I won't get into picking what brand (though the the more you spend the better it will be applies) I can offer some advice on the size. The bigger the lens, the more expensive and unless you have money falling out of your pockets, the bigger ones will quickly become prohibitavely expensive. I am limited to using a 55-200mm lens with Vibration Reduction. The lens cost under $300 and you can see for yourself the good quality I get by clicking on my portfolio link. It does limit me often times when I'm trying to photograph raptors or songbirds, but it works well for wading birds (which are generally larger) and for shorebirds which generally can be more readily approached and whom I have a great understanding of their habits and behavior. If you can afford it, a 300mm f/4 prime would probably be your best bet for starting out, as it provides a good focal length and can be equipped with a 1.4X or a 2 X tele which should provide all the length you need (though it will require a few sacrifices). Hope that's helpful
It depends on a lot of factors: what birds you want to get, your stalking skills, how much light-gathering capacity you want, whether you want image stabilization, and your intended uses. You probably won't choose Olympus, but it's what I know and I think the points have general application.
For $500, you can buy and Olympus 70-300mm f4.5/5.6. It will take adequate photos, not razor sharp but okay. It's not very good with a teleconverter. It's tough to use in low light.
For $4,000, you can buy an Olympus 90-250mm f2.8. It's very good, and works with a 1.4X teleconverter. It's excellent in low light.
For $5,000, you can buy an Olympus 300mm f2.8. It's superb, really the best lens I've ever owned. It's excellent with a 1.4X or 2.0X teleconverter.
Posted by Dennis Plank on June 24, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Hi George.
I do mostly song birds, and currently use a 500mm f4.0 with a 1.4 Teleconverter for most shots. They're running nigh onto $6000 these days I suspect, though you can get a used one without image stabilization for considerably less, if you're patient. If you use a good tripod and head, you can get away without the stabilization. I think Jim's prices are probably good ballpark numbers to look at. If you have good eyes and manual focusing skills, you can sometimes go with a bit higher maximum aperture. The problem there is that some cameras (At least the amateur grades of Canon) don't autofocus if your maximum aperture is above f5.6.
I, like Dennis above love the songbirds also and I'm using the same basic gear he is using. If you want good photos of small birds then you need two things. The first is to get close to them and second a high quality lens. The information above is a great starting ground and you can also watch crags list and fleabay for deals on long glass. Without knowing what gear you have now and what subjects your thinking of photographing it’s hard to narrow it down anymore then the info you have here.
My camera (Nikon D40) and lens (Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6) and all my gear together cost less than $1000. Here's what you can do with a beginner's set-up: www.RebeckaLovell.com .
I've been shooting with this equipment for 6 months and am now ready for a body+lens upgrade which is going to cost me about $4000 total, but if you're not sure it's a hobby you'll want to pursue and want to try your hand at it before spending mega-bucks, you can do it! Would highly recommend a D40 and at LEAST a 300mm lens reach for a beginner.
Posted by Nate Chappell on June 24, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Hi George,
I'm going to speak to Canon lenses which is what I am familiar with and use.
In the $1,000-1,500 range there are 3 good options, the 300F4 (which you would usually add the 1.4X teleconverter to) is a very good bird lens for the price and several NPN members produce a lot of excellent bird photos with this combo. (Hans Speicker, Cindy Mead and my wife Angie Chappell to name 3). It has IS (Image stabilization). The Canon 400F5.6 is a fine lens as well, however it doesn't have IS (Terry Sohl is one member who gets excellent results with it.) If you want to have a more versatile lens in terms of focal length the Canon 100-400 zoom is in this price range as well. Most people who have experience with both feel this lens isn't as sharp as the 300F4+1.4X combo, but some members (Nick Saunders is one) have good success with it. If you are able to get fairly close to the 3 birds these three lenses can produce some very good photos.
If you are able to spend more money and you think it will be a serious hobby, the Canon 500F4 is an excellent choice and what I use about 90% of the time. It's very sharp when combined with the 1.4X teleconverter, however you are looking at about $6K for this lens.
