Best Wildlife Telephoto Option for $1,000?

[ac12]

The more you shoot the more the more you get used to targeting the bird. I'm pretty quick from hip to eye even 420mm (840mm eq) and getting bird in sights. One thing to try is keeping your eye just above the camera and sight along the lens. Once the bird is in line then bring viewfinder up to eye.

The same principles apply to... uhm... another kind of shooting.

What works with that is what we call "dry-firing," which is where you shoot nothing at a target. The pros say you should shoot ten times in dry-firing for every real shot. I wonder if the same would work for photography? I bet it would.

Shotgun.
If you shoot trap or skeet, tracking a bird with a camera should be easy.

You look at the bird and track it with your eyes, raise the camera, look along the top of the lens with your peripheral vision (so you don't loose focus on the bird), raise the camera to your eye and you should be on the bird (or close to it).
It takes longer to describe than to do.
As Brent said, the more you practice, the easier it gets.

Like dry firing, you have to develop the hand/eye coordination and train your muscles to move.

Find an open field/parking lot next to a road, with slower moving cars.
Stand in the field a few hundred feet from the road.
Practice raising the camera and locking onto a moving car, and track it.
As you get better, move closer to the road, where the apparent speed of the cars will increase.

 

[zombiesniper]

Yup both weapon and birds photography use the same instinctive and tracking techniques.

I use the same method to track and take down people on the opposing team in airsoft.

 

[Rafterman]

In my opinion, when shooting birds there is no such thing as a lens that is too long but there is most assuredly one that is too short. I'd personally never even consider anything less than 500mm for shooting birds. Birds are small, the detail in bird feathers and eyes is even smaller. Been there, done that, spent a lot of hours chasing them around.

500mm is your minimum on FF or on crop sensor? I ask because the only reason I'm even considering the Nikon 300 f/4 is because I'll basically have a 450mm f/4 by itself on my D500, or I can throw a 1.4 TC on it and have a 630mm f/5.6 as well. You may ask me, why would I not start with something longer than 300mm for birds and wildlife? Well, there are some situations where a 450mm field of view will be sufficient. For example, I don't need 630mm of reach when I'm shooting birds at the NC zoo's indoor aviary. The birds are all VERY close by since they're used to people. They'll perch just 6ft away from a human, when in the wild, you'd be lucky to get within 100ft of them.

BTW, if you are going to zoom while tracking the subject, you want a loose smooth zoom. Some zooms are too stiff for easy zoom tracking. What seems fine at home is different when you are in the field, and have to track moving subjects. I would almost call those stiff zooms variable focal length lenses. This is where you need to actually have the lens + camera in your hand, so you can see exactly how it feels to work that zoom ring.

There's a nice brick-and-mortar camera shop about 30mins from my house where I could probably go slap on a variety of lenses to see what feels best in my hands. However, I would hate to take up an employee's time just to walk out and buy the lens online instead because it's cheaper and/or there's no tax. Testing out a zoom ring isn't mission-critical to me anyway. While I don't believe everything I read on the Internet, if someone on here said "the zoom ring on the Tamron 100-400mm is very smooth!" I'd probably believe them and not worry about that aspect of the lens.

 

[Cortian]

There's a nice brick-and-mortar camera shop about 30mins from my house where I could probably go slap on a variety of lenses to see what feels best in my hands. However, I would hate to take up an employee's time just to walk out and buy the lens online instead because it's cheaper and/or there's no tax.

Easy: Then don't do that.

 

[Rafterman]

Easy: Then don't do that.

I have a tendency to not do things that I would hate to do.

 

[SCraig]

500mm is your minimum on FF or on crop sensor? I ask because the only reason I'm even considering the Nikon 300 f/4 is because I'll basically have a 450mm f/4 by itself on my D500, or I can throw a 1.4 TC on it and have a 630mm f/5.6 as well. You may ask me, why would I not start with something longer than 300mm for birds and wildlife? Well, there are some situations where a 450mm field of view will be sufficient. For example, I don't need 630mm of reach when I'm shooting birds at the NC zoo's indoor aviary. The birds are all VERY close by since they're used to people. They'll perch just 6ft away from a human, when in the wild, you'd be lucky to get within 100ft of them.

Crop sensor (D7100). Nashville Zoo is pretty much the same way which is why I use a Sigma 150-500 zoom lens most of the time.

 

[nerwin]

200-500 5.6 for sure.

