Lenses for wildlife & birds

[whuzzey]

Hi All

I'm looking to purchase a zoom lens in the coming weeks for my Nikon D80 and would like to get some advice from wildlife and bird photographers here.

Until now, I've only really been shooting landscapes, but for the last few weeks I've enjoyed photographing otters, beavers and other animals at the local wildlife centres here in Kent and along with photographing birds, it's an area of photography that I'd love to explore further.

The lens I'm currently using is the Nikon 18-135mm kit lens that came with my camera, which though ok, is way too short for decent wildlife shots let alone bird photography.

As much as I'd love one of the stunning high-end Nikon zoom lenses, I just cannot afford (nor justify!) spending that kind of money and the most I can stretch to is around £1500, so I have been looking at the choices from Sigma.

I've read websites and forums and found that lots of other photographers use the Sigma 50-500mm f4.5/6.3 & 150-500mm f5-6.3 lenses and the majority of users seem to be happy with these lenses. There is also the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 but I am not sure how this compares to the Sigma lenses?

The newer Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 OS HSM is available new for around £1100, which would leave me some spare cash for a decent monopod.

Can anybody on here recommended (or not!) any of the above Sigma lenses, or have any other suggestions for options I could investigate for the same sort of cost.

Any further help or advice would be much appreciated.

Many thanks
Wayne

[pressld2]

Hi Wayne and welcome to the forum.

I've been using the 80-400mm for nearly 5 years now and love it. I broke mine just before Christmas (tripod went over backwards) and could have had an alternative replacement under the insurance claim but chose to stick with this lens. Its only slight drawback is that it doesn't have its own focus motor which means two things: 1. It won't autofocus on the entry level Nikons that don't have an in-body focus motor, e.g. the D40. Not a problem for you with a D80. 2) Focussing is a tad slower than other lenses. This is only a problem when going for in-flight shots of really fast subjects like swifts and swallows.

I have no personal experience of the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 but other members here use both these lenses and post some cracking shots in the Gallery. I have heard that the 50-500 is really closer to about 450 or 460mm at the top-end which, if true, means it doesn't outreach the 80-400 by as much as you might think.

Finally, in my opinion, image stabilisation is not all it's cracked up to be. If you have the lens supported at all - tripod, monopod, beanbag or just leaning it on a tree - then in my view the IS softens images. And if you're using shutter speeds faster than 500th of a second then it's ineffectual anyway. My 80-400 has Nikon's VR but I switched it off several years ago and won't be switching it on again.

Dave P.

[Geoff F]

Both of those Sigma lenses will give good results, but are a bit subject to having good light and are heavy to use.

If you ever need to shoot handheld, the OS really does make a difference. But turn it off on a tripod. I have the 150-500 and it works well.

However, if you only need a lens for long distance birds, a fixed length, prime lens, of something around 400 mm is a very good alternative. You can even add a 1.4x converter which would bring it to over 500 mm.

If you have a good rummage around the previous posts you will find that this subject has previously been discussed in some depth.

[KentYeti]

Hi Wayne. I'm new to bird photography, but have had my Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens for 3 years. IMHO that is a very ordinary lens. And as you realise not long enough for birds.

My first attempt at getting a lens more suitable for birds was the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Thers is a thread about it under photo equipment here. Great for birds that are close by. But I found it very poor for more distant stuff of birds in flight that need cropping a lot. Lack of detail was the problem.

I think that good fieldcraft in getting quite close to the subjects, and not trying to photo distant flying birds could make it usable. And I've just used it on my longer term hobby, steam loco photography, and it is way ahead of the 18-135 in sharpness for such mechanical subjects.

Then, ten days or so ago, I bit the bullet and got what to me is the "entry" level Nikon prime lens. 300mm f4. Superb.

Cheers,

Bryan

[whuzzey]

Many thanks for your replies Dave, Geoff & Bryan - really useful.

Dave, I am definitely going to look at the Nikon before I decide what to go for and you have given me plenty of food for thought! I'm sorry to hear about your 80-400mm going over on the tripod & glad you got it replaced!

Would you say that the images on the 80-400mm are sharp throughout or does it tend to be softer at the longer end, I have read this from users of the Sigmas but not sure about the Nikon? I'd also love to see some images taken with this lens and wondered if you had any uploaded to the Gallery on here?

Geoff, I have also read that you generally need good light for the Sigmas but this is something I guess I'd just have to put up with, as I just cannot stretch to one of the faster Nikons. I will definitely have a good look through the previous posts and see what others have said about these lenses. Sorry if this sounds a stupid question, but how exactly do the telecoverters work? I assume that they go between the camera and lens, but can you use for example a Sigma TC on a Nikon lens or do you need to use the same brand and I guess the quality differs between brands?

Bryan, you are right about the 18-135mm lens, not bad for a start off lens but just no good for anything too far away and not the sharpest, I don't really even use it much TBH, I've normally got my 10-20mm Sigma on the front which is a cracker! Glad to hear you have picked up a 300mm prime, how are you getting along with it and do you use that lens with a teleconverter?

