250mm for birding

[Techuser]

Anyone uses the 55-250 lens for birding? I know everyone will say its too short but on a APS-C it would have the reach of 400mm, doesnt look so bad
I was thinking the canon 70-300, but is it worth paying double the price for just 50mm more?

I dont have a DSLR yet but I might get a XSI soon
a friend of mine bought one a few days ago with a 55-250, and comparing to my 730mm equivalent... I didnt saw the amount of difference I was expecting on the reach:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3269/niscatinha2.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3269/niscatinha2.jpg)

made me rethink on 500mm 2kg lenses (sigma 150-500, wich I was looking before the canon 70-300)

[davebreal]

Most of us have made the mistake of purchasing a 300mm f/5.6 zoom or shorter to start out with. They very rarely make for satisfactory results because of lack of reach and autofocus capabilities. Take a look at bird photos that YOU like or from wildlife photographers you admire. The truth is that birds and wildlife in general are most often scared of people, not to mention tiny and hard to fill the frame with. An exceptional bird photograph usually means filling a lot of the frame.

Don't make the mistake myself and most other make. Money spent on the 250mm or 300mm is going to be money you wish went for a better lens. Go straight for the 500mm, don't waste your money. If on a budget, save up and go for the Sigma 150-500 OS.

[hollis_f]

Don't make the mistake myself and most other make. Money spent on the 250mm or 300mm is going to be money you wish went for a better lens. Go straight for the 500mm, don't waste your money. If on a budget, save up and go for the Sigma 150-500 OS.

I disagree. The reason I, and I imagine most other people, went for a 300mm zoom was because we couldn't afford anything else. If the 55-250 were available when I started out then I'd have probably got that, and used it while I saved the pennies for a decent lens.

Lenses tend not to depreciate too much. The £50 you lose when you sell the 55-250 can be considered the price of renting it for the year it takes you to save for something better.

For a £1 a week outlay you get to actually do some sort of bird photography rather than sitting at home waiting for the savings to accumulate. In fact it may even help develop field skills, rather than relying on sheer length to grab your target.

[davebreal]

If you have the 100-400mm L zoom lens now, how often do use a shorter lens for birding? I'd guesstimate never.

Techuser - Who cares about the 35mm equivalent? I use 500mm + 1.4tc on a 1.6 crop and guess what it's still hard to get Warbler photos that fill a frame w/o using electronic calls. In the portrait world 300mm is a giant lens, in the wildlife world it's a baby lens. I see people walking around local wildlife refuges with 200 & 300mm lenses and ask myself why bother? The birds are going to be little more than specs in the viewfinder.

As for the photos you posted, do you think there is clarity, detail, or commercial quality in the them? No. If lenses have resale value, why not go for quality?

[feral1]

I use a 400D Canon and recently bought a 150-500 siggy. This is the best way to go. The quality is there, just depends on how well you will eventually use it.
The reason I say that, I have seen some fantastic shots with a 100-400L and yet some with even a better camera have their shots all over the place.

If you purchase a 150-500 siggy I would buy a monopod as well, I found my keeprs jumped by 30% by using the mono, a tripod is too clumbsy for quick shots in my opinion.

I use to use a 300mm lens, I got quite good close shots, but there are some birds no matter what you do you will not get close enough. Especially the smaller birds.

Here is an image using the 150-500 siggy, it is quite sharp when used correctly and has a good reach. This bird is a tad smaller or simulae size to a house sparrow.

Peter

[davebreal]

Beautiful shot Peter, you nailed it.

[F-117HWK]

Anyone actually serious about bird photography is gonna tell you longer is better. I would agree. I got the 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Now if I was getting a lens specifically for birding, I would have saved a bit longer and gone with the 500 or 600. BUT I photograph over a very wide range of subjects so the 300mm was the logical choice for now. I still get quality photos of birds, but they have to be close (for example within my backyard).

So I guess the simple way to put it is this: 250 is not going to be enough for high quality bird photos IMO. 300mm with a 1.4x ends up needing cropping 90% of the time for my wild bird shots. So, if you want a birding lens, and are on a budget, the 100-400mm or the Sigma 150-500mm would be my choice. If not on a budget, spend the money on the 500mm or 600mm.

[canonloader]

I have owned a Bigma, 50-500, Canon 400/5.6 [twice], a 100-400 [never again], a 300/4 non -IS and a 70-200/4. All of them are good for birds. Of one kind or another. All bird photography does not include twitching your way through the woods or swamp with a camera mounted telescope lens. Look at Kenn's shots from his front porch. They are as good as any pictures I have seen posted here, and better than most, and he shoots with an S-3.

