lens longer than 300mm for birds/animals

[qwertyjjj]

I have a Canon EOS400D and recently bought a 70-300mm Tamron lens for wildlife photography.
However, I'm finsing that it's really not enough zoom to photograph birds.
Even when a bird is say 10-20m away, I cannot get close enough to get much detail.
Any ideas if there is an alternative not too expensive lens that I can use?

Maybe I could even get rid of my stock 18-55 and replace with something that does the whole range?

 

[Judobreaker]

Lenses are never long enough for birds...

Anyways, yes there's possibly a few lenses around (for example the Tamron 200-500 is pretty nice, but I don't know how much it costs) however I don't think that will be THE solution.
You can shoot brilliant bird pictures with a 300mm too. I myself have a 120-300mm Sigma and find that it is not the lens that limits my photography, only my ninja skills.
Practice blending into the environment, learn bird behavior and simply try a lot and you'll find you'll be able to get a lot closer. Sure it's hard, the best detailed shots are made at distances under 5m, but it is definitely possible!

Take this shot shot at 300mm for example:

That is an uncropped photo I made about a week ago. If you'd have asked me to make such a shot about a year ago when the lens arrived in the mail I wouldn't have a single clue on how to get this close (roughly 2m distance from the bird).
Sure, geese aren't as shy as other birds, but 2m is definitely pushing it as they can get really mad very easily.


About replacing your 18-55mm: Lenses covering the complete range are usually pretty bad quality-wise. I wouldn't suggest that.

 

[Buckster]

Successfully photographing non-domesticated/non-zoo-constrained animals, including birds, is best achieved by learning how to be a hunter. It's about finding ways to get your camera close to them, whether you're attached to that camera or firing it remotely with a trigger.

Blinds work great. Bird feeders in conjunction with blinds work greater. Bird feeders set into arranged natural settings so they don't look so much like bird feeders work even better.

Use feeders and seed, fruit or other "bait" that will attract the kinds of birds you want to capture. Use a blind that allows you to sit comfortably inside for long periods of patience, looking for the right shot. Set the two up in places around your yard that offer you good shooting distances with your lenses. Keep the feeders stocked with seed and give the birds a couple of weeks to find and get used to the feeders and blind. Recorded bird calls for the species you want to shoot can help bring them in.

These were shot with a 500mm lens:

1.

2.

BUT

These were shot with just a 50mm lens:

3.

4.

Learn to be a hunter.

 

[amolitor]

Buckster, #4 is *epic*. I am going to assume that you found a mutant 200 pound chickadee somewhere, because the alternative is that you are awesome and that I WILL NOT STAND.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Judo and Buckster are dead on, bird and wildlife photography is as much if not more about learning about the wildlife, their habits, where and how they land, how they take off, patience waiting for them to "pose" or be in the right place. Then there is making sure your light is good, coming from the right direction and using flash when you need some fill to make things pop. Wildlife shooting can be VERY rewarding but it can be very frustrating also! Tenacity and problem solving will be your very good friends but the results are well worth it.

I spent a year learning on an 18-200 and only now upgraded to a 100-400mm lens , if you use all of Buckster's suggestions you have more than enough reach to learn and keep you entertained and busy for a good while. Once you can do it on your 300mm and you feel limited THAT is the time to look for more reach.

Here are a couple of my best shots with my 18-200 kit lens, it can be done, enjoy and learn your current lens, shoot shoot shoot, be critical of your own work, and post here for C&C, listen carefully, experiment, be critical of your own work... post here for C&C, etc etc etc...

 

[Dao]

I'd managed to snap few birds photos with focal length set between 200mm - 300mm.

Like these were taken with 200mm, I often saw some birds flew around that area, so on that day I found a spot and stay there for few mins with my camera ready to shoot. Sure enough, one landed near by and click ... click ... click ...


1.

2.

3. This one was taken around the same area but different day.

The green background is a distance grass field.




In another forum, I remembered seeing someone had a feeding setup (I think it was made for humming birds) with radio trigger lights close to the feeding setup to capture the birds in action.

 

[Big Mike]

Maybe I could even get rid of my stock 18-55 and replace with something that does the whole range?

You won't find anything like that that goes longer than 300mm...but really, you wouldn't want it.
The larger the range of a lens, the more compromise the designers will have to make to keep it small and affordable. In other words, the image quality will suffer for the sake of convenience. I personally like to sick to lenses that are 3X max. So 24-70mm, 17-40mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm etc.

 

[qwertyjjj]

Maybe I could even get rid of my stock 18-55 and replace with something that does the whole range?

