How to understand lens capabilities and know which is best for purpose.

[Designer]

I think I read some of the lenses take converters to further magnify but do wonder if this affects light into the camera. I haven't got that far yet.

Yes, they do.

 

[BrentC]

Because you want to shoot birds and you have mobility issues the longest lens you can get would be best. 400mm f4, f5.6 is fine. F2.8 or lower will be huge, heavy, incredibly expensive lenses and for the most part you are going to be shooting wildlife in decent light. Or you can go with something like the Tamron 100-500 zoom. But they are still going to be big lenses. Maybe a 300mm f4.

You have take a lot of wildlife shots BrentC, what sort of distance would I get of a swan or large duck filing a good percentage of the frame from an ultra telephoto lens like the Canon EF 100-400 MM F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens. Do you have s similar one? I appreciate at times distance is hard to quantify.

I have tested the three lens I have on a tripod, each at min and max settings to get a feel of what is possible from each so I have a good idea, I think I have reasonable coverage from the three lenses, it is just the extra distance for wildlife, and when I am ready I want to make the right decision, it is the most costly lens.

First of all here is a little secret, I crop a lot. I have done 100% crops on a lot of photos. You will be cropping. It's always nice to try to get a full frame shot but unrealistic. Swans are one of this those birds you can easily get full frame on short lenses because they do not tend to be skittish.

Just follow @Overread advice and but the longest lens you can afford.

 

[BrentC]

Why wouldn't you not be able to do early mornings with an f4 or f5.6? I do it all the time. Also since you will be using a tripod the 2x focal length rule goes out the window. Unless it's an irritating chickadee that doesn't sit in one place for more than a second you can easily bring shutter down to 1/150 for perched birds. With my 300mm (600mm effective) and the incredible IS Olympus has I have gone down to 1/30 handheld as the long as the bird isnt moving.

 

[Overread]

With wildlife I would say that your prime concern should be the focal length over the aperture. At least if you are looking at options priced on the 400mm f4.6 range. Yes aperture is important, but at the same time focal length is too and with wildlife, in general, you will want the greatest reach you can get.
From there just raise your ISO higher as required. A lot of early advice people get (in words and in books) is to "keep the ISO low" and this sets a very bad mindset in many a new photographer. In truth you need to keep the ISO as low as is required; and often as not this means that the ISO could be high - sometimes very high if the scene and situation require it to be so.


Also check out the RSPB website and see if there are any reserves near you. They are generally very good at having disabled access. Even if its a small site you might well find the odd photographer there (volunteers, staff and visitors) and many can be quite approachable by the enthusiastic after a little more understanding. Strike up a conversation or three and see where it leads you. This can be a great way to see what others get with other lenses - esp if it helps you make some choices.
I would also suggest putting your 70-300mm to use - don't forget you can get some feedback here on the forums too from what you capture. That will give you some real world experience which can be a great thing - ideally when you come to make a more expensive choice the experiences you'd have should help you in making the choice and understanding the properties best in how they relate to photography and to your photography (baring in mind that the beginner oft wants to get feedback during the early stages to help moderate their impressions - sometimes early failures or problems are more a symptom of inexperience than poor lens quality) .

 

[KmH]

With f numbers being fractions, f/2 is a large f number. It means the lens opening diameter is 1/2 the focal length of the lens.
f/8 is a much smaller f number meaning the lens opening diameter is 1/8 the focal length of the lens.

 

[PJcam]

Why wouldn't you not be able to do early mornings with an f4 or f5.6? I do it all the time. Also since you will be using a tripod the 2x focal length rule goes out the window. Unless it's an irritating chickadee that doesn't sit in one place for more than a second you can easily bring shutter down to 1/150 for perched birds. With my 300mm (600mm effective) and the incredible IS Olympus has I have gone down to 1/30 handheld as the long as the bird isnt moving.

Sorry didn't want to go into details, can't do early mornings as I do not sleep well due to issues, I wasn't referring to light in this instance. Early morning for birds has to be good. Irritating chickadee, I like that.