If you bring the birds to you with food or feeders, then any lens is good enough. Telescope lenses are specialty equipment, and they do have their place, but who can shell out $5400 to shoot birds as a hobby? ;)

[davebreal]

Telescope lenses are specialty equipment, and they do have their place, but who can shell out $5400 to shoot birds as a hobby? ;)

Who can afford them? Very very few people. I am extremely fortunate to have the 500mm f/4, and buying one was a rare matter of circumstances for me... I'm not rich. I don't brag about gear, and don't talk about expensive lenses unless asked. However, DSLR photography in general does require a fare amount of disposable income and for those looking to make in investment I'd recommend thoroughly researching all choices before making purchases.

Heck, why not rent a 50-250mm zoom and a 150-500 for a week? Devote as much time as possible to birding, compare your results, and see what is best for your particular case. It's all about maximizing your $$$ and enjoyment.

[hollis_f]

I don't think anybody is saying the 55-250 is a replacement for a proper birding lens. What I'm saying is that it's better than nothing. For some people splashing out £3000 - £5000 on a lens isn't a big deal. For others even £500 will be a struggle and calling a £1300 lens suitable for somebody on a budget is just daft. For anybody who will have to wait to get a 'proper' lens, the 55-250 will make for a good stopgap - it's better than nothing at all.

Actually, having read Techuser's post properly this time, I would suggest that he sticks with his current camera for birding. No, it's not a 'proper' birding camera. No it's not going to produce shots with commercial quality in (sic) them. But I have a feeling that the OP ain't gonna worry too much about that. He's just gonna enjoy himself with what he can afford.

[artyman]

As a general rule you can rarely have too long a lens for birds. My 150-500 spends it's life at the 500 end and with a 1.4 as well. If on a budget and that can mean anything, then the 55-250 has had good reports, but still too short. The Sigma is cheaper than the 100-400, and the next step are the prime 400, 500 600 for ultimate IQ and wallet busting.

[Techuser]

Thanks for the opinions
thinking now in the sigma 120-400 or canon 70-300 + 1.4TC (I wouldnt care much about having to use manual focus)

I'm just afraid of getting the sigma because of the quality control, and since I'll be buying from another country return is not so fast... and another problem is that shipping weights on my budget, U$500+ just for it :mad:


Actually, having read Techuser's post properly this time, I would suggest that he sticks with his current camera for birding. No, it's not a 'proper' birding camera. No it's not going to produce shots with commercial quality in (sic) them. But I have a feeling that the OP ain't gonna worry too much about that. He's just gonna enjoy himself with what he can afford.
I want a new camera mostly for the possibility of manual focusing, and the high iso performance... In some situations I cant get my S5 to focus on the bird instead of branches, and manual focusing with buttons is too slow (and hard without a optical viewfinder), also I'm constantly having to use ISO400 and 800... with the XSi I'd happily use ISO1600 anyday :), it shows less noise than my ISO200
but other than that I'm happy with my S5, gotta post some pictures sometime

[canonloader]

and another problem is that shipping weights on my budget, U$500+ just for it
That's insane. $100 per pound for a 5 pound box? Are you sure about that?

[davebreal]

The lenses you are talking about (especially the 70-300) are not going to produce better images than your S5. Wouldn't be much of an upgrade, so why bother?

Used Tamron 200-500mm's go for a very low price. Autofocus can sometimes hunt but I got a few keepers like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidraymond/2601070621/in/set-72157600985744723/
Very lightweight too, but I'd recommend locking it down on a decent tripod.

[Techuser]

That's insane. $100 per pound for a 5 pound box? Are you sure about that?
Yes, special shipping to brazil... U$500 is for the XSi kit, the tele and a 50mm 1.8, with just the lens it was around 200
its that or the chance of 100% import tax

The lenses you are talking about (especially the 70-300) are not going to produce better images than your S5. Wouldn't be much of an upgrade, so why bother?
There's also speed that I didnt mentioned, on my S5 I have to wait 10secs to save each raw file, so If I dont get it right in the first shot, goodbye bird

I looked on the tamron 200-500 but I dont know if I'm read for a non IS lens
with the 730mm on my S5 I find myself having to use 1/30 speed sometimes, without IS that would be impossible... and tripod is not an option :confused:

[davebreal]

move to USA? shipping is cheap here.

no distributors in South America? you can even order a lot of camera stuff from Best Buy.

