Lens for Bird Photography

[Bela Forgo]

Hello,

I need some help about lens. I am new on this forum, but read a lot. I work as a wedding and event photographer, just to get in view with my gears, I have Canon 7D, 6D and my main tele is 70-200/2.8L IS II USM + Canon 2xII and Kenko PRO 300 2x.
Birds are my hobby, I like them very much, but I am absolute beginner in birds photography. I usually shoot with the 7D of course, there is an option to upgrade to 7DM2 at the end of summer, but before that I woudl like to upgrade to a larger telephoto lens.

Here is the lens on my list:
- Canon 300/4L IS USM (with the 2xII already have)
- Canon 400/5.6L USM (maybe +1.4x)
- Tamron 150-600

I know that it is hard to compare prime lens and zooms, but now I can accept any option to find a good starter lens for birds :)
I often shoot birds in my garden on the bird feeders, but when I go outside, it would be better to have a larger lens.

The most important priority for me is to reach more than 400mm (which I have now with the 70-200+2x). There is a lot pro about the Tamron 150-600. I saw a lot of beautiful shoots with that. It is even good at 600mm also. Zoom is also good for me, beacuse I really used to that about my job and I could use the tamron in my works also. But on the other hand canon have 300mm and 400mm lens nearly my budget, so the question stands that can those be 'better' than the tamron? I also mean the IQ and usage. Can the IQ of these primes beats the tamron? Maybe with MarkIII extender instead of MarkII? Or if I like zooms better, can be the tamron a good starter lens for 1-2 years until I can go further with upgrade?

Many thanks and Happy New Year! :))

[Loi Nguyen]

I have seen some pretty good shots of birds perching with the Tamron. I hear AF is a bit slow flor flight, but I don't own it.

i just bought the 100-400 Mrk II and its a very well made lens, fast AF, very good optics. Coupled with your 7D, you would have a fairly good combo to 640mm. It costs a bit more than the 400f5.6, but I think it's worth it. My advise is to save the $ for a good lens and you won't regret.

good luck.

loi

[arash_hazeghi]

I don't know about third party lenses but none of the Canon combinations you mention will AF with a 2X TC with your cameras. So if you want more than 400mm these won't work.

[arash_hazeghi]

I have seen some pretty good shots of birds perching with the Tamron. I hear AF is a bit slow flor flight, but I don't own it.

i just bought the 100-400 Mrk II and its a very well made lens, fast AF, very good optics. Coupled with your 7D, you would have a fairly good combo to 640mm. It costs a bit more than the 400f5.6, but I think it's worth it. My advise is to save the $ for a good lens and you won't regret.

good luck.

loi

Hi Loi,

This is a misconception, focal length of a lens never changes, a 400mm lens is always 400mm whether on a 7D or 5D. what changes is the field of view due to the small sensor (similar to cropping in post processing). So a 400mm f/5.6 lens on a 7D is not the same as a 600mm f/5.6 lens on a full frame camera. Unless some kind of a blind or an attraction technique is used to bring the bird close, a 400mm lens is too short for bird photography and will generally result in disappointment regardless of the body it is attached to.

[Bela Forgo]

Thanks for your help!

In this case if AF is important for me it could be an easy choice :) I am afraid that I do not have the budget to buy a 500 or 600mm canon prime lens but 400mm is short as you wrote, so maybe I should choose the tamron lens.

But do you know any other prime lens maybe that is near the same focus distance (500, 600mm) and is under the price of the canon ones? Maybe an older type or an old 300/2.8 with an extender, etc
2 years ago I have tested a Pentacon Praktikar 500/5.6 M42 mounted lens, which has a pretty good IQ, but was so heavy to carry with me :)

[Karl Egressy]

Hi Bela,
Based on your first name you have Hungarian background just like I do.
I own a 500, used to own three copies of 400 f 5.6 L and two copies of the 300 f 4 L IS and one copy of 300 f2.8 L IS in the last ten years.
As Arash indicated they are (except the 500) too short for avian photography.
It is only partly true.
It highly depends on where you live and what kind of shooting you do.
In Florida for example the birds are easily approachable and the 500 lens is too big most of the times.
I did much better there with the 300 f2.8.
Right now I have the 500 and the 100-400 Mark II new Canon lens.
My advice would be to stay away from third party lenses and buy the 100-400 Mark II Canon lens.
It is great for Warblers and other fast moving birds when you don't have the opportunity or space
to set up with tripod and have to shoot hand held possibly all day.
It is great for BIF shooting and Duck shooting as well.
Later on if you still like avian photography you can add a used or new Canon 500.

