Lens for bird photography?

Sandman wrote:
In article , Me wrote:

MartinC:
I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine
for general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when
photographing birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income,
but have been wondering about getting a better lens, prime or
zoom, for birds and other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S". Sample images on 36MP FX look
very good - even at 600mm. The optical stabilisation is supposed to
be excellent, and apparently it focuses extremely quickly. It is a
little heavy (heavier than the Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH
it's less expensive than the Nikkor 80-400G

The Sigma is a good lens, no doubt. But I sold it when I got the Nikkor 80-400,
which is worlds better if you ask me.

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nikkor_80-400_Fotbollsbilder

Which Sigma lens did you have and then sell?

The 150-600mm, which has just recently become available,
is probably a better lens for bird and wildlife than the
Nikkor 80-400G. The Nikkor may well be better when a
focal length of 300mm is needed, but it just is not as
good at 400mm to 600mm. Bird photography almost always
needs the extra range...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Me
wrote:

I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S".
Sample images on 36MP FX look very good - even at 600mm.
The optical stabilisation is supposed to be excellent, and apparently it
focuses extremely quickly. It is a little heavy (heavier than the
Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH it's less expensive than the Nikkor
80-400G

it's a sigma which means that the chances of getting a good copy and/or
having repair issues later on are very high. stay away.

the tamron 150-600mm vc (or the older 200-500mm although not
stabilized) would be a much better choice, as would the nikon if you
didn't need the extra length, which with a 36mp camera is not a big
deal.

On 1/29/2015 3:32 AM, Me wrote:
On 27/12/2014 12:24 p.m., MartinC wrote:
I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S".
Sample images on 36MP FX look very good - even at 600mm.
The optical stabilisation is supposed to be excellent, and apparently it
focuses extremely quickly. It is a little heavy (heavier than the
Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH it's less expensive than the Nikkor
80-400G


Generally the rule with birds is longer is better. I can only speak from
my experience.
I use the 80-400 and the 70-200 with the 1.7 TC converter. The 70-00 is
significantly faster at acquiring focus. Indeed, it is my favorite
compination. I had looked at, and quick tested the Tamron and the Sigma
150-600. I had previously posted about my testimt. Quick summary:
Tamron was really slow to acquire focus on my D800. The Sigma was
significantly better, and a lot heavier. Neither lens was as sharp at
600mm as my 80-400 with a 1.4 converter. Unless your camera focuses at
f8, you will not be able to use the 80-400, with a teleconverter. I hope
i gave you some food for thought.

--
PeterN

In article , MartinC
wrote:

I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

If on a budget and you want the best bang for your buck, try getting an
inexpensive spotting scope and attaching your camera to it. You can
easily get 1500-2000mm and with a lot of light and a tripod, you can
get some real keepers. It's how I started out and here is a photo I
took with it:

http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg

and here is an explanation of the setup I used:

http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/camera.html

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:58:08 -0500, M-M wrote:

In article , MartinC
wrote:

I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

If on a budget and you want the best bang for your buck, try getting an
inexpensive spotting scope and attaching your camera to it. You can
easily get 1500-2000mm and with a lot of light and a tripod, you can
get some real keepers. It's how I started out and here is a photo I
took with it:

http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/eagle1L.jpg

and here is an explanation of the setup I used:

http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/camera.html

Given my klutziness with fine quality work, I would not dare to
attempt it, but I admire your work.

MartinC

10nm from YPAD

On 1/29/2015 4:19 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Me wrote:

MartinC:
I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine
for general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when
photographing birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income,
but have been wondering about getting a better lens, prime or
zoom, for birds and other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S". Sample images on 36MP FX look
very good - even at 600mm. The optical stabilisation is supposed to
be excellent, and apparently it focuses extremely quickly. It is a
little heavy (heavier than the Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH
it's less expensive than the Nikkor 80-400G

The Sigma is a good lens, no doubt. But I sold it when I got the Nikkor 80-400,
which is worlds better if you ask me.

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nikkor_80-400_Fotbollsbilder


Interesting pictures, Sandy. Is U.S. "gridiron" football played in Sweden?

