Best "Bang for the Buck" birding lens?

I"m sure this has been hashed to death, but as a brand new birder I'm going out on a limb (no pun intended!) and asking for help. I shoot a Nikon D300s, so it's nice to have that 1.5 crop factor "reach" built into all my long lenses. My longest lens, and the one I'm trying to use now for birding, is my Nikon 70-300 VRII. Of course, I'm sure plenty of people have "made do" with that lens - I think I got a very nice copy, and with judicious cropping I can get some very nice images. But still . . . l long for more reach. But I'm on a budget. So I'm considering the following two options. Am I missing anything obvious in these price ranges (under $2,000)?

1. Bigma 150-500 F5-6.3 OS HSM - I'm thinking this is numero uno on biggest bang for the buck list.
2. Nikon 300mm F4 with a 1.7x teleconverter - seems to be a VERY popular combo, not sure how the results compare to the Bigma. Lack of image stabilization is also a concern.

That's all I've come up with so far. Thanks for the feedback folks!
Brian

Lack of IS is indeed a big concern because need added investment in a tripod and gimbal. Of course the size and weight of the bigma also brings in to question the need for a tripod and gimbal. I'd look for something in the 300 to 400mm range that's fast enough to still AF with a 1.4TC and has IS. On that Nikon side, I don't know what that is, particularly in your price range.

Looking at the Sigma lineup, in your price range and for your lens mount, the 100-300mm f/4, plus a TC looks like a lot of bang for the buck. I don't know if it'll AF with a 1.7TC or not, but I bet it does with a 1.4. Too bad Sigma doesn't make a 400mm f/4 with IS. That'd be a nice option if it existed. Shooting birds with either a 100-300mm or 150-500mm you'll very seldom use the wider end of the zoom range. In fact, I can guarantee you'll be wishing for more reach.

Let us know what you do and happy hunting.

Being a Canon guy not sure I can help. There are a couple of things about bird lenses that transcend brand names IMO.

1. Large slower is better than mid-range fast. For example, a 500 f/4 over a 300 f/2.8 (better reach).
2. IS is very important and helps support slower shutter speeds, maybe 2+ stops.
3. Buy the best you can afford. I have often heard the lens does not take the picture but when I upgraded to better lenses my photography got better.

Personally, I like prime lenses with a good a stable tripod. For example, I use a Gitzo 3530LS and a Gimbal II head.

Hope this helps.

f/4 is actually fast for a 400mm lens and very much out of the $1500 target range.

How good a large, slow lens will be will depend a lot on how well the AF works and how effective is the IS, since slower shutter speeds. A 300mm 2.8 is actually a large lens, but it'll almost certainly work well with a 1.4x, 1.7x and even a 2x TC. So I'd say focal length is important, but the cost of speed as you increase length seems to go up geometrically. A little shorter lens with IS that can function with a TC might be as good or better than a longer lens with a smaller aperture.

Dave

CoolHandLu,

In addition to the advise from David and I. Visit the Avian forum, some of the best bird photographers in the world post there. If you see a setup you like, send them a PM and get their perspective. Good luck and let us know where you end up.

CoolHandLu,

In addition to the advise from David and I. Visit the Avian forum, some of the best bird photographers in the world post there. If you see a setup you like, send them a PM and get their perspective. Good luck and let us know where you end up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoolHandLu

. . . l long for more reach. But I'm on a budget. So I'm considering the following two options. Am I missing anything obvious in these price ranges (under $2,000)?

1. Bigma 150-500 F5-6.3 OS HSM - I'm thinking this is numero uno on biggest bang for the buck list.

---

Sorry, can't help you on this one because I don't have it.

Quote:

---

2. Nikon 300mm F4 with a 1.7x teleconverter - seems to be a VERY popular combo, not sure how the results compare to the Bigma. Lack of image stabilization is also a concern.

---

As you have found, that's a good combo and one that gives good results. I know somebody who uses that combo on a D700 to shoot birds, both perching and in flight. Lack of image stabilization should be a big concern if you shoot in low light a lot and do not use a tripod. Otherwise, it shouldn't be if you use fast enough shutter speeds. Not so long ago, all the photographs were taken by photographers with lenses or cameras that had no image stabilization. It could be done then and it still can be done today. If I were on a tight budget, I would seriously consider this combo.

And in case you haven't read this:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=62622

Desmond - appreciate the confirmation that the Nikon 300m F4 with a teleconverter is, indeed, a worthy combination. And what a great article on VR! I admit to falling for the "marketing hype" and having my VR mostly "on" all of the time - I need to really start looking at my shutter speed and turn it off when I get to 500 or above.

I also realize I need to up my game with regard to my tripod and head. Jeff, thanks for the recommendation on the Gitzo 3530LS. Could you elaborate on the Gimball II? I couldn't figure out what model that was.

Thanks again for all the feedback folks. I will check out the Avian forum and ping some of the posters over there if I see an outfit that may fit may budget to see how they feel about their kit.

Brian

Cool,...

Check out the new Mongoose 3.6 head as well. I Like the "lock down ring" - this is great for moving around.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=62111

Gimball II / Wimberley II
http://www.outdoorphotogear.com/stor...mbal-head.html

https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=35

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Looking at the Sigma lineup, in your price range and for your lens mount, the 100-300mm f/4, plus a TC looks like a lot of bang for the buck. I don't know if it'll AF with a 1.7TC or not, but I bet it does with a 1.4. .

---

I don't know about Nikon, but my Sigma 100-300 f/4 autofocuses just fine with the Sigma 1.4X TC when I use it with my 7D. I love the lens, but wish it had IS. I'm looking for something longer too, but have to save pennies for a while yet.

With the better high-ISO performance of the newer breed of dSLR's, I wish some of the manufacturers would make longer slower lenses so we could save some money. They'd probably sell more of them, too. A 500mm f/5.6 prime would probably be considerably cheaper to manufacture (as well as smaller and lighter) than the 500/4.

the 150-500mm is not the bima it is the bigmos, the bigma is the 50-500mm(now revamped with os) i have had both, the 50-500mm has faster af and is sharper at 500mm f6.3 and the os system seems better,

I am a bit late coming to this thread but here's my $.02 worth. The 300 plus 1.7 makes a great combination keeping in mind it will be an effective f6.8. With that in mind, yes, it will be a bit slow to AF in low light but with any reasonable amount of daylight it will work just fine. IQ is not as good as the 1.4 but I have plenty of images that print beautifully at 11 X 17 and several 20 X 30's made with this combo. It's all a matter of a good tripod and proper long lens technique. The 300 AF-S is, IMHO, the best quality optic for the money invested that Nikon offers.

Indeed, to your point re: good long lens technique, I recently replaced my aluminum Manfroto with a carbon Gitzo 3530LS, and the difference is VERY noticable re: stability and camera shake! Thanks again for the thumbs up on this combo - (btw, hope to get the 1.4 TC when funds allow. :-) )
Brian