You won't find anything like that that goes longer than 300mm...but really, you wouldn't want it.
The larger the range of a lens, the more compromise the designers will have to make to keep it small and affordable. In other words, the image quality will suffer for the sake of convenience. I personally like to sick to lenses that are 3X max. So 24-70mm, 17-40mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm etc.

The problem is is that I don't usually sit around waiting for birds to turn up, I'm more of a walk around and if I see something, try to take pictures kind of photographer. Maybe that's too casual for birds but unfortunately with a 300mm the closest I can get are shots like these (the birds were only 10m away). At full zoom, it's too soft, and slightly back maybe 250mm, there is no detail. The quality is nowhere near that of the pictures shown in the above posts.

 

[sm4him]

Maybe I could even get rid of my stock 18-55 and replace with something that does the whole range?

You won't find anything like that that goes longer than 300mm...but really, you wouldn't want it.
The larger the range of a lens, the more compromise the designers will have to make to keep it small and affordable. In other words, the image quality will suffer for the sake of convenience. I personally like to sick to lenses that are 3X max. So 24-70mm, 17-40mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm etc.

The problem is is that I don't usually sit around waiting for birds to turn up, I'm more of a walk around and if I see something, try to take pictures kind of photographer. Maybe that's too casual for birds but unfortunately with a 300mm the closest I can get are shots like these (the birds were only 10m away). At full zoom, it's too soft, and slightly back maybe 250mm, there is no detail. The quality is nowhere near that of the pictures shown in the above posts

Then you may need to really seriously evaluate whether you want to truly get into bird photography. You *can* get good, even great, shots of birds that way--sometimes. But it will take more than just a longer focal length to get the consistent closer shots you seem to be after.

Honestly, if you aren't interested in spending a good bit of time learning to "hunt" the birds, learning how to hide yourself from them, and yes, waiting for them to come to you--then in my opinion, you'd be better served by just keeping the 300mm length and giving more consideration to WHERE you go to shoot birds. Some places are just more conducive to getting close--parks with duck ponds, for instance. Where I live, there's a popular spot by the river that I can walk to during my lunch break--I don't have time to "stalk", nor can I just wear my camo gear to work so I'll be prepared (though believe me, I've considered it...).

I've still managed to get some pretty decent shots, at 300mm; here's a few of them.



This one, I actually had to zoom out a little, to 260mm:




This one was taken by sitting at an open window, near one of my bird feeders. It's only at 210mm:



I've just upgraded to a 150-500, but it really IS more about technique than anything else. If your technique (including places you choose to shoot) is solid, then a longer length may help, but if you're just walking out hoping for the spectacular shot to land in your lap, you need luck a lot more than focal length.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Sharon has a great suggestion about putting yourself where the birds are but even that isn't going to give you the results you are looking for without paying attention to light and exposing your pictures properly.

All of the shots you posted are very underexposed with the light coming from beside or behind the bird instead of behind yourself, this puts the majority of the bird in shadow. You can learn as much or as little as you choose to about the birds, as Sharon points out you can go to the right locations and find birds accustomed to people being around but without paying attention to light and exposure it doesn't matter how close you can get whether by location choice or longer focal length it won't make up for bad technique.

 

[sm4him]

Sharon has a great suggestion about putting yourself where the birds are but even that isn't going to give you the results you are looking for without paying attention to light and exposing your pictures properly.

All of the shots you posted are very underexposed with the light coming from beside or behind the bird instead of behind yourself, this puts the majority of the bird in shadow. You can learn as much or as little as you choose to about the birds, as Sharon points out you can go to the right locations and find birds accustomed to people being around but without paying attention to light and exposure it doesn't matter how close you can get whether by location choice or longer focal length it won't make up for bad technique.

^ +1. That, and much more, was all wrapped up in my statement "it really is all about technique." I was just tired and caffeine deprived to elucidate.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

If you can afford it, get the Canon 400mm f/5.6L. I would recommend a short extension tube (like 12mm ) since the MFD is 12ft, you often times will be able to get closer to some smaller birds and will want to be able to shorten that MFD.

 

[hirejn]

I have the perfect blog post for you coming up Monday about 8:30 a.m. CST on my site. I'd recommend reading it. The answer is not equipment alone. You're correct that 300 mm is not enough at that distance. You can't be more than about 8 feet away. Equipment plays a role but if you understand biology you can bring wildlife closer to you and still get natural shots. However, 300 mm is the minimum I'd recommend, and if your camera has a crop factor, you should get something closer to 500 mm, which is great. A 400 mm or 600 mm certainly would help, but first understand photography and biology.