lately)...


The problem with Pentax is that the AF system is a little slower than most due to the fact that the focussing motor is in the body instead of the lens.

I do wonder whether setting the focus manually onto infinity might not be the best answer since birds are so often so far off that adequate depth of field will ensure sharpness without needing accurate focus.

[jeisner]

The problem with Pentax is that the AF system is a little slower than most due to the fact that the focussing motor is in the body instead of the lens.

Its model dependant too, I've used the K10d (firmware 0.2) and its like the MZ-S, noisier than C/N but not necessarily slower... The DS/DL were slow, I did wish they were a bit faster, but the D and K100d are fast enough for my needs, and I prefer the smaller lenses the worm drive system offers.. Of course both options will be available soon enough (worm + SSM)..

Different strokes.....

[CptOfGondor]

so jealous!

[ReF]

I do wonder whether setting the focus manually onto infinity might not be the best answer since birds are so often so far off that adequate depth of field will ensure sharpness without needing accurate focus.

doesn't quite work out that way. if a bird is that far there won't be much detail. i find that you normally have to be pretty close to birds (even with long lenses) if you want to get a shot doesn't need cropping or much of it. DOF is pretty shallow at those focal lengths too

[aparmley]

I've been using a Tamron 70-300 and find that it's too dark (at f5.6) to allow for a fast enough shutter speed
This is an interesting lens for bird photos:
Sigma Zoom Super Telephoto 300-800mm f/5.6 EX APO IF HSM

Don't forget also that optimal sharpness for any lens is 1-2 stops down from the maximum aperture. So for an f2.8 lens read f5.6. For an f6.3 lens read f11.


I tend to get a little confused when I read your remarks Rhys. But I think the reason the "Sig-Monster" is attractive is because of the 'IF'? right? Because other wise wide open it'd be too dark right, without stopping down for optimal sharpness.

In all honesty, I think your budgets are a little unrealistic for what you want to do. I think it should be $3,000 and $6,000. The main difference between $3,000 and $1,500 is that for $1,500 you won't be happy with your gear after the new-gear-smell wears off.

I have a 30D and a Sigma 70-300 - clearly the Sigma lens is the weak point in this combo - but 300mm is way to short for birding on my back deck. I did want to shoot cardinals, finches, etc etc feeding at my feeder on my deck, from about 15 feet - 300mm is too short for that. So picture yourself out in the woods or in field and you see a bird 25 feet away, 30 feet away, 50 yards away . . . .

Another thing to consider is USM/HSM - My Sigma's AF motor does startle and sometimes scares away birds if I do happen to get one to land close enough to make a nice photo. The longer the reach the less of a problem it is. . . but is something to consider none the less.

I'd almost recommend picking up the 30D and a cheap cheap 70-300 so you can see just how limiting 300mm is when it comes to birding - This may be the easiest/cheapest way for you to figure out if birding will become your hobby or if it is out of your price range. . . its out of my price range, but then again, most everything is.

Good luck - and plan on spending more than you ever considered - I started out thinking the XT and one or two lenses costing no more than $500 would be all I needed. . . LMAO;)

[Telecorder]

For me, raptors and BIF are my passion. I went the other way and have my Pany FZ30 + TCON17 for my distant birding and have my D50 as the dSLR complement for where its strengths over power the FZ30 approach...

FZ30 + EZ 5-MP mode (In-Camera Crop) + TCON 17 for ~900mm stablized EQ (~$500)...
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/FZ30%20Morro%20Bay%2006-2006/Perigrin-in-flight-371.jpg

Of course, if the deep budget would allow, a dSLR with great glass, good technique, persistance and some luck would get you some great BIF images such as...
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/photopost/showgallery.php?si=&thumbsonly=0&perpage=24&cat=500&ppuser=3207&thumbcheck=0&page=1&sortby=&sorttime=&way=&cat=500

For <$1,000, long glass w/good IQ for the Nikon, most reviews seem to indicate:
Nikon f/4 300 prime + TC
Tamron 200-500 Di
Bigma 50-500 HSM

Of course, these don't have OIS/VR, are 6.3 on the long end so good lighting is needed and would need a tripod/Popeye biceps to lug around... :rolleyes:

[ThmsWalsh]

I understand the need for a long focal length. This photo here I did with a Canon S2IS of a California Quail and chicks, I was only around 8 meters away but needed every bit of the reach the lens offered. (The chicks are so tiny)

http://files.myopera.com/Militaris//albums/28521/IMG_0597.JPG


I managed to take half a dozen photos of the family and this is the best photo. I think I took them through a glass window. For some reason, I can not remember the shutter speed was set for 1/0 sec with f/3.5. The higher useable ISO of a dslr probably would of allowed me to use a faster shutter speed.