Camera/Lens Options (best for birding?)

[swgod98]

One of my friends is looking to upgrade his system to include a 400mm or longer lens for birding/wildlife photography. He currently owns a K100D. But, he is not loyal to the brand. He simply wants the best he can get for the cheapest price.

Personally, I think sticking with Pentax is going to be his best bet, but I don't know all his options. One thing is certain, he does not want to spend thousands on an upgrade. I think under $1000 (for the lens) is what he's limiting himself to. And he wants stabilization (in lens or body).

Now...

If he moved to Nikon or Canon, what are his cheapest (yet still good quality) choices?

Does he have many choices with the Sony system? What about Olympus?

If he sticks with the Pentax, what lens is best? He is currently considering the Bigma. I had mentioned the Tamron 200-500, but apparently, it's not made for Pentax (and so is his dilemna, finding lenses/options for Pentax!)...

He does not want/need a 2.8 lens. His priority is reach with stabilization (that doesn't break the bank).

[ReF]

400mm for the canon system, your friend probably wouldn't be looking at canon lenses cuz they won't be cheap. sigma 80-400 has OS... only other stuff i can think of you already mentioned (bigma & tamron). the tamron i heard is a bit slow to AF and the 80-400 has the normal motor instead of HSM. i also heard at least one of those three doesn't actually reach it's max advertised FL - bigma was said to be actually around 450mm. i'm not vouching for any of this stuff, just things i ran into & thought i'd throw it out there.

[Riley]

long and cheap eh ...
well not something I would buy these days, but there are some cheaper mirror lenses floating around ebay from Sigma/Tamron etc, typically 600mm

generally manual focus stuff is available cheaper too, and not so bad for a learning tool, i dont see why results should be significantly less

Olympus body at 2x crop makes short work of long lenses, acceptable lenses with an adapter from Minolta Rokkor, OM Olympus, etc makes it doubly cheap to organise. Rumored IS in body stabilization appearing this year. You need a 4/3 adapter tho..

Minolta's are good for the Sony too

Pentax PK mounts are plentiful

what about finding a lens first, and then a body to suit

[swgod98]

what about finding a lens first, and then a body to suit

Good advice, considering he's not set on any particular name. But, he does currently have a K100D. I guess he's asking if there are other/better options out there than the K100D w/ Bigma.

I can't seem to find any, but don't know lenses very well.

Thanks to both of you for the responses.

[ReF]

long and cheap eh ...
well not something I would buy these days, but there are some cheaper mirror lenses floating around ebay from Sigma/Tamron etc, typically 600mm

generally manual focus stuff is available cheaper too, and not so bad for a learning tool, i dont see why results should be significantly less

Olympus body at 2x crop makes short work of long lenses, acceptable lenses with an adapter from Minolta Rokkor, OM Olympus, etc makes it doubly cheap to organise. Rumored IS in body stabilization appearing this year. You need a 4/3 adapter tho..

Minolta's are good for the Sony too

Pentax PK mounts are plentiful

what about finding a lens first, and then a body to suit

i've been "birding" a decent amount, and while i found manually focusing my first airshow (as in first time to an airshow, first attempt panning/tracking AND in doing it in MF) to be quite do-able and successful, i think there are quite a few differences with shooting birds this way.

1. their movements can be erratic, sudden, done & over very quickly, leaving little time to MF, compose, & shoot.

2. many times they are not against a clear sky as backdrop - it can be detailed, distracting stuff that makes MF difficult. panning tracking against this kind of background can be hard.

3. i find shooting near the beginning/end of day most pleasing in terms of light, which means it's not so bright and doesn't help your vision when trying to MF.

4. even large birds can appear smallish through long lenses, again making MF more difficult.

5. i shoot as wide as i can 99% of the time, combine that with long FL's you get shallow DOF, making it easy to have slightly OOF details.

i tried to shoot birds in MF for practice so it's do-able, but i try to go for about 95% rate when it comes to sharply focus bird images. i think it's hard enough finding a good subject/background/light conditions to shoot and i'd like to not waste the opportunites and my time with a lower success rate. i think that would be difficult to keep up with MF tele lenses.

[ReF]

Good advice, considering he's not set on any particular name. But, he does currently have a K100D. I guess he's asking if there are other/better options out there than the K100D w/ Bigma.

I can't seem to find any, but don't know lenses very well.

Thanks to both of you for the responses.

the choices are pretty limited and kinda suck when i comes to long lenses that aren't REALLY expensive.

the k100d has sensor based IS right? i don't really read up on stuff i won't buy anymore. i wonder what degree of effectiveness that kind of stabilization would have at bigma's max FL...

anyways if it works fine i can't think of a better option in that price range either. if the anti-shake doesn't do much at those FL's then that's a whole different story IMO.