 

[PJcam]

Yes aperture is important, but at the same time focal length is too and with wildlife, in general, you will want the greatest reach you can get. From there just raise your ISO higher as required. A lot of early advice people get (in words and in books) is to "keep the ISO low" and this sets a very bad mindset in many a new photographer. In truth you need to keep the ISO as low as is required; and often as not this means that the ISO could be high - sometimes very high if the scene and situation require it to be so.

I have taken the meaning to be keep ISO as low as possible to the meter reading, not 100 ISO.

Also check out the RSPB website and see if there are any reserves near you. They are generally very good at having disabled access. Even if its a small site you might well find the odd photographer there (volunteers, staff and visitors) and many can be quite approachable by the enthusiastic after a little more understanding. Strike up a conversation or three and see where it leads you. This can be a great way to see what others get with other lenses - esp if it helps you make some choices.

There is a reserve withing 10 miles, I joined the RSPB this week, just waiting for the welcome pack. A good suggestion I think, I have not been there yet as weather has been bad but do hope to soon

I would also suggest putting your 70-300mm to use - don't forget you can get some feedback here on the forums too from what you capture. That will give you some real world experience which can be a great thing - ideally when you come to make a more expensive choice the experiences you'd have should help you in making the choice and understanding the properties best in how they relate to photography and to your photography (baring in mind that the beginner oft wants to get feedback during the early stages to help moderate their impressions - sometimes early failures or problems are more a symptom of inexperience than poor lens quality) .

Excellent advice Overread, many thanks, I will do that. Best way to learn I think.

 

[PJcam]

Which lens may be best

Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Len

Nikon AF 200-500mm F/5.6 AF-S

Sigma 150-600mm OS lens (Canon EF fit) F/5-6.3

The Canon is better for Light but gives 400mm

The Sigma not as good on Light but gives 600mm

Are Sigma lenses good and reliable?

Does the lens fit direct onto a standard tripod or do they need an adaptor?

 

[Overread]

Which lens may be best

Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Len

Nikon AF 200-500mm F/5.6 AF-S

Sigma 150-600mm OS lens (Canon EF fit) F/5-6.3

The Canon is better for Light but gives 400mm

The Sigma not as good on Light but gives 600mm

Are Sigma lenses good and reliable?

Does the lens fit direct onto a standard tripod or do they need an adaptor?

Well we can take the Nikon off the list as it doesn't come in a Canon mount
Next lets talk superzooms

First up lets actually talk production. All the camera products are produced in batches and produced within tolerances of manufacture and tested in batched groups (higher priced lenses get more individual attention in general but are still produced within tolerances). These tolerances, in general, work for the most part, you might get some very minor variations, but those are invisible except if you test a wide range of gear side by side and start comparing at high magnifications. Ergo its a null issue.
Now it is possible to get a camera and lens which have their calibration at the opposite ends of the tolerance scales - this can result in reduced performance because both are totally out of sync with the other. Neither is damaged, broken or badly made, but they are at opposite ends. Thus if you sent one in for a warranty repair, it might come back better or worse because the techs would only be adjusting its calibration, and if it wasn't really out to start with any adjustment could nudge it further away from the cameras own setting. That's why you often have to send camera and lens in at the same time.
And because things are produced in batches its likely that if you got a replacement copy from the same store you'd likely get another from the same batch and possible with the same/similar calibration.


Let me repeat that broadly speaking the chances of this happening with most lenses (even most 3rd party) is small for the most part.

Now back to superzooms (like the 100-400mm) - these are complex and their tolerances are often a little broader. Thus there is an increased chance of getting one out of sync with any camera. Indeed the original 100-400mm was well known to be a lens where if you got a "good copy" it was great, but if you got a "bad copy" it was rather poor. And, because of the ways calibration is done as outlined above, it could be that people would get copy after copy or repair after repair and get no improvement (because each time it was lens only not with the camera).
They can also show variation in focusing through their focal range as well - since most focusing is done via AF rather than manual focusing with digital cameras.


Now more modern cameras are starting to get features built in for AF correction and newer sigma lenses even come with a dockingstation base (lens cap with a USB slot) to let you adjust the lens AF software (far cheaper than sending it in to be repaired and future proofs the camera as rarely very old 3rd party lenses have to re-chipped to keep up with changes in own brand).



