I am wanting to take photos of eagles, osprey, hawks, etc birds in flight. I am trying to decide whether to purchase a Sigma 50-500 lens which will put birds "in my lap" and weighs 5 lbs, expensive and is quite large. Or a Nikkor 80-300mm AF VR lens which is "sharp, light and cheap" and I am unsure about how close up these shots will be with flying eagles, osprey's , etc.
This will be mounted on a Nikon D90. Any help or suggestions appreciated.
Christopher
Posted by Brent Reid on April 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Artie Morris has his choice of every conceivable long lens, but says the Canon 400/5.6 is the best for hand-held photography of large birds in flight. If Nikon has an equivalent lens, it would be worth a look.
www.birdsasart.com
Posted by Bill Brennan on April 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Chris, suggest that you rent the lenses that you have in mind and then rent a 500m and a 600m lens so that you can compare images and also how you feel physically.
I like to photograph Sandhill Cranes and the best images that I viewed this season was from a 600m lens.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Alex Lofquist on April 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The longer the lens the more difficult it is to aim for in-flight shots.For full-frame format I like a 400mm f/5.6 (or 300mm f/4 on APS-C digital). Not too heavy for hand holding. If you can predict when and where the bird will fly, and you have a good tripod/head the 500 is a great choice. I usually carry two camera bodies: one with a 500 f/4 and 1.4X TC on a Wimberley Sidekick, the other body with a 300 f/4 for those quick grab shots.
I really like my Canon 500mm f/4. The AF is fast and it can be handheld for short periods. However, I usually use mine on a Kirk King Cobra head. Depending on what birds you end up shooting, even the 500mm rarely put birds, "in my lap." Especially eagles. I also have a 300mm f/4 IS and a 1.4x extender. However, my sharpest BIF images come from my 500. Just my two cents on the subject.
Thank you all for taking the time to give me advice. This is my first posting and you have all welcomed me with your generosity. I just ordered a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO and
Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm AF-S VR Zoom Lens + Nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR Zoom Lens.
I expect I will be happy with this and this gets me started and I can set down my point and shoot camera. I have been disappointed so many times with poor quality shots which were not always my doing. Anyway thanks again for taking the time.
Christopher, I am a Canon shooter (like pretty much everyone else who has responded with their Canon recommendations on a Nikon thread) and I can't really talk with much experience about the whole lineup of Nikon lenses.
Of Nikon zooms to 400mm, I can tell you that I've seen how abysmally slow-focusing the sharp Nikon 80-400 VR is (too slow, practically speaking, for birds in flight), and the excellent Nikon 200-400 VR as VERY expensive. I second the Canon 400 f5.6L as a fantastic and affordable BIF lens, but that doesn't do you any good unless you sell your D90 and switch to Canon. I don't believe Nikon makes a comparable 400mm lens. I do have clients who shoot Nikon and have been very pleased with the IQ, reach, weight and economy of the newer Sigma 150-500 OS. You might give that one a look. It is a better all-around lens than the 50-500 "Bigma" you mentioned, and the OS is an effective stabilization system. I can tell you that reach is generally a pretty big deal among us avian photographers, and IMO it's better to shell out a bit more money for the 150-500 and get that 200mm extra than it is to buy the 80-300.
If you seriously can't afford the 150-500 and buy the 300mm zoom, it'll be tougher for you to get effective portraits of birds, and you'll want to be very patient and learn excellent woodscraft to get you closer to them. And of course 300mm is usually plenty for excellent environmental portraits, which, while they aren't the current rage among most avian photographers, do intrigue and attract the buying public more than tight portraits.
IMO, either a 500 F4's or the spectacular 200-400 vr are the only lenses worth it. the wide zooms sacrifice quality in all focal lengths, imo.
I had a 80-400 for a short while and it was too slow to be effective, nearly all the time.
With good technique, you can hand-hold and pan flying birds with either of these lenses, as I do.
Discussion
8 repliesThis will be mounted on a Nikon D90. Any help or suggestions appreciated.
Christopher
www.birdsasart.com
I like to photograph Sandhill Cranes and the best images that I viewed this season was from a 600m lens.
Bill Brennan
I am happy thus far with a 400 mm with a 1.4 teleconverter on a 1 Ds Mk II.
I could be happier with a 500, 600, or 800 mm lens but, that is a pipe dream for me!!
Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm AF-S VR Zoom Lens + Nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR Zoom Lens.
I expect I will be happy with this and this gets me started and I can set down my point and shoot camera. I have been disappointed so many times with poor quality shots which were not always my doing. Anyway thanks again for taking the time.
Of Nikon zooms to 400mm, I can tell you that I've seen how abysmally slow-focusing the sharp Nikon 80-400 VR is (too slow, practically speaking, for birds in flight), and the excellent Nikon 200-400 VR as VERY expensive. I second the Canon 400 f5.6L as a fantastic and affordable BIF lens, but that doesn't do you any good unless you sell your D90 and switch to Canon. I don't believe Nikon makes a comparable 400mm lens. I do have clients who shoot Nikon and have been very pleased with the IQ, reach, weight and economy of the newer Sigma 150-500 OS. You might give that one a look. It is a better all-around lens than the 50-500 "Bigma" you mentioned, and the OS is an effective stabilization system. I can tell you that reach is generally a pretty big deal among us avian photographers, and IMO it's better to shell out a bit more money for the 150-500 and get that 200mm extra than it is to buy the 80-300.
If you seriously can't afford the 150-500 and buy the 300mm zoom, it'll be tougher for you to get effective portraits of birds, and you'll want to be very patient and learn excellent woodscraft to get you closer to them. And of course 300mm is usually plenty for excellent environmental portraits, which, while they aren't the current rage among most avian photographers, do intrigue and attract the buying public more than tight portraits.
I had a 80-400 for a short while and it was too slow to be effective, nearly all the time.
With good technique, you can hand-hold and pan flying birds with either of these lenses, as I do.
Sandy r
D300
500 mm F4