[coldrain]

The in body IS will have more and more difficulty of adjusting the longer the focal length becomes, so the longer you go the less effective IS will become.

There are 3 long zoom lenses with IS. The Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 OS, the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR and the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS USM. All three have their quircks, the least attractive optically being the Nikon 80-400 VR which gets less sharp at 400mm, worse than the other two candidates.

The Sigma 80-400 OS is the most affordable at around $1000.
The Nikon 80-400 VR costs a bit under $1500.
The Canon 100-400 IS costs a bit under $1400.
And the expensive Nikon 200-400 f4 VR for.... $5100.

There are some great Canon prime lenses with IS, but they would probably not really fit into the budget...
Like the 400mm f2.8 L IS USM... for a nice $6600.
Or the amazing 400mm f4 DO IS USM for a neat $5200.

That is for the IS in-lens candidates.

Then there are of course some non-IS candidates from Nikon, Sigma, Canon, Pentax and Tamron.

Primes:
Great lens, the Canon 400mm f5.6 L USM for a bit over $1000.
Nikon 400mm f2.8. No VR, a nice $7300.
Pentax SMC-FS 400mm f5.6 ED IF. Maybe a bit less sharp than the Canon, but a very good lens. I do not know a current price.

Zooms:
On the cheap (yet suprisingly good for the money): Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO DG for under $600.
Sigma "bigma" 50-500 f4-6.3. Nice and sharp for a zoom of this range! $1000.
Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3. Quite good, $880.

[Riley]

ReF I think you are right to suspect that in body IS has less ability than lens mounted IS. That said the difference will only materialise in the number of stops you pick up, one or two rather than 3. You are also right to doubt if a 400mm is enough power.

My own efforts suggested to me that the more reach you have the better, while hoping for good light with relatively slow lenses, aided by better iso performance. Particularly with the rather more colourful and interesting smaller birds, which move quite quickly and put more energy into holding a photographer at a greater distance.

While I'm not advocating a superzoom, thi is why they have been so successful, the small sensor gives a respectable depth of field as opposed to a razor thin one. The lens speed at F2.8 is fast in comparison, the lens also has effective IS that can give you 3 stops more speed. And the lens reach at around 430mm can be stretched to 730mm with a tele adapter. On a purely dollar for dollar performance basis the superzoom is good value, in this role at least. Any visit to a superzoom gallery demonstrates this ability. Goes without saying they perform less spectacularly in other areas of photography.

Back to the topic, you need first to find capable affordable glass with the best F stop option you can muster 400-600mm for APS C, or 250-400mm for four-thirds.

[swgod98]

We've been using 300mm lenses and doing ok. Obviously, 300mm is not enough for birding, though. He feels a 400mm would be sufficient...500 ideal. I think $1000 is close to his limit. He may stretch to $1500 or so, but he doesn't want to get kicked out of the house by the wife (you know?) :D

It is interesting to know in body stabilization isn't as effective at longer focal lengths.

Overall, he's satisfied with an F5.6 lens. He actually shoots at F8 most of the time, simply because the Sigma he's using is sharpest there. This is where the cost/weight savings come in (in his mind). No F2.8's. Probably no primes.


And the expensive

lol, I'll tell him birding isn't cheap! Thanks.

[swgod98]

Alright, here's an update on my friends progress. After looking into many options, I feel he is about 75% certain he will jump ship and find a home with either Canon or Nikon....

Now, he has become enamord with the Canon 400mm f5.6, but is only considering the XTi (no 20D/30D, or higher). We will be going out shooting, probably this week, and we will be renting lenses (for his benefit/testing). He will be borrowing a friends XTi and renting the Canon 400mm f5.6.

Because I have a Nikon setup, this is the perfect opportunity for him to also test a Nikon platform. For whatever reason, he's mentioned he would like to go Nikon, but he couldn't find a lens he liked for his needs.

Here's my question, given the criteria I will list below, what lens could I rent (for him) to take on our outing for him to test with? Obviously, we will be swapping camera's around (good stuff)... :)

Criteria:

* 400-500mm range (prime or zoom)
* NOT big/heavy. He has decided the Bigma is just TOO much lens.
* F4 is nice, but F5.6 is fine for him (given it's sharp at that setting)
* CHEAP (relatively). $1100 is actually pushing his limit. He would like to spend under $800 (on the lens) if possible.
* He wants best image quality possible, but also good AF speed.

Now, from coldrain's previous info, the Tamron 200-500mm seems to be a good option. As does the Sigma 135-400mm he mentioned.

Are there any other lens options in the 400 range (prime or zoom) that I should be considering?

As a side note, his consideration for Nikon is being limited by his options (D40 = no go, D50 = old, D70 = old, D80 = pushing price limit, may be too much w/ lens). This is why he's looking at the XTi (and, of course the 400mm lens).

