Birding Lens features U want most..... put down your list, priority wise.

Most of us (interested in bird photography) here,do have a birding lens, using it to full extent satisfactorily.Many of us dream of a lens having features we want the most,within a ' reasonable ' budget. Here too there is much confusion regarding what should come first.......sharpness or range,sharpness or AF speed, range or AF speed,range or portability......and the list goes on.....
When we are ready with the budget,we look for these answers, and I feel getting answers to these questions are not less tougher than arranging for the money itself.

Thought of putting down the features in order of priority for the lens we are waiting for.......

Mine goes like this.....

1. EXCELLENT SHARPNESS (ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE)
2. RANGE (MIN 500MM)
3. AF SPEED (WANT SOMETHING LIKE THE 400MMF5.6)
4. F-STOP ( MIN 5.6....F4 IS MUCH COVETED)
5. PORTABILITY & HAND-HOLDABILITY.
6. GOOD BACK GROUND BOKEH

.......... anything left out.....

Would be glad to know what the members' views are......

Happy clicking..!!

Heya,

For me, it's:

1. Reach (600mm, +)
2. AF speed (zooms are slow, primes are fast)

The rest is just gravy. Sure, I'd love F4 or F2.8, but I know the price tag with those is $2k minimum and goes up from there. I'd love all the most modern stabilization in the world, but I'd live without it if I had to. I don't care so much about portability or out of focus area rendering nearly as much, I'm find if it's a beast and needs to sit on a gimbal. I'd love for it to be razor sharp wide open, but I'm ok if it's not ultrasharp wide open, granted most modern lenses like this are pretty sharp, but I know the costs of the razor sharp stuff wide open, they tend to be those killer F2.8 and F4 lenses and primes to boot. Again, looking at $8k+ lenses when you really get into that combination.

I think overall, the ideal lenses for me that exist and are perhaps kind of within budget range, would be the Canon 500 F4L, a Canon 300 F2.8L (non-IS), and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS. All of which can be from $2k to $3k or so, used. Still costly really, but not the full $8k~12k that some of these lenses cost brand new for the latest version.

Very best,

Are we talking about physically possible with current tech? Or Pipe dreams?

Your list above items 1-4 & 6 calls for a 500mm f/4. We know how big, heavy and expensive they are, so item 5 (Portability) is out for most.

Nikons new 200-500mm f/5.6 tells us that a 500mm f/5.6 can be lighter than 4.5 pounds.

I've shot birds from 100-1000mm, and do find the 500mm to be pretty much the sweet spot.

So I think this is where we need to look, drop the zoom and make a 500mm f/5.6 prime along the lines of the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, but add in modern IS. Again,. Nikons zoom tells us this can be done for far less cost than I would have imagined possible, as the zoom is only about $1,400.00. Sweet!

As for the priority list, I can't imagine breaking it down that way.

I want IQ, AF speed and accuracy, and reach.

I'm willing to pay a lot, and carry a lot for that, but would of course prefer a lighter and less costly package.

After bouncing around a few lenses in the last year my priorities are a bit different I guess. Due to population density here in Germany and around where I live setting up a hide and waiting for the shot leads to frustration as no matter what time of day it is within half an hour when everything has settled down someones going to walk, jog or mountain bike past.

So after Iq and af speed and accuracy the next on my list is portability ( weight and volume) as with a wandering style its hand held all the way. I find the Sigma 150-600 Sports that bit too heavy and unbalanced for this sort of shooting to give it some perspective.

As theres a lot of forest around here F Stop comes into play so maybe that and reach are next up on the list equally and lastly Bokeh.

I recently got a 100-400 L IS II and coupled with an extender when needed is nearly perfect for me. Nearly. So theres some major saving coming up and I´ll leave it to you all to guess which lens has caught my eye

Thanks friends.......

As CyberDineSystem had put in Are we talking about physically possible with current tech? Or Pipe dreams?
......although I used the word 'dream', truly speaking I meant much coveted. Yes we are talking real world here. I agree fully with you about the 'sweet spot'...it is near the 500mm mark. F4 would enable us to use 1.4X TC pretty neatly,making it 700mmf5.6......hmm not bad on a crop sensor body.
...and ....

.........just pray these words come true.......

Had a brief session with Canon 500mm IS II lens (.......my ultimate birding lens),just blown away with it.I feel it is hand-holdable for a limited period .With a apt technique,it is a 'born-winner'.Accepts the 1.4X TC decently.

....also read great reviews about the Sigma 150-600mm sports......not handled though.
Really looking forward to a comparison with the 400mmf5.6 or the 500mmf5.6...on the AF front only.

@ Philihase....

So theres some major saving coming up and I´ll leave it to you all to guess which lens has caught my eye

......umm let me think.......might be 400mmf4 DO MkII........or 500mmf4......

Thanks all again....!!!

Personally I think even with unlimited budget (for one lens) many of us have to make compromises. 600 f4 IS II sounds great, but it wouldn't work well for me.

I'm sure Canon had a bit of a think about the 400 DO. I guess it fits in nicely to the lineup, I like the idea of a 500mm f5.6, or 500 f4 DO (obviously with IS). Would the latter be light enough that I'd prefer it over the 400? Maybe. Well probably.

You add cost in there as well and let's be honest, lenses like the Sig/Tam 150-600's and even the new 100-400 II were pipe dreams 5+ years ago (well OK the 100-400 was certainly dreamed about for a while). Who thought we'd get even a half decent 150-600mm for ~1k?

I guess priority for me is size and weight. Too big and I'm just not going to use it much. Of course everything else has to come together to give me enough keepers to make taking the lens out worthwhile. Then of course if you can spend more I think you get into the 'fun' category.

ejenner wrote in post #17781893
I like the idea of a 500mm f5.6, or 500 f4 DO (obviously with IS). Would the latter be light enough that I'd prefer it over the 400? Maybe. Well probably.

.......me too liked the idea......maybe someday it will no longer be a dream....

After shooting with 500mm for 6 months now I want to sell it along with Tamron 150-600mm to help funds for a used 600mm mk2 please someone wake me I am only dreaming.

I want to keep my Tammy and borrow Peters new 600!

Peter2516 wrote in post #17782585
After shooting with 500mm for 6 months now I want to sell it along with Tamron 150-600mm to help funds for a used 600mm mk2 please someone wake me I am only dreaming.

I knew it, the 500mm was only a gateway lens! heheheh
I am sure that your wife is very happy with your wish on that 600mm too, just like mine would be!


Randy

I think you also have to split it into static bird pics and BIF pics.

For BIF, I think that the three most important parameters are focus speed, focus speed and focus speed.

For static birds, we can talk more about reach and image quality.

For me and what I do I would love to see a Canon 800 F5.6 L Mk2. My Mk1 is superb but the Mk2 glass and AF would make it better with the 1.4 Mk3 extender and the new construction would save a little weight. Pure fantasy really as I could never afford it!
For a more mobile lens I think Canon have pretty much produced what I want in the 500 F4 L IS Mk2 - wish I had the funds for one of these too!
For pure walkabout the latest 100-400 seems to be about as it gets for now, though a Canon 200-500 F5.6 would be better for me (lucky Nikonians!).