p.1 #1 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
After going down the rabbit hole of telephoto lens research, I thought this could make an interesting discussion.
How much reach / effective reach do you find you need to fill the frame for bird photography? For example, if you can fill the frame or close to it with a 600mm lens on a full frame camera, I would say 600mm is the reach you need. But if you are using a 600mm lens on a FF camera and cropping to A-PSC size, I would say your effective reach need is 900mm.
p.1 #2 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
I'm not sure what research you are doing. Are you an undergrad student?
If reach is pixels per duck, then the pixel (sensel) size and magnification (focal length if distance is a fixed parameter) are what matters. The angle of view is a different parameter.
Due to the history of ~APS-C sensors often having smaller pixels than FF/FX sensors, there is a fallacy that they inherently have greater reach.
p.1 #3 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
It really depends on location and type of birds.
On very rare occasion, 200mm is all that I need for example great argus pheasant mating dance
staying in a hide. 400mm often in very dense forest or in a hide, really more for f2.8 but I can crop
quite a bit with Z8/Z9. I have 400/2.8s TC, 600PF and 800PF.
I would say that in the open,for smaller birds I use 800mm more than 600mm, 560mm or 400mm.
And often still need to crop a bit with 800mm. Of course then there are larger birds where 400 or 600 would do very nicely or when on a barge on a lake, sometimes swallows do come quite close and 600PF is perfect for that.
p.1 #4 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure what research you are doing. Are you an undergrad student?
If reach is pixels per duck, then the pixel (sensel) size and magnification (focal length if distance is a fixed parameter) are what matters. The angle of view is a different parameter.
Due to the history of ~APS-C sensors often having smaller pixels than FF/FX sensors, there is a fallacy that they inherently have greater reach.
EBH
Sorry for any confusion, I should have been more clear. I was researching telephoto lenses to possibly buy, especially since some of the used F-mount lenses have fallen so much in price.
I have read and heard people saying things like they prefer a 500mm or even 400mm reach for birding and in my experience I usually need closer to 800-1200mm to fill the frame on a full frame camera. Most of the dedicated bird photographers I have met in my area use a 600mm f4 and often with a TC on a higher res body and will be cropping in post. This got me wondering if maybe birds in my area just hang out further away or maybe there were other variables I was not considering.
@suteetat answer was the type of information I was looking for.
BTW I agree with you about the legacy of APS-C sensors. I keep wishing for Nikon to stick that 40mp Sony APS-C sensor in a crop body and make a Z version of the D500. I got the D500 back when it had a resolution advantage over the D810. My intent was just to try to level the playing field of people who will use a FF camera in APS-C mode, always majorly crop in post, or use an APS-C camera like a D500 still. Soory aagin for any confusion.
p.1 #6 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
I mostly do waders, and many are small and/or very skittish, so the 800mm has been a game changer. Generally I can get by with 400(+1.4) for a lot of birds, but was often having to heavily crop and Z9's 45MP wasn't enough. For most waders other than egrets and herons, even 800mm often needs decent cropping.
Would love to see Nikon do a nice light weight 500 f/4.5 twin for the 400 f/4.5, not PF and roughly same price as 600 f/6.3. Would be under 2kg IMO. Yes I realise this would be 700 f/6.3 with 1.4x TC, but I find 500mm a nice compromise FL and I'll never ever buy a 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4 since they cost more than cars in Australia at $24K and $27K.
p.1 #7 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
It depends on the size of the bird, the distance from the bird and whether you are shooting FF, DX or MFT and how much you can crop.
So, shooting small birds like Sparrows, Wrens, Robins, Finches etc, you would need a minimum of 600mm and probably more likely 800mm depending on how close you can get. With these birds I am at 800mm or more and even then I am probably cropping.
With mid sized birds like Doves, Ravens, Small Hawks, Peregrine Falcons, Ducks etc, I would be at 600mm mostly but again, depends on how close you can get. Ducks you can usually get very close.
With larger birds like Eagles, Larger Hawks, Kites, etc, then 600mm and maybe 400 or 500mm.
If they are flying, birds, then it all depends on your location and how close you can get and whether you are at eye level like shooting from a cliff, or whether you are shooting up from the ground.
I now shoot with a Z600TC and find I am about 50/50 with 600mm and 840mm with TC engaged. Again, I am even cropping the 840mm sometimes. I also use the Z600 PF when I want to go lightweight and add the Z1.4x TC when required. I did have the Z800 pf but it was traded to help me finance the Z600TC.
I used to shoot with the F500 PF and add the 1.4x TCIII. I also used to have the F400 f2.8E FL VR and the 1.4x TCIII was almost always permanently attached when on FF. It was only used bare with larger birds if I could get close enough or was using the D500.
p.1 #8 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
My rule of thumb tends to be 'as much reach as you can afford'. When I go shooting wildlife I have my 600tc along with 100-400. That pretty much covers things, but sometimes things are even far away when using the full 840mm I have at my disposal. That's just the way wildlife is...
p.1 #9 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
I use the 400/4.5 and keep a 2x TC in the bag. I also have no issues cropping in post when needed. One of my requirements when purchasing was to get something that is easily handheld and not too cumbersome to walk around with. If I went F-mount I probably would have chosen the 500mm PF. I captured my favorite BIF shot 10 years ago with a 300/2.8.
p.1 #10 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
Many variables at play here. The size of the bird, of course. Whether it is on the ground or in flight. The skittishness of the bird (in the Galapagos, many birds can be approached within a few feet). The context of the landscape (along the shoreline, it's more difficult to approach birds closely because of the wide open spaces). Your preferred style of shooting (smaller and lighter lenses are preferable if you're hiking or otherwise shooting hand-held). I'm most comfortable when I have 400, 600 and 800mm focal lengths available to me in various lens combinations. Most often right now, that means a 400 TC 2.8 and an 800 PF 6.3. That said, when I'm trying to shoot mating Attwatter's Prairie Chickens and have a tripod, no focal length is too long - or long enough.
p.1 #13 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
Thanks for the replies. This confirms my gut that for bird photography, I am better off with lenses in the 600-800 range. The deals that can be had on some of the used F mount telephoto lenses such as the 500mm F4's or 200-400mm F4's are quite tempting, but realistically I feel I would be better served by an 800mm PF and 180-600.