Check out the reviews and I have to agree by far the most favorite lens I use for birding is the canon 300 mm 2.8 L series lens. The crisp images you get will blow you away and even with the 2x converter , super sharp. Unfortuately you may have to refinance your house to get it LOL. I got mine for under 4 grand used from lensrentals.com. They were great and have everything under the sun.
The Canon 500/4 is a dream to use, and the results are well worth the cost IMO. If that's out of range, the 400/5.6, with no IS, does a very good job, and can take a 1.4x tc as well. You'll need to use a monopod most of the time (unless shooting in flight stuff and you've got plenty of light), but with some practice it can yield excellent results. The 100-400mm has IS, and while not as sharp as the 400/5.6, is not a bad choice. It does not, however, take well to a 1.4x tc.
Posted by bill meikle on July 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Speaking for the Nikon camp I use the Nikon 300mm f4 non stabilised lens and it is extremely sharp, usually I add the 1.7 X TC to give me 500mm at f6.7 which works well for a lot of situations and the total cost is around $1300. It has the added benefit of being relatively small and light. If I could afford a 300mm f2.8 VR I'd buy that. The 300mm f4 is my favourite lens.
Discussion
10 replies- Luke
For $500, you can buy and Olympus 70-300mm f4.5/5.6. It will take adequate photos, not razor sharp but okay. It's not very good with a teleconverter. It's tough to use in low light.
For $4,000, you can buy an Olympus 90-250mm f2.8. It's very good, and works with a 1.4X teleconverter. It's excellent in low light.
For $5,000, you can buy an Olympus 300mm f2.8. It's superb, really the best lens I've ever owned. It's excellent with a 1.4X or 2.0X teleconverter.
I do mostly song birds, and currently use a 500mm f4.0 with a 1.4 Teleconverter for most shots. They're running nigh onto $6000 these days I suspect, though you can get a used one without image stabilization for considerably less, if you're patient. If you use a good tripod and head, you can get away without the stabilization. I think Jim's prices are probably good ballpark numbers to look at. If you have good eyes and manual focusing skills, you can sometimes go with a bit higher maximum aperture. The problem there is that some cameras (At least the amateur grades of Canon) don't autofocus if your maximum aperture is above f5.6.
I, like Dennis above love the songbirds also and I'm using the same basic gear he is using. If you want good photos of small birds then you need two things. The first is to get close to them and second a high quality lens. The information above is a great starting ground and you can also watch crags list and fleabay for deals on long glass. Without knowing what gear you have now and what subjects your thinking of photographing it’s hard to narrow it down anymore then the info you have here.
I've been shooting with this equipment for 6 months and am now ready for a body+lens upgrade which is going to cost me about $4000 total, but if you're not sure it's a hobby you'll want to pursue and want to try your hand at it before spending mega-bucks, you can do it! Would highly recommend a D40 and at LEAST a 300mm lens reach for a beginner.
I'm going to speak to Canon lenses which is what I am familiar with and use.
In the $1,000-1,500 range there are 3 good options, the 300F4 (which you would usually add the 1.4X teleconverter to) is a very good bird lens for the price and several NPN members produce a lot of excellent bird photos with this combo. (Hans Speicker, Cindy Mead and my wife Angie Chappell to name 3). It has IS (Image stabilization). The Canon 400F5.6 is a fine lens as well, however it doesn't have IS (Terry Sohl is one member who gets excellent results with it.) If you want to have a more versatile lens in terms of focal length the Canon 100-400 zoom is in this price range as well. Most people who have experience with both feel this lens isn't as sharp as the 300F4+1.4X combo, but some members (Nick Saunders is one) have good success with it. If you are able to get fairly close to the 3 birds these three lenses can produce some very good photos.
If you are able to spend more money and you think it will be a serious hobby, the Canon 500F4 is an excellent choice and what I use about 90% of the time. It's very sharp when combined with the 1.4X teleconverter, however you are looking at about $6K for this lens.