OK, I guess this is sort of a bird/gear question, but thought it leaned more toward technique, so put it here. I took a trip to Belize last year - didn't have an SLR at the time, but did have a P&S and a nice pair of Swarovski binos. I caught a couple of little ones in the trees and got hooked. Thinking about getting something longer than the 70-200 I have now (hope to get a 1.4X TC too, but f4 already seems limiting).
Here's the question: I understand that primes will give typically longer reach and more light; and seem to be the most popular for birding. But, how on earth can you frame a titmouse/hummingbird who happens to be 300ft away instead of 200ft away?
Do you foot zoom find an angle and just hope he's still there? Or do you crop the heck out of it? Just seems like you would need one heck of a lot more luck to get a bird with a prime than a zoom, given enough light. Are you all just really lucky? Other techniques?
I have a 50 and 85 primes, and love the picture quality, but even for those normal/mid lengths I often find myself walking back and forth like crazy to get the framing I want. Seems like this would be a much bigger problem for small things far away.
We are just lucky, birds land in our laps and we shoot with macros.
This is a hornets nest to answer so at the risk of starting something, not really, I'll go first.
I use primes, I have a 300f4L and a 1.4tc that I used for quite a while. Now my usual set up is a 400 5.6L. I also have a 2x tc that I'm just beginning to learn but I only plan on using that on rare occasions. I like primes others like zooms, it is a matter of preference. I also shoot with a 5d, not your typical wildlife body so what do I know?
F4 limiting? Many of use a 5.6 and then a tc so we are way over f4. Up the ISO.
Is a 500 or 600 better, yes and no. Bigger to carry and more work to use is the downside. The upside? REACH!!!! Do I wish I had one? Yup. Do I feel limited by not having one? Nope, well somewhat.
What do I do if I see something far away? Yup foot zoom. Does that always work? No. Other techniques are using blinds, very effective, watching habits of the birds and waiting for them in a place they frequent. Learning stalking techniques, hunters and trackers is a great help there, geez, I learned that as a kid in Boy Scouts! Some people use bait or calls to attract the birds. I usually go out, learn their habits and wait or I go out and find them and then stalk/gain their trust.
My ideal lens, if I could afford one, would be a 400 f2.8. Image quality aka here as 'IQ' is always what I hold my breath on.
I live in an Old Growth stand of woods which is very thick and very tall. With my birds, you can hear em, but you kill yourself just to see em. Forget about photographing them.
It takes patience... VIEWER PATIENCE here on FM putting up with my so-so posts until I may get lucky and get a WORTHY post once in a while.
A lot of these folks go to great effort to get to where the birds are in abundance... read... they travel to wildlife areas... you want to see girls, you go to Fla. over Spring Break... you wanna see birds, you go to a mosquito infested swampy area and sit on your behind for hours listening to the sounds of silence.... very therapeutic
You get the idea. Lenses alone ain't gonna do it. But they help. You get what you can afford and use it to learn.
I bought a $35 fold up hunting blind that will get me to withing 20 feet of my bird feeder with great success. I set it up and let them get used to it and they could care less after one day. Heck, my cats and my dog sit in there with me and nothing is the wiser...
I takes time, patience and persistance and desire...
braddo_99 wrote:
OK, I guess this is sort of a bird/gear question, but thought it leaned more toward technique, so put it here. I took a trip to Belize last year - didn't have an SLR at the time, but did have a P&S and a nice pair of Swarovski binos. I caught a couple of little ones in the trees and got hooked. Thinking about getting something longer than the 70-200 I have now (hope to get a 1.4X TC too, but f4 already seems limiting).
Here's the question: I understand that primes will give typically longer reach and more light; and seem to be the most popular for birding. But, how on earth can you frame a titmouse/hummingbird who happens to be 300ft away instead of 200ft away? ...Show more →
I shoot a 300mm f2.8 and use a TC 1.4. I recently started shooting in a blind 6-10 feet away from little birds. I have used a 2x a couple of times and once stacked 1.4x and a 2x on my 300. I shot hummers last year and was able to get within 10-feet after a weekend of shooting.
Well Braddo, Tim, Terry and Ted have already stated all the important stuff. I don't have any of their talent and I lack much of their experience, but I will tell you what I have learned.
Like Ted, I shoot with a 300 2.8 and 1.4x TC combo. I have been craving a 600 f/4 for more reach. I even entertained selling my truck to fund the purchase. In the end, I found that using my $40 pop-up style blind (perhaps the same one that Terry owns) was a far more cost effective way of getting up close and personal to our fine feathered friends.