[Daniel Cadieux]

As Karl says, it depends what you photograph. I used a 100-400 almost exclusively for years and I was successful in getting good photographs of birds very regularly, even small songbirds. Yes, it is easier now with a longer focal length, but it was still doable with 400mm. With only 400mm the trick is to use feeders, blinds, audio, good fieldcraft, patience, luck (individually, or in combination). Yes, those are all needed with more mms too, but you'll just need to work harder with shorter mms. Good luck with your choice whatever that will be.

[Loi Nguyen]

and don't forget the car is a good blind. On foot, I rarely can approach any bird, but with a car, I have a much better chance of getting close.

[Karl Egressy]

Sorry, I just noticed that your location is posted as: Hungary.
I don't know much about doing avian photography there.
In fact I have no experience of Hungarian bird photography at all.

[arash_hazeghi]

He mentioned he already has a 400mm lens (70-200+2x) he was asking for a longer lens so the 100-400 II won't bring much to the table for him except for faster AF speed

of course you can shoot birds even with a 300mm lens if you are at the right place or use a special technique as Daniel mentioned. It depends on the species too...

best

[Wendy Kates]

What about pairing the 100-400 II with a 1.4 extender: that would provide 560mm...do you think image quality would be compromised too much?

[arash_hazeghi]

What about pairing the 100-400 II with a 1.4 extender: that would provide 560mm...do you think image quality would be compromised too much?


It will not AF with his camera.

[Mike Hitchen]

My 7D will AF when using a Tamron 1.4xtc with the 100-400 lens at 400mm (yes, it surprised me as well) - but from what I read it will not AF with the 1.4x Canon tc because of the communication that goes on between lens, tc and body.
The AF with the Tamron tc is decent in good light and hunts a fari bit in lower light or with low contrast subjects but it does work. To my eyes the lens +tc is slightly better quality than the bare lens and cropping the image

[David Stephens]

Hi Loi,

This is a misconception, focal length of a lens never changes, a 400mm lens is always 400mm whether on a 7D or 5D. what changes is the field of view due to the small sensor (similar to cropping in post processing). So a 400mm f/5.6 lens on a 7D is not the same as a 600mm f/5.6 lens on a full frame camera. Unless some kind of a blind or an attraction technique is used to bring the bird close, a 400mm lens is too short for bird photography and will generally result in disappointment regardless of the body it is attached to.

Arash, doesn't pixel-density enter into the effect reach calculation? In focal length limited shooting, such as shooting the moon, when I put my 2x TC-III on my 7D2, take a shot of the moon and then do the same thing with my 5D3, after I crop both to the same screen size, the 7D2 image has nearly 50% more pixels on the moon. Am I missing something?

[Mike Hitchen]

There are a couple of articles (I will try and dig them out) comparing the 7D2 with the 5D3 and what the 7D2 gains in sharpness because of the additional pixels the 5D3 makes up for with greater pixel quality - the conclusion was pretty much a draw regards pixel quality. After that it comes in hit rate and number of keepers (in other words the quality of the 2 AF systems) and the decision here seems to tend towards the 5D3 though again not conclusive.
However this relies on a full tonal range where noise will be more evident in the darker regions of the shot and this will limit the amount of detail you can pull out: the moon by comparison is very bright so the signal to noise ratio will be high and even at high ISOs the amount of visible noise will be much reduced (unless you are looking for detail in the dark sky around it).

[David Stephens]

There are a couple of articles (I will try and dig them out) comparing the 7D2 with the 5D3 and what the 7D2 gains in sharpness because of the additional pixels the 5D3 makes up for with greater pixel quality - the conclusion was pretty much a draw regards pixel quality. After that it comes in hit rate and number of keepers (in other words the quality of the 2 AF systems) and the decision here seems to tend towards the 5D3 though again not conclusive.
However this relies on a full tonal range where noise will be more evident in the darker regions of the shot and this will limit the amount of detail you can pull out: the moon by comparison is very bright so the signal to noise ratio will be high and even at high ISOs the amount of visible noise will be much reduced (unless you are looking for detail in the dark sky around it).