Does anyone think Nikon will announce an "in between" camera (between D40 and D80) at PMA? He may wait until then to make a final decision, unless there's no chance of that happening.

Thanks!

[Riley]

word is Nikon are on the verge of making their release. rumored among them is D60 which was supposed to have become D40 but i guess it is the sequential 'missing link'.

wait for PMA

[swgod98]

I wonder how the Sigma APO 100-300 F4 EX IF HSM w/ 1.4x teleconverter would compare...That's pushing the price, but a while back I was seriously considerint this lens and heard so many good things about it.

[ReF]

Alright, here's an update on my friends progress. After looking into many options, I feel he is about 75% certain he will jump ship and find a home with either Canon or Nikon....

Now, he has become enamord with the Canon 400mm f5.6, but is only considering the XTi (no 20D/30D, or higher). We will be going out shooting, probably this week, and we will be renting lenses (for his benefit/testing). He will be borrowing a friends XTi and renting the Canon 400mm f5.6.

Because I have a Nikon setup, this is the perfect opportunity for him to also test a Nikon platform. For whatever reason, he's mentioned he would like to go Nikon, but he couldn't find a lens he liked for his needs.

Here's my question, given the criteria I will list below, what lens could I rent (for him) to take on our outing for him to test with? Obviously, we will be swapping camera's around (good stuff)... :)

Criteria:

* 400-500mm range (prime or zoom)
* NOT big/heavy. He has decided the Bigma is just TOO much lens.
* F4 is nice, but F5.6 is fine for him (given it's sharp at that setting)
* CHEAP (relatively). $1100 is actually pushing his limit. He would like to spend under $800 (on the lens) if possible.
* He wants best image quality possible, but also good AF speed.

Now, from coldrain's previous info, the Tamron 200-500mm seems to be a good option. As does the Sigma 135-400mm he mentioned.

Are there any other lens options in the 400 range (prime or zoom) that I should be considering?

As a side note, his consideration for Nikon is being limited by his options (D40 = no go, D50 = old, D70 = old, D80 = pushing price limit, may be too much w/ lens). This is why he's looking at the XTi (and, of course the 400mm lens).

Does anyone think Nikon will announce an "in between" camera (between D40 and D80) at PMA? He may wait until then to make a final decision, unless there's no chance of that happening.

Thanks!

i don't know of any AF lenses that reach 400mm at f4 under several thousand dollars. i picked the 400 f5.6 L mainly because IQ is the best of the bunch and AF is fast and reliable. no point picking up a long lens to shoot birds if it can't focus right. IS would really help at this length though. i also stick a 1.4x TC on that thing with the correct contacts taped, and surprisinly it AF's pretty well on the xti when shooting slower moving subjects, considering it's now f8 and not even supposed to AF at all. it didn't do so well on an xt though, so it must have a lot to do with the improved AF on the xti.

the 100-300 sigma is supposed to be pretty sharp, better than bigma or the 100-400. could work well with a 1.4x or even that 1.7 soligor. too bad ya can't return that soligor if it doesn't work out though.

[Riley]

Fast 400mm less than F4 below several thousand?
On a 4/3 mount, the 50-200/F:2.8-3.5 that translates to 100-400mm for what US$829. That is less reach than a 400 on an APS C though.

While I dont have one to verify how good it is, photozone.de conduct reliable data, and trusted Oly users online say its good but requires shading comp set to On for vignetting.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50200_2835/index.htm

Verdict
"The Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED offers a very good build quality combined with a very good optical performance. The lens is sharp throughout the whole range and the level of distortions is perfectly fine for a zoom. Its only weak point is vignetting at large aperture settings at and beyond 100mm. At about 1100EUR/900US$ the lens isn't cheap in absolute terms but still worth it!"

[ReF]

i don't know about the OP, but i was thinking of 400mm regardless of the sensor size. otherwise, a 100-300 f4 or 300 f4 IS x1.6 already comes out to 480

[Riley]

i don't know about the OP, but i was thinking of 400mm regardless of the sensor size. otherwise, a 100-300 f4 or 300 f4 IS x1.6 already comes out to 480

yeah ... i see your point

[swgod98]

Ya, this guy is looking for 35mm equivalent of 600mm+. We've been using 300mm, which on his K100D translates to ~ 450mm and it's too short.

Most F4 lenses at that distance are too big/heavy. So, it's more likely he'll buy a lens w/ ~ F5.6+

He already shot down the Sigma 100-300 F4 w/ TC due to size/weight...sooooo...

Looks like he's not getting the lens this weekend, rather next weekend and right now he's pretty set on trying the Canon 400mm that's about $1100.

If Nikon does release a D60, priced cheaper than the D80 (and has a damn internal focus motor), he will probably consider it w/ the Tamron 200-500.

Thanks.