 

[zulu42]

Aw, man. A nice 200-500 just popped up for sale locally. must. resist.

 

[ac12]

Aw, man. A nice 200-500 just popped up for sale locally. must. resist.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

 

[Cortian]

Aw, man. A nice 200-500 just popped up for sale locally. must. resist.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

Not if you have a strong CFO in the house

 

[zulu42]

I struggle to have the most expensive lens in my bag be a specialty bird lens. Something that compromises a small but important percentage of shooting. Sure, there's some other uses, but...

 

[BrentC]

I struggle to have the most expensive lens in my bag be a specialty bird lens. Something that compromises a small but important percentage of shooting. Sure, there's some other uses, but...

Ahh, but once you get the lens and start shooting birds/wildlife it will no longer be a small percentage of your shooting. It will suck you in.

 

[ac12]

I struggle to have the most expensive lens in my bag be a specialty bird lens. Something that compromises a small but important percentage of shooting. Sure, there's some other uses, but...

That is why my 500mm lens is an old used Nikon mirror lens that I got for about $150.
Which is 10% of the cost of a new 200-500.
I don't shoot LONG, enough to justify the cost of a $1,400, Nikon 200-500 lens.
But, not having AF on rapidly moving subjects will seriously reduce your keepers. My tennis keepers were about 10% or less. Change to stationary subjects, and my keepers go up to 90+%.
For ME, the manual 500mm lens is "good enough."

 

[Rafterman]

I struggle to have the most expensive lens in my bag be a specialty bird lens. Something that compromises a small but important percentage of shooting. Sure, there's some other uses, but...

I hear you and I can respect that. Each person uses their camera for different reasons. Some people are perfectly happy doing street photography with a $200 used 50mm and nothing else. Some of us would be happy with a 500mm f/4 and nothing else. For me, I don't do photography as a living, it's just something I enjoy and help other people enjoy through my photos. I've loved birds, especially raptors, ever since I volunteered at a wild bird rehab center for a semester in high school about 20 years ago. So in my case, it makes sense to spend money on a lens that allows me to shoot what I really love. My ancient 18-70mm that I bought used for $150 is my go-to walk-around lens for vacations and my 85mm 1.8G is for when I do free portrait sessions for family and friends.

Now that I'm getting heavily back into photography though, I'll be adding a couple more primes to my arsenal, as well as a Tokina ultra-wide zoom of some sort. I had their 12-24mm f/4 when it first came out, and really loved that lens, and it rocked for landscapes and architecture. However, I got rid of it to finance another hobby I was more into at the time (car customizing). I'll probably get my hands on their 11-20mm f/2 or 11-16mm f/2.8 by this summer.

In addition to shooting birds again, I'm going to start volunteering at my church doing photography for the various events going on there throughout the week. Understandably, they require you to have your own equipment, and let's face it, an 18-70mm kit lens isn't going to cut it for low-light situations indoors. I've been going back-and-forth between buying 35 and 50mm f/1.8G primes or a 24-70mm f/2.8. That's a whole other discussion though.

As for what's going on with my bird lens situation, I'm starting to think more seriously about the Nikon 200-500mm over the 300 f/4 with 1.4 TC. Cruising around eBay, the best prices I could find for a nearly new 300 f/4 and 1.4 TC was about $985 total. That's just a couple hundred dollars less than a very nice used 200-500. I think I'm mostly worried about sharpness though, as I've read online in numerous places that the 200-500 loses sharpness at 500mm. Obviously, most consumer level tele-zooms tend to lose IQ at the long end anyway. However, all other things being equal, I wonder which would produce a nicer image: the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC at 420mm and f/5.6 or the 200-500 at 420mm and f/5.6?

 

[Derrel]

The one non-equal issue is that the 200-500/5.6 has Vibration Reduction, and the 300/4 AF-S does not. In the wind, or in lower light, I think the VR system could easily lead to much sharper shots than a non-VR lens. Also, VR is fantastic for shooting in the wind! Or when out of breath. But VR is also _superb_ for panning at slower speeds...something the bird shooter might really want to consider: panning, and keeping the camera steady as relates to up-and-down accidental movement. My experience is that VR is infinitely better than any tripod when panning. Or when shooting from a boat. I think the "sharpness" quotient from the optics is a lot less critical than the sharpness quotient that the shooting platform and shutter speed and f/stop and ISO put onto the shooter. Early and late in the day and VR starts to be an advantage.