Mike, I own both the 5D3 and the 7D2 and formerly owned a 7D. I'm not experiencing an AF keeper rate difference between the MkII and the MkIII. However, when I moved from the old 7D to the 5D3, my keeper rate almost doubled, due to inconsistency in the 7D's AF system, particularly in the AI Servo mode. Those problems seem corrected with the 7D MkII.

The quality of the noise changed dramatically from the 7D to the 7D2. Above ISO 800, I still see a lot of luminescence noise in the 7D2 Raw files, but if I clean it a little and leave a little in, it doesn't bother me. The old 7D files got pasty and cartoonish at times, particularly in shadow areas.

In low light and high-ISO, the 5D3 files are clearly superior, particularly as you move above ISO 1600. They seem pretty even at ISO 800, based on my general daily usage of both, not any scientific study.

For birds and using my 500/f4, 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III combinations, I grab the 7D2.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, doesn't pixel-density enter into the effect reach calculation? In focal length limited shooting, such as shooting the moon, when I put my 2x TC-III on my 7D2, take a shot of the moon and then do the same thing with my 5D3, after I crop both to the same screen size, the 7D2 image has nearly 50% more pixels on the moon. Am I missing something?

yes, but pixel size has nothing to do with crop factor (sensor size). The smaller the pixels, the more of them you get on a far target regardless of sensor size. It does not change the lens's focal length which is a fixed quantity.

Best

[arash_hazeghi]

Also this is getting a bit off the topic, the poster is not asking for a 5D3 vs 7D2 comparison. he wants a lens longer than 400mm that can still AF with his 7D (MKI) camera. so perhaps keep the discussion focused at that.

my recommendation is that save your money and wait until you can but a longer Canon lens from the used market..

best

[David Stephens]

yes, but pixel size has nothing to do with crop factor (sensor size). The smaller the pixels, the more of them you get on a far target regardless of sensor size. It does not change the lens's focal length which is a fixed quantity.

Best

Yes, we know that the focal length of the lens never changes and if the pixel-density of a crop-sensor body is the same as an alternative full-frame body, then there will be no difference between the FF image cropped to the same angle of view as the crop-sensor image. However, when the pixel-density increases, then getting more pixels on the subject allows for more magnification and more detail, ignoring any differences in the quality of the pixels. (We know that's very real and larger pixels will tend to perform better at higher ISOs). There are trade-offs, of course, but, in good light, it seems that I'm getting more effective reach with my crop-sensor 7D2 vs. my FF 5D3.

[Bela Forgo]

Hello,

I am back :)

About the bodies...
THanks for the lot of comments, deph of field is an interesting thing. THere is in the 7DM2 and 5DM3 in my future plans, but :) ... I always have to measure my budget depending on my main photo-style. This was the reason I bought a 6D. I was thinking a lot between 6D and 5DM3, but finally I decided 6D, because the extra features in 5DM3 does not worth for me. I know that is a better body, but in my usage 6D is perfect on high ISO ranges even 8000-10000 on the theatres and concerts. THe 1/4000 max. shutter speed is the only thing I am disappointed in using it outside daylight. On the other hand, I can not leave the crop thing, because I really like the 'dinamic' thing what 7D can make with the 1,6x. Those pictures have more dinamic range between shadow/highlights. But this is very subjective after a point. I just want to say, that my next body planned in budget is 99% 7DM2. Only after that I will look for a new FF body. A really like the picture of teh FF and if I work in studio I always use 6D, in a theatre I always have 7D and 6D also (6D has better colors I thinks), but in nature I really like the photos with my 7D better. 6D is a little 'flat' to me and it was the same with my 5DM2 before. I am sure this is about the sensor difference and deph of field.

About optics, I am really interested in lens above 400mm. But I am afraid that 500/4 is out of my budget. In Hungary you have several ways shooting birds. We have here a lot of beautiful forests and lakes and I live in a detached house, so I have now 4-5 feeder in the garden. There is a lot of birds, but I have less time to take photos of them. In winter it is dark here about from 3pm so I only have chance for tryouts on the weekends. My plan for this year is to make better photos in my garden and in summer go out the the wild more often and watch the birds from builded hideways :) So 500/4 can be a plan only for 1-2 years later I am afraid. Or maybe I have to try shooting with my base setup (70-200+2x) or get a 400/5.6 and try with the 2x in MF.

About AF/MF...
I read on a bird photography blog something about it. There is a lot of photographer who do not ever use AF for flying birds. They say that when they want to take photo from a birds taking off, they set MF to the bird and they try to catch the moment when the birds starts take off. Then shoot in hburst mode and move teh MF ring a little bit after the birds move. It is also interesting to read sg like that :) What do you think about it? Have you ever tried that?