John

On 30/01/2015 5:52 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 1/29/2015 3:32 AM, Me wrote:
On 27/12/2014 12:24 p.m., MartinC wrote:
I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S".
Sample images on 36MP FX look very good - even at 600mm.
The optical stabilisation is supposed to be excellent, and apparently it
focuses extremely quickly. It is a little heavy (heavier than the
Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH it's less expensive than the Nikkor
80-400G


Generally the rule with birds is longer is better. I can only speak from
my experience.
I use the 80-400 and the 70-200 with the 1.7 TC converter. The 70-00 is
significantly faster at acquiring focus. Indeed, it is my favorite
compination. I had looked at, and quick tested the Tamron and the Sigma
150-600. I had previously posted about my testimt. Quick summary:
Tamron was really slow to acquire focus on my D800. The Sigma was
significantly better, and a lot heavier. Neither lens was as sharp at
600mm as my 80-400 with a 1.4 converter. Unless your camera focuses at
f8, you will not be able to use the 80-400, with a teleconverter. I hope
i gave you some food for thought.

Finding a camera store with stock of the Sigma 150-600 "S" was a
problem. However a couple of days ago, I got to try one (Nikon mount). I
didn't have my gear with me, so tried the lens on a demo D610 they had
on the shelf.
The build quality certainly seems impressive, not just all metal
construction including the hood, but the zoom and focus rings are silky
smooth, there's no wobble in the extending front barrel. The lens feels
extremely well made.
AF and "OS" seem fast and very quiet. I've read that the OS isn't "state
of the art" (ie 3 stops), but I had no problem getting very good
images at f6.3 / 600mm hand-held, and at f8 truly impressive. "They" say
that there's vignetting/light fall-off on FX edge of frame, but that
wasn't obvious when reviewing on the camera LCD, probably also trivial
to correct if needed.
That's the good stuff - the bad stuff falls into the category of "no
free lunch". 3kg feels very heavy when extended to the 600mm end. The
lens comes with a very nice case with straps, 3kg carried on your back
isn't a problem. You certainly can use it successfully at long focal
lengths hand-held - but not for long - my arms started aching after a
few minutes. That effectively limits practical use to "serious"
situations where I'd use a tripod, set up in a location etc, vs the
80-400 "G" which is easily hand-holdable as a "walk-around" lens.
The store I was at rents out equipment. I think it might be a good idea
to rent the 80-400G and the 150-600 "S" to see if my impressions are
correct. It would be interesting to see how the 150-600 stabilisation
works with a monopod. I don't want to carry a heavier tripod than the
light-weight CF one I have - and I'm confident that this tripod won't be
close to stable enough for use at 600mm.
My interest in these lenses is a "whim" - I haven't had a ~500mm or so
lens, as something decent has been too expensive, and if performance
wasn't decent then I'd probably not bother taking the lens on field
trips etc.

As for "anti third-party" lens sentiment, if you'd bought a Nikkor
80-400 "D" (old model) recently, the myth that OEM lenses hold their
value well just went out the door - they seem to have lost 2/3 of value
since the 80-400 "G" was released.

I also took a look at the new Nikkor 300mm f4 "PF" (Phase Fresnel) VR.
The specs on size and weight of this lens aren't news - but you've
really got to hold one in your hand to feel what it means. The lens is
almost unbelievably tiny and light weight. Very impressive performance
(apparently) but very expensive for a 300mm f4.

No - I don't routinely hang around in camera stores trying out gear to
write mini-reviews.

In article , Me
wrote:

As for "anti third-party" lens sentiment, if you'd bought a Nikkor
80-400 "D" (old model) recently, the myth that OEM lenses hold their
value well just went out the door - they seem to have lost 2/3 of value
since the 80-400 "G" was released.

they never had much value to begin with. they weren't all that great.
it was just the only option for nikon brand lenses.

On 2015-04-04 20:44:52 +0000, Me said:

On 30/01/2015 5:52 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 1/29/2015 3:32 AM, Me wrote:
On 27/12/2014 12:24 p.m., MartinC wrote:
I have a Nikon D3300 that came with a kit lens (18-55mm) - fine for
general work. I sometimes get a bit disappointed when photographing
birds. I am retired, so don't have a high income, but have been
wondering about getting a better lens, prime or zoom, for birds and
other wildlife.