Cheers
Wayne

[KentYeti]

Originally Posted by whuzzey

.............Bryan, you are right about the 18-135mm lens, not bad for a start off lens but just no good for anything too far away and not the sharpest, I don't really even use it much TBH, I've normally got my 10-20mm Sigma on the front which is a cracker! Glad to hear you have picked up a 300mm prime, how are you getting along with it and do you use that lens with a teleconverter?

Cheers
Wayne

Wayne,

I'm getting on fine with the 300mm F4. It is as sharp as the reviews say it is. And the focus is quick. A lot is down to me now, learning fieldcraft to get much closer to the subjects. I think having started bird photography with birds in flight is going in at the deep end, and getting and holding a focus on a flying bird is proving interesting! But that is down to me, not the lens or camera.

I can crop sunny day results from this prime lens very hard if I need to. Something I couldn't do with the 70-300mm zoom.

The Nikon 1.4 TC has allowed some really great close ups when I'm doing static birds. And my very first thoughts on it was that is what it would be limited to: my initial birds in flight with it not being good.

But I think now that was me not getting a good focus on the bird, and I am working hard on that at present. Both with practice and getting closer to the subject so there is enough bird for the lens to find. Using it yesterday I did manage to get a reasonable approach shot of a Marsh Harrier. Not one I'll keep as it was in dullish light. But one that showed me the TC plus 300mm can be a good combination, it's the guy clicking the shutter that has a lot of work to do!

Bryan

[Geoff F]

Sorry if this sounds a stupid question, but how exactly do the telecoverters work? I assume that they go between the camera and lens, but can you use for example a Sigma TC on a Nikon lens or do you need to use the same brand and I guess the quality differs between brands?

Yes that is correct, Wayne, the converter fits between the lens and camera body and basically works like an additional lens to provide extra magnification.

But there are a number of pitfalls to beware. They work best on prime lenses or a few really good quality zooms. I wouldn't advise using one on a cheapie lens. And for most purposes, I would say don't use the x2 version unless you are really certain that it will be suitable. A 1.4x is normally a better bet.

With some lenses you may lose autofocus, particularly with the 2x and require a little bit of extra light. Some image quality loss may be a problem but it should only be marginal with those better, and more expensive, lenses.

You can sometimes 'mix and match' the brands of lenses/converters/camera bodies providing the third party equipment has the appropriate fixing flange option. But some converters, like the Canon, will due to their design, only fit a small range of lenses.

This is a situation of 'buyer beware' so you would need to check this carefully before purchase. But I repeat, I do not recommend using one on a budget zoom.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by whuzzey

Would you say that the images on the 80-400mm are sharp throughout or does it tend to be softer at the longer end, I have read this from users of the Sigmas but not sure about the Nikon? I'd also love to see some images taken with this lens and wondered if you had any uploaded to the Gallery on here?

Yes, I think it's sharp throughout. I did try experimenting recently with knocking it back to 360/370mm to see if there's any difference. At first I thought maybe it was just a smidgen sharper at that length but now I've decided that it doesn't really make any difference. I was shooting at 400mm all day today and here are a couple of 100% crops...



Both were shot at the full 400mm and at ISO 200. The chiffchaff is a 1/200th sec exposure at f8 and the house sparrow is 1/320th at f11. The way I work these days is to set up my tripod but instead of attaching the camera to it I just plonk a bean bag on the tripod and rest the lens on the bean bag. That's how both of these were taken.

I now have over 2600 images in the Gallery here () and at a guess, roughly half were taken with the 80-400. See pressld2 Gallery - Wildlife Photography. If it's a bird or a mammal then it's a reasonably good bet I used this lens, but you can check in the detail under each image. There are a few shots of more approachable subjects that were taken with a sigma 150mm or even my wide angle zoom. Don't forget to click on the images to bring up the full sized versions.

I have occasionally used this lens with a Kenko Pro 300 1.4X converter. If you're close enough for a decent shot anyway then the converter can get you closer, but if you're too far away then the converter won't help. It's also much more prone to focus hunting with the converter because the combo is effectively a 560mm f8 lens.

The current range of Nikon converters are NOT compatible with this lens - glass hits glass if you try to use one - so you will be limited to 3rd party options. The Kenko fits with no issues and retains AF, but if looking at other options it would be best to check.

Dave P.

[KentYeti]

As indicated above, be very, very careful if buying any of the Nikon Teleconverters. They only fit a very limited range of Nikon prime lenses.

It's essential to thoroughly check this aspect out first.

And I am coming to the conclusion that for anything other than more distant shots in 100% perfect lighting conditions they are best only used for close up work. Where they can help a lot in getting rid of any background detail.

[KentYeti]

Originally Posted by pressld2

.........here are.........100% crops...



..............shot at the full 400mm and at ISO 200...........the house sparrow is 1/320th at f11....... Dave P.

Superb photo Dave. Incredible detail. By 100% crop I assume you mean you've cropped very hard indeed?

Bryan