Now lets fast forward to the last few years; in the last few years Sigma and Tamron have both released some rather impressive superzooms (I forget their names though I'm sure others can fill you in) and Canon has released a newer 100-400mm MII - in these newer lenses the performance and reliability is greatly improved. Granted the costs are greater, but the performance is far better.


Honestly were I in your situation I'd consider the 400mm f5.6 or the newer Canon 100-400mm MII - those would be the best choices for performance and whilst they might take longer to save for, I think that the cost would be well worth the investment - esp since both would give you good enough performance to also crop shots by a decent amount; which isn't cheating, esp if you are not able to get closer (many reserves your position is fixed in a hide - even if you're fully able many wildlife require a static hidden/concealed/distant position to get the shots so moving closer is often not possible - thus cropping is oft used).

Of course the 3rd party newer superzooms do give you more reach - so that's a big area to research, though I think if you start a new thread asking about those you should get some feedback from users.

 

[BrentC]

I am sure there are lens rental places where you are, you might try renting a lens for the weekend to see how you get along. Maybe one weekend a prime and another a zoom and see what best fits you.

 

[Derrel]

This thread has some good advice, and some good information. I think the physical size and weight of the lens is an issue that you might wish to consider. For smaller birds, or birds in general, I think sheer focal length is a major factor...I'd look at the Tamron as the best value in an under $2,000 lens. TAMRON | SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2

Watch the video. Note that they have a nice 1.4x tele-converter that works with this lens.

 

[PJcam]

This thread has some good advice, and some good information. I think the physical size and weight of the lens is an issue that you might wish to consider. For smaller birds, or birds in general, I think sheer focal length is a major factor...I'd look at the Tamron as the best value in an under $2,000 lens. TAMRON | SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2

Watch the video. Note that they have a nice 1.4x tele-converter that works with this lens.

The video was very good, very impressive.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Sounds like as the thread went along you realized you'd need a longer lens for wildlife/bird photography. Along with suggestions here if you haven't yet you could take a look in the Nature/Wildlife section of the Forum.

I was trying to think who else you could ask and coastalconn came to mind but I haven't seen him on lately. But I did a search of his name and a thread from December came up; reason I mention it is he often posts what lens he was using if you search and look at some of his threads. Or look at threads by zombiesniper, msnowy; can't think offhand who else but there are others too who could probably answer questions.

The only hawks or falcons etc. I photograph are the kind who wear hockey jerseys and skate around on the ice! Have fun choosing a lens and getting outdoors to enjoy the wildlife.

 

[ac12]

A caution on long lens is weight and bulk, and requirement for supporting gear (tripod+head).

• I say this because there was one post where a user was asking about a particular lens, to use to shoot football.
  • That lens weights 7-1/2 pounds !!! Add the camera and you are up at 9+ pounds. Maybe a 20 year old can heft a load like that for an entire football game, but definitely NOT me, I'm too old for that kind of stuff.
    
  • Heavy gear = need to use monopod/tripod to support the weight.

• For LONG lenses, you NEED a good tripod, and maybe a gimbal head.
  • For a 500mm on a DX body, while I can shoot it handheld, I found that cannot hold it steady enough for an extended shooting session, I get tired. I need the support of a tripod for a long shooting session. In general, the longer the lens, the higher the magnification, the harder it is to hand hold.
    
  • I found that I could NOT track a tennis player with a 500m lens+DX camera on a 3-way pan head, and a ball head was even worse. I had to switch to a gimbal head, to be able to track the player. The problem is, GOOD gimbal heads are not inexpensive. My cheap Chinese gimbal required additional work to make it usable, as the bearings were toooo tight, as delivered.
    
  • If you can rest the camera+lens on something, to take up the weight, and allow some movement to track the subject, that would work. But that depends on finding something convenient to rest the camera+lens on, which is not always available.

• The extra gear adds to your load, to the point that moving all that stuff can become a problem.
  • When I shoot with my 500mm, I have to load all the gear (camera, lens, tripod, gimbal, jacket, snack+water, etc.) into a small cart, as I cannot carry all that stuff in a backpack. My 20s, and ability carry weight, was a long time ago, hence the cart. And with the cart, I am stuck to hard paths, as the cart bogs down in soft dirt or gravel.