Now I have flu, so I am at home :) Today I try to get the camera closer the feeders :) I will put one of my bodies on the tree in a fixed position and cable it to my computer and see what happens :) (or use the wifi of the 6D) I have a silent cover also, so I will pack the body to make it as silent as I can.

Thanks your help again it helps me a lot!
r.
Bela

[Mike Hitchen]

The focusing technique you mention is perfectly OK - if you want the bird taking off then you know where the action is happening which makes AF almost redundant and with experience you can learn to apply the correct amount of turn on the focusing ring. When I had my gfilm camera with MF lenses, I did only a small amount of action photography but soon got a decent hit rate with that technique - mind you I was using MF all the time so had a bit more allround MF experience than going straight from AF to MF. One reason they may do this is that if the focus point falls off the bird the lens will start to hunt, but with the 7D you can adjust response time for the AF so if you can re-acquie the bird quickly it may reduce the problem. And with birds that tend to fly in straight lines a popular technique is to pre-focus on a point, track the bird and press the button when the bird is approaching the pre-focus.
There is no harm in trying both of these techniques.




I will put one of my bodies on the tree in a fixed position and cable it to my computer and see what happens :) (or use the wifi of the 6D)
What sort of distance will the WiFi on the 6D allow you to control the camera - I ask because on my Panasonic you need to be pretty close. An alternative is to get one of the excellent Yongnuo wireless triggers that work up to 50m and trigger it when a bird is in the right position.

I hope it goes well.

[Bela Forgo]

thanks!
i will test the wifi of 6D and get back to you. when I have last tested it outside it was in a park about 10m without any issue.
i have YN transmitters, like RF602 and 622C (ettl) also. last time i put my 580EXII to the tree and use the 622C transmitter to get some light filling the feeder :) photos were good,but birds did not like it, so I remove that.

on the other hand, have you ever tried this: Yongnuo 2xIII ? :)))

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/05/yongnuos-clone-canon-2x-teleconverter-costs-180-instead-449/

[Bela Forgo]

thanks.
i have YN RF602 and 622C (ettl) triggers also. I often use them in studio or outside portraits and weddings also. Last time I put a 580EXII with a 622C trigger on the tree in my garden next to the bird feeder. It was a nice fill light, but birds did not like it, so I removed.
About wifi in 6D, I use more that in studio, but when I was outside in a park it was 10m maybe and work well. I will test it deeper and get back to you, if I have finished.


Have you seen this? Yongnuo 2xIII :))))))))

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/05/yongnuos-clone-canon-2x-teleconverter-costs-180-instead-449/

[adrian dancy]

Bela

I hope you recover from flu quickly.

I think if you are to wait one year before you are able to get a good second hand Canon 500 then you should follow Arash's advice and make do till you have saved enough. However if you are to wait 2 years then that is quite a long time to be waiting. In the circumstances I think you have a good stop-gap option in a second hand Sigma 500f4.5 EX/DG (I have the EX version), if you can get one. The lens does not have image stabilisation and will not auto-focus with a 1.4X converter using a cropped camera. Some folk using this lens have gained auto focus by taping the pins of the converter but I have not. I cannot even get autofocus using 1.4x converter with a pro body. Maybe I can with a firmware fix. The positive points are that the lens is solidly built and weighs about the same as the new Canon 500f4. It is sharp at f4.5 and the autofocus is fast and responsive. I have on occasion used a 2X converter on static birds in good light and still attained good detail.

[Mike Hitchen]

Bela - yes, I saw that teleconverter and am interested to see more reviews. Unfortunately it is no good for my 100-400.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hello,


About AF/MF...
I read on a bird photography blog something about it. There is a lot of photographer who do not ever use AF for flying birds. They say that when they want to take photo from a birds taking off, they set MF to the bird and they try to catch the moment when the birds starts take off. Then shoot in hburst mode and move teh MF ring a little bit after the birds move. It is also interesting to read sg like that :) What do you think about it? Have you ever tried that?

Bela

The MF technique (focus manually near a perch) is an old one and dates back to when cameras did not have capable AF. It only works for landing or take off, it cannot capture in flight images. Even for take off/landing the chances of getting a tack sharp frame is very low and you will waste many frames so it requires many repeat opportunities. I always use AI-servo AF for any kind of shot.