Birds dislike flash photography. Proof inside...

yeah, I've been doing a little research, and it looks like I might opt for the 70-200 f/2.8 without the IS. I'm usually working at shutter speeds that preclude camera shake anyway. I'm still a little scared of a lens without IS at that length though.
 
I just recently got the 70-200 F2.8 IS and it is way to short for those stinking song birds. Im in the procecss of getting a TC and have been prepping the back yard with lots of bird feed and birdbaths. And a tent that I can hide in. I think I need to be within 10 to 15 feet of the birds for a decent picture. I understand now why those 500 and 600mm lens are needed for birding.

EDIT: The IS is definitely worth looking into. It helps alot indoors, not so much if its bright sunlight. To me its well worth the money.
 
:cry:I don't know what to get

I didn't mean to upset you. I think life is full of compromises. That 70-200 is an outstanding piece of glass and, with the larger birds, will do you fine (especially with a TC). Getting the smaller guys will be harder, but if you can build a blind or if your woodsman skills are good and you can sneak up on them, that's another option. A lot of birders like the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 which are actually cheaper than the 70-200, but maybe not as versatile for other uses.


Here's one I like that someone took with that 100-400.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62436
 
I've used the 100-400 and wasn't that impressed... I didn't have it for very long (maybe 30 minutes) and all I took photos of was just some bees on some flowers, but idk, I just wasn't that wild about it... plus I'd rather have f/2.8 than IS or 400mm.... I just have to figure out if the extra couple hundred bucks is worth it...
 
I think I might be changing my mind. maybe I will rent the 100-400 and see if I like keeping it in my bag for a little while.
 
Robert if its any help:
First off almost every nature photographer has in the bag a 70-200mm lens (most are f2.8 versions). So a lens like that certianly has a place in the photographers bag. I would push and say try going for the IS version over the non-IS. It's a lot better to have the IS for those times when you do need it than to not have it.

After that also remember that since you are getting good reults with your current 200mm setups an overall upgrade at that range is certainly no bad thing. However if you want to push for longe glass first consider both your short term and your long term ideas.

For myself (and others I have spoken to) where they do own and use a lens like a 300mm f2.8 or heavier long lens options most of the photographers still owned and used a 100-400mm lens and not a 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6. Essentially the zoom offers a versatility that the primes don't have and yet still have high enough image quality to suffice when the heavier telephotos are not possible/practical.
If however you are not heading for those dizzy heights you might prefer a 300mm f4 + 1.4TC or a 400mm f5.6 to compliment your 70-200mm lens option. Which of the two you go for though is going to have to be your choice ;)

Also remember with the 100-400mm lenses give the lens some controled testing and then ask about the images quality - there is often a lot of sample variation with this lens and a lot of people who are put off about it have simply used a soft copy (or a copythat is not opticaly in line with their camera body and thus never comes back from "recalibration" any better, but is still softer than optimal).
 
4314681020_37ed4c17ca_b.jpg


this is an image taken with the 100-400mm lens by me. For my purposes, I think I would rather have the reach that the aperture. I'm always taking "zoom pictures" outside, so lighting wouldn't be a HUGE problem, although it's always nice to have the aperture too... life is about compromises though.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top