[Techuser]

There are places that sells here, but always way more expensive
the 150-500 for instance goes for R$4.480,00, that would be around U$2000

[TooManyShots]

I agree. Keep saving it up. Get the Sigma 500mm zoom. Don't think about manually focusing for birds unless they are in your backyard.

[Here and There]

I did some birding with a 55-250 and found it was never enough. Now I have the 100-400 and sometimes I feel like that's barely long enough! I'm happy with the lens though.

[ingraman]

Unless you get lucky or live in an area with tame birds, it'll be difficult to take closeup bird shots with a 250mm lens. However, that doesn't mean you can't take a wider shot with the bird incorporated into the scene. I was on vacation and didn't have my Bigma with me, so I got this with the Canon 55-250mm:
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5056/img4699gh.jpg

[Techuser]

Thanks for the opinions
I narrowed down to the sigma 120-400 and canon 70-300 with TC

I know the canon will have F8 with the TC but its my option if I dont find the sigma for buying around here, I've heard its a risky lens due quality control and would be hard to exchange if I bought it oversea

[lmans]

Interesting conversation....now, instead of a Sigma 150-500mm has anyone given thought to digi-scoping and netting about the same if not better results?

I have always debated the in's and outs of camera vs digiscoping and here are my thoughts. I figured that the average person would not have enough money to spend on a 500 or 600 prime lens so decided to base my thoughts on that of a Sigma 150-500 which is doable. All told it would equal the cost of what I have in my digiscoping equipment when you add a camera and a Teleconverter...

Anyhow...go to this site http://lmans66.zenfolio.com/

and clip on the digiscoping group. The last two I just took today with a Fuji F30 which is a 4 year old point and shoot 6 MP. The rest were taken with a Canon 1200 IS point and shoot as I was learning something about digiscoping. Anyhow..... I am not sure if there is any way around taking perfect photos unless real close...by perfect I mean similar to ones you see of excellent shots but at a distance. Anything at a distance, regardless of lens (unless you have a prime 500 or more) will net you prime results. But for me, these are just fine. I am finding that digiscoping offers me the capability of pulling birds from 20 meters to 30 meters without any cropping and the quality is fine for me. beyond 30 and depending on how far beyond will net you pictures but not good quality. Same with a camera and lens such as a sigma 15-500mm.

The difference in quality between digiscoping and lets say the Sigma 150-500mm might be minimal I am guessing at the same distances and lights. The Sigma will make you shoot at F6.3 or into the 7's or even F8, while the point and shoot were all at F5 at 400 ISO. Weight wise the Sigma is 4.2 pounds, plus a tripod . A monopod might be efffective too but with a tri pod you have more weight with the head. The scope is 47 ounces, the camera and attachment are another 20 ounces and the tri pod I use is 5 pounds (head included). So I am guessing the total weight is about equal from camera to scope.

The benefit of the camera is that it is much easier finding a bird anyplace than using a scope. It is also quicker to take images too. Birds in flight or fast moving birds cannot be taken with a scope, or if so, pretty difficult.

The benefits of a scope are that you can get close with absolutely no cropping. None of the images I have digiscoped are cropped in any manner and I can get closer even to that. I can stand far away from the bird not disturbing it and be able to take images while with a camera, you usually spook the bird or have to creep up real slow so as not to.

Cost wise.... a camera plus a Sigma plus a teleconverter if you want one is $2000 or so, .... The cost of a good scope/eyepiece such as Swarovski is $2300 alone (when I bought it) but the camera is only a $100. Tri-pod is equal either way you go so cost wise about the same.

I think the biggest thing is versatility...camera wins out. I elected the scope for in the Northwest US with wide open spaces and during the winter months, it is the only way to bird....waterfoul are spooked by hunters and are not approachable...so a scope is it. Photography in the winter requires sunny days and up closeness regardless of equipment.

So just some thoughts...anyone have any others to compare and contrast or add to?

[minh2pac]

I say if you really into birding then save up to get the sigma 150-500mm. That's what I did. If you have enough then consider 100-400mmL

[lmans]

The Sigma will give you Okay shots.... Digiscoping will give you okay or super shots and have them up close and personal. I am really enjoying that aspect. I think far too many people are attempting to bird without the ability to get close. a 250mm lens is not going to cut it. I have a 300 lens with a 1.4 converter and although I use that for birding when I travel, I want to again stress digiscoping as the best alternative to spending tons of money for a 500-600 lens...

