tight budget lens for birds

Archibald wrote in post #17364558
400mm too short? On a crop or FF? Makes a big difference.

400 on a crop equates roughly to a 600 on a FF. The former is easy to handhold; the latter requires a tripod. The format definitely makes a difference.

I have spent many hours with my 7D and 100-400mm doing bird photography. It is very suitable, but yes, often a bit short. But it depends. There are also many times when it is just right, or even too wide.

Basically, it depends.

That is a rather big over-generalization; it depends heavily on the individual user. I use my Tamzooka (150-600) at 600 on my T1i all the time with good results (the IS on that lens pretty much rocks). I expect even better results on my new-to-me 7D.

mamaof2 wrote in post #17366410
Well I was hoping to stay around 300...but looks like that is prob not realistic.

If you're willing to settle for a relatively crappy lens, you can get a 75-300 for significantly less than that. You won't get tack-sharp shots, but you can practice your shooting technique and decide if you want to invest more money in a better lens.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17372218
They both have pluses that the other doesn't have. The zoom allows you to focus much closer than the prime, which is nice when you find an oblivious small bird in a bush or in the weeds, or on the low branches of a tree. It is also hand-holdable at shutter speeds down to 80 - 160 depending on how steady you are, where the prime might require 1/32o to 1/640. And of course, the zoom zooms out when you encounter something big and close.

The prime, however, has better bokeh (smoother edges in out-of-focus areas), faster AF (especially with BIFs), and sharper than most copies of the v1 zoom wide open at f/5.6 at 400mm. The prime is also much lighter, and has a sliding hood, so you don't have to waste time taking the hood off and putting it on, and you can't lose it, and it doesn't have grooves to wear out).

So, no one can recommend one over the other to you with a guarantee of no regrets. In the world of photography, every choice we make has regrets, if we are honest with ourselves. Even if you fork over the money for the 1200mm f/5.6, you might regret how huge it is, and how much attention it draws.

They're both 400mm, so both will get you just as close when at max zoom. Other than that, this is a good summary.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17422210
Sometimes.

In my local areas there are aggressive gulls & pelicans that will walk right up and take your lunch. So sure, a wide angle lens would even capture one. Depends what look you're going for.

Here's a gull with 85mm at F1.4 on full frame:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qz9H​fX IMG_1688 by Mwise1023, on Flickr

Getting close is the answer to lack of reach, especially for small birds. But you have to be very creative, study them, and figure out how best to get close or get them close.

Just saying hey grab a short 100mm lens and go birding in the city... well... if those are the birds you're wanting to see, then yea that'll work.

Very best,

I don't think you really read my post. I am talking about rare or uncommon birds that make the city their unlikely home for days or weeks, like Western Tanagers, Couch's Kingbird, Western Kingbirds, Yellow-breasted Chats, Prothonotary Warblers, and more-common, but hardly-urban birds like Wood thrushes, Brown Thrashers, Ovenbirds, Common Yellowthroats, etc, that I've been able to photograph very close in small NYC parks. I'm not talking about Herring gulls, House Sparrows, Starlings, and Pigeons!

archer1960 wrote in post #17425396
They're both 400mm, so both will get you just as close when at max zoom. Other than that, this is a good summary.

Actually, I never said the thing that you disagree with. I would NEVER, EVER refer to magnification due to focal length and/or higher pixel density, or use of a teleconverter as "getting close" or "getting more reach". I am talking about perspective; how physically close you are to the subject, and how the background dwarfs relative to the subject, because of it.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17426180
Actually, I never said the thing that you disagree with. I would NEVER, EVER refer to magnification due to focal length and/or higher pixel density, or use of a teleconverter as "getting close" or "getting more reach". I am talking about perspective; how physically close you are to the subject, and how the background dwarfs relative to the subject, because of it.

Look at the section of your post that I bolded in my response ("The zoom allows you to focus much closer than the prime"); that's the only thing I was commenting on. At the time, I thought you were saying that the zoom at 400mm would make you APPEAR to be closer to the subject in the captured image. I realize now that you were referring to MFD, which I didn't realize until just now. So never mind...