As far as zoom vs prime. Birds are very small and you will find yourself maxing out your zoom and wanting more reach far, far more often than having to zoom out or step back to get the right framing. Also, my 100-400 cannot keep up with my 400 f/5.6 prime when it comes to BIF (birds in flight). So, if you plan on buying the lens primarily for birding I personally think you would be better off with the prime. Of course, if you want a general purpose lens then the zoom may serve your needs better.
so from a gal who shoots with both a prime (a 300mm f/4 from Nikon) and with zooms.... 1, Tamron 200-500mm (now residing in Sweden) and the Sigmonster 300-800mm...
Primes are great due to high IQ & AF speed. But a 300mm is minimum & normally too short. A 400mm with a TC 1.4x would probably be better. Too much reach & BIF (Birds In Flight) become a pain. You have to locate your subject & that can be a pain.
Zooms - - they're a style of living & shooting. Doesn't fit everyone, but for those who like - - a way of living. Personally I love zooms. I can zoom out & locate my subject & then zoom in & shoot. I love it. Do I still want more reach. Sure - - always. I have locations where I simply can't get closer due to water & there's nothing I can do.
For portability & convenience the Tamron 200-500mm has been a wonder for me. Just look at my thread here with Shorebirds at Venice Beach CA. then you'll see what that little & far more affordable lens can do.
I use a 400 5.6L and find myself wishing more and more that I had a 600 but I dont have the 7 grand to drop on it, not to mention the 1,000 you need to spend for a suitable tripod and wimberley head. That being said I get very good shots with my 400 but it does take a lot more patience since I usually need to sit still in a good hiding spot for quite some time. I shoot in a wildlife preserve so using a blind isn't very practical.
You really need to wait for the birds to get closer to you then 200-300ft. I think the max I'll shoot out to is 100ft and even then it needs to be a pretty big bird. If your shooting warbler/sparrow sized birds I'd say keep it to under 60 feet (thats the hight of most fairly large trees). That means if a bird is at the top of a 60 foot tree I don't bother shooting it because by the time I move out to get a good angle I'm at 150ft shooting distance.
The key I've found is sitting still, birds really really key in on movement. Get yourself a little collapsable stool and use bushes/high grass to conceal yourself as best as possible. I keep my hands on my tripod legs so that when I go to shoot I dont have to move them very far, thus lessening the amount of movement. Just doing this without a blind I've had birds land on branches 2 feet from me. I've been toying around with the idea of making a ghille suit since I cant use a blind but I think that would be a bid ridiculous.
Good info above thus far. Getting the equipment and talent you have to harmonize will be most important. I think you will find that we all wish for more reach but find 'foot zooming' a cheap alternative. I have the 40D and the 400 5.6L and often use a 1.4x TC. Knowing the limits and working ISO parameters can make this a fine operating package for birding, as well as birds in-flight.
Knowing proper exposures and having reasonable processing skills will help with final image presentation. Seems some of the nature preserves and reservations that have more foot traffic present birds that are little less shy, my suggestion is that the 400 5.6L is most affordable and has great image IQ shot wide open. A great starting point and then and if...........grow from there.
You have to be a lot closer than you think with any tele lens for a nice frame filling image, note Ted's shooting distance at only 10ft, Terry at 20ft, you're gonna have to find a way to get in closer anyhow for the good ones. Cropping the heck out of it as you say is going to degrade your image most of the time. On a good note, most of the high quality glass holds its resale value in case you want to upgrade or decide this style of shooting is not for you. Good luck!
I know I'll lop myself in with the rest of you when I say that I crave more reach than my 400mm 5.6 and XTi (well, 40D now) can give me. I've got a TC coming soon and then, until I find $5,000 to throw at a longer lens, or FM Nature and Wildlife forum goes in on a group buy timeshare lens project, I'll be working on my stalking/waiting skills.
Ah, in a way, part of the fun is trying to get in close to the animals. Furthermore, when you do get a nice tight, frame filling shot you're pretty happy about the whole thing... I am anyways
Sure, sometimes I've had parts of the subject out of the frame because I'm too close, but for me, that hasn't been enough to make me want to get rid of the prime.
Great responses everybody.
I recently met a naturalist who gave a presentation at the local photo club. He had some of the most amazing pictures of local wildlife I have seen. He shoots with a nikon D100 which is very old. His longest lens was a 300mm. I was suprised to hear that he captured all those shots with that combo. I asked hime the secret and his answer was knowing the habitat and the blind.
That said I love prime long lenses.
Harsha