[canonloader]

I have owned every long lens Canon makes in the prosumer line, below 500mm. 70-200/4, 300/4, 400/5.6, 100-400. And Two Bigma's. And an Orion ED 80 for Digiscoping. All those lenses were under $1300. The Orion was only $500. None of them are really worth a crap compared to a Canon 500/4. I should not have to tell you, or anyone, there is a reason that all those lenses are under $1300 and the 500/4 is over $5600. And if you really have to ask, you get a head slap with the explanation.

Yes, there are some really sharp copies of the 100-400, and the 400/5.6, and with the right body, they can put out some very credible images. Still, there's that difference, like an 800 pound gorilla, and sooner or later, your going to have to admit it. :mrgreen:

[Nighthound]

Obviously we base our opinions on these subjects on our personal experiences and the quality of the samples we've used. At the front end of all of that lies budget and which point in this hobby we are when we make our choices. It's much easier to commit to more pricey optics knowing that they will be used often and for many years to come, provided the funds are available of course. The focal length you choose should be driven by a number of factors, your ability to get close, your persistence and patience and even the size of your primary subjects can play in to some degree. As an example, someone using a blind or hide may be able to get fantastic shots at 250mm, whereas someone that hikes and shoots along trails would struggle to achieve detailed shots.

While I have shot using a telescope(digiscoping), it certainly has its drawbacks and limitations. Portability can be tough but there are spotting scopes that are smaller and more workable. Hauling a 500mm/Camera/Tripod is no lightweight task either to be fair. Optical quality, including contrast, bokeh and color correction all improve with these type scopes as the price increases but I've yet to see images taken with a spotter or telescope that topped the quality I've seen come out of a 500L. As mentioned above, having to manually focus with a digiscope set up makes action and flight shots very difficult at best.

Is 250mm enough? It certainly would not be for me but I've been working at 400mm plus for about 6 years so stepping back isn't a choice I would consider. I photograph birds as small as Hummingbirds and as large as Wood Stork so I work first and foremost with a plan for the subjects I'm after that day. I do what I can to get close even at 500+mm. There are times when I get too close for my focal range but that's rare. How and where you shoot along with your field skills should play into your decision making.

I hope I've given you some things to consider while making you choice. Let us know what you decide.

[micloi]

Get one of the old Sigma 400mm f5.6 Macro APO lenses. They sell on Ebay all the time for around $150 as they only work open wide on DSLR's.

IT DOES NOT MATTER. The 2 first Images below are open wide on my 1DMKIV
The last image is with a Sigma 2X TC at 800mm on a Canon D60 AGAIN OPEN WIDE (Obviously with manual focusing at with the TC the aperture is f11)

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/micloi/telephotos/e499c9f5.jpg
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/micloi/telephotos/4b4276d0.jpg
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/micloi/telephotos/06129b88.jpg

[Snydremark]

If it's what you can afford, go for it. Get the camera and lens and learn; then once you know what you NEED out of it, get that.

I wouldn't trade my 100-400L for anything now; but I shot with a Tamron 18-270 for the first 2 years I owned the camera and managed some pretty snazzy shots. It just took finding out which of my local area birds would let me close enough <shrug> (and some luck, occasionally ;) )

It will take some time to adjust to getting things the way you want them from an SLR compared to your S5, so take that into account when you're evaluating your results. You won't likely get the level of results you're expecting straight out of the box.

Good luck with whatever you choose, though!

[artyman]

Can I suggest you remove the fat balls from those netting bags they can be death traps for birds, get yourself a wire holder.

[micloi]

Can I suggest you remove the fat balls from those netting bags they can be death traps for birds, get yourself a wire holder.

Will do, thanks for letting me know :)

[Boogie99]

I was going to go for this Canon EF100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS USM as I try to do landscapes as well as catching the odd bird and some not so odd. the more I think about this the more I am getting confused.

[Don1]

I used a Canon 55-250mm exclusively for birding for a year or so then purchased a Sigma 120-400mm last fall. I bought that particular Sigma as I had heard at the time that its IQ was better than the longer Siggie. From what I've seen on here that could be debated.

The Canon lens had good image quality and I still use it on occasions where I either don't want to carry a larger lens or the birds I'm shooting are large and close. The Sigma is definitely better for smaller and farther away. Oh BTW, I used a 450D for both lenses.