Maybe someday I will get to visit places where the birds come in so close a 100-400 is all you need because leaving the long heavy lenses home does sound nice
p.1 #14 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
Paul, great advice here. FWIW, I currently use a 600mm f/4 TC lens. Here are two additional things for you to consider. First, shooting at 800mm or more can be challenging. Atmospheric distortion often comes into play with longer focal lengths (especially 800mm or above). It happens due to temperature differentials, and can happen any time of year. When it happens (and more frequently than one might expect), photography may be pointless for distant subjects at 800mm. Second, because of this, rather than getting the 800mm PF lens, you might want to consider getting a 500mm f/4 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Before I went to mirrorless, I had both the 800mm f/5.6 E lens, and the 500mm f/4 E lens. I wound up using the 500mm f/4 E lens more frequently (with the latest 1.4x TC in my pocket, should atmospheric conditions permit its use). Another benefit of the 500mm f/4 E lens is its low weight and great balance. While I often used it on a monopod, I was able to hand hold it for some periods of time. I really liked the flexibility of shooting at either 500mm f/4 or 700mm f/5.6 (depending on light and atmospheric conditions). Finally, putting the latest 1.4x TC on the 500mm f/4 E lens did not seem to degrade the image quality. I hope these additional thoughts are helpful! Good luck with your decision!
Keith W.
p.1 #15 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
I wonder how often atmospheric distortion is an issue with bird photography?
I have more problem with atmospheric distortion when using tele, even at 400mm when doing some
landscape shots and certainly at 600 or 800mm for mammals when I go to Africa.
Also since birds are relatively smaller, even when using 800mm, we are usually talking about much closer
distance than landscape or mammals in general. Bif and perching bird under tree cover is never an issue even at mid day. In the last 2 years, I think there was once when I tried to photograph some sandpipers in the salt paddies in middle of the afternoon and it was a big problem and I had to wait awhile until it was not a problem. However, at that location, I was at a water edge shooting relatively skittish birds so distance was really the limitting factor. Also distance was no more than 10-15m away if I remember correctly.
I shot at freshwater lake on a barge a few times a year and even in the middle of the day with 30+ c temp, heat haze has not been an issue with 800mm at all.
Just curious what other's people experience are with bird photography and heat haze/distortion issue.
p.1 #16 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
Vast difference in photographing large birds (egret, heron, pelicans, etc.) and small song birds that are a tenth the size. Another factor is the shyness of the species at a given location. Very different photographing large birds in Florida where they are used to humans and this allows photographers to get much closer.
p.1 #18 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
More than you have, but not too much
Seriously, generally between 600-800mm FF. But sometimes the bird comes too close for 600 and with 800, it becomes harder to nail a flying bird or deal with atmospherics.
p.1 #19 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
johnvanr wrote:
More than you have, but not too much
Seriously, generally between 600-800mm FF. But sometimes the bird comes too close for 600 and with 800, it becomes harder to nail a flying bird or deal with atmospherics.
If only there was a 20-800mm f6.3 zoom for those times when your subject refuses to corporate
I did pickup a 28-400mm this fall. Definitely works nicely on a second body for when you’re not sure what to expect.
p.1 #20 · How much reach do you need for bird photography?
suteetat wrote:
I wonder how often atmospheric distortion is an issue with bird photography?
I have more problem with atmospheric distortion when using tele, even at 400mm when doing some
landscape shots and certainly at 600 or 800mm for mammals when I go to Africa.
Also since birds are relatively smaller, even when using 800mm, we are usually talking about much closer
distance than landscape or mammals in general. Bif and perching bird under tree cover is never an issue even at mid day. In the last 2 years, I think there was once when I tried to photograph some sandpipers in the salt paddies in middle of the afternoon and it was a big problem and I had to wait awhile until it was not a problem. However, at that location, I was at a water edge shooting relatively skittish birds so distance was really the limitting factor. Also distance was no more than 10-15m away if I remember correctly.
I shot at freshwater lake on a barge a few times a year and even in the middle of the day with 30+ c temp, heat haze has not been an issue with 800mm at all.
Just curious what other's people experience are with bird photography and heat haze/distortion issue. ...Show more →
For where I photograph birds I haven’t had much issues with atmospheric distortion on keeper photos (photos where the bird is large enough in the frame to use) up to around 1,200mm (Sony 200-600 + TC 1.4 + a7rIV crop factor). Now if I push out to 1,800mm (Sony 200-600 + TC 2x + a7rIV crop factor) I lose a lot of photos due to atmospheric distortion. I found I can usually only use the TC 2x to make subjects closer to me larger, it won’t usually let me reach further subjects with good quality than the TC 1.4. Add in the light hit and refraction of f13 and I don’t find the TC2x helpful often on the 200-600mm.