Would 200mm be long enough or would I need to go to 300mm?

I'm tempted by the Sigma 150-600 "S".
Sample images on 36MP FX look very good - even at 600mm.
The optical stabilisation is supposed to be excellent, and apparently it
focuses extremely quickly. It is a little heavy (heavier than the
Tamron) and more expensive. OTOH it's less expensive than the Nikkor
80-400G


Generally the rule with birds is longer is better. I can only speak from
my experience.
I use the 80-400 and the 70-200 with the 1.7 TC converter. The 70-00 is
significantly faster at acquiring focus. Indeed, it is my favorite
compination. I had looked at, and quick tested the Tamron and the Sigma
150-600. I had previously posted about my testimt. Quick summary:
Tamron was really slow to acquire focus on my D800. The Sigma was
significantly better, and a lot heavier. Neither lens was as sharp at
600mm as my 80-400 with a 1.4 converter. Unless your camera focuses at
f8, you will not be able to use the 80-400, with a teleconverter. I hope
i gave you some food for thought.

Finding a camera store with stock of the Sigma 150-600 "S" was a
problem. However a couple of days ago, I got to try one (Nikon mount).
I didn't have my gear with me, so tried the lens on a demo D610 they
had on the shelf.
The build quality certainly seems impressive, not just all metal
construction including the hood, but the zoom and focus rings are silky
smooth, there's no wobble in the extending front barrel. The lens feels
extremely well made.
AF and "OS" seem fast and very quiet. I've read that the OS isn't
"state of the art" (ie 3 stops), but I had no problem getting very
good images at f6.3 / 600mm hand-held, and at f8 truly impressive.
"They" say that there's vignetting/light fall-off on FX edge of frame,
but that wasn't obvious when reviewing on the camera LCD, probably also
trivial to correct if needed.
That's the good stuff - the bad stuff falls into the category of "no
free lunch". 3kg feels very heavy when extended to the 600mm end. The
lens comes with a very nice case with straps, 3kg carried on your back
isn't a problem. You certainly can use it successfully at long focal
lengths hand-held - but not for long - my arms started aching after a
few minutes. That effectively limits practical use to "serious"
situations where I'd use a tripod, set up in a location etc, vs the
80-400 "G" which is easily hand-holdable as a "walk-around" lens.
The store I was at rents out equipment. I think it might be a good
idea to rent the 80-400G and the 150-600 "S" to see if my impressions
are correct. It would be interesting to see how the 150-600
stabilisation works with a monopod. I don't want to carry a heavier
tripod than the light-weight CF one I have - and I'm confident that
this tripod won't be close to stable enough for use at 600mm.

Since you should be using the lens tripod mount, not the camera mount,
there will be an apropriate move of the CG forward to compensate for
all the added front-end weight.

My interest in these lenses is a "whim" - I haven't had a ~500mm or so
lens, as something decent has been too expensive, and if performance
wasn't decent then I'd probably not bother taking the lens on field
trips etc.

As for "anti third-party" lens sentiment, if you'd bought a Nikkor
80-400 "D" (old model) recently, the myth that OEM lenses hold their
value well just went out the door - they seem to have lost 2/3 of value
since the 80-400 "G" was released.

I also took a look at the new Nikkor 300mm f4 "PF" (Phase Fresnel) VR.
The specs on size and weight of this lens aren't news - but you've
really got to hold one in your hand to feel what it means. The lens is
almost unbelievably tiny and light weight. Very impressive performance
(apparently) but very expensive for a 300mm f4.

No - I don't routinely hang around in camera stores trying out gear to
write mini-reviews.

The other lens you might want to look at is the new Tamron 150-600mm.
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/150600_vc_a011.php#ad-image-0

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-04-04 20:58:14 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Me
wrote:

As for "anti third-party" lens sentiment, if you'd bought a Nikkor
80-400 "D" (old model) recently, the myth that OEM lenses hold their
value well just went out the door - they seem to have lost 2/3 of value
since the 80-400 "G" was released.

they never had much value to begin with. they weren't all that great.
it was just the only option for nikon brand lenses.

Sloooow! Sloooow! Sloooow! in all respects. ...and only performed
acceptably in good light.

--
Regards,

Savageduck