Subject: Should I lug a huge 500/600mm around? [Print This Page] Author: bittern Time: 19/08/2012 18:49 Subject: Should I lug a huge 500/600mm around?
Bird photography interests me but the problem is that I was concerned about whether it would be alright to get to 400mm max, because I've seen thousands of bird pics that require longer lenses. I'd like to know whether for general use of bird photography in Hong Kong, say forest birds, whether 400mm is enough? If not, how long? It's just that carrying a huge lens everywhere do cause problems of weight (especially when hand-holding) and for my wallet. What would be one's opinion for, say, 300mm f2.8 + 2x teleconverter? Author: hkwongkit Time: 21/08/2012 08:27
I'd say 400mm is the minimum for bird photography.
Depending on your budget and willingness to carry the extra weigh going out to 500mm or 600mm plus teleconverter (1.4x and/or 2x) has its advantage when your subject is afar.
Also you need to include a sturdy tripod into your equation! Author: KennyYip Time: 21/08/2012 22:53
Well I would say it is more or less depends on the situation and kinds of birds you intend to photo. For offshore mudflap, even 600mm with a 2x is not enough for me. In case of forest birds on a trial hike,dense wood area, it makes much more sense to use something handheld instead of tripod mount, I've rather use a 400mm or sigma 50-500 for this kinds of shots. I am never fast enough to set my 600 on a tripod and capture those in dense wood, never stand still birds. Also a good set of camo clothes, and quiet movement is even more critical then the lens as not to scare the birds away in the first place. I often cover my camera, face and hands with camo net, which the birds tend to ignore me. Good things always come to those who wait.Author: bittern Time: 27/08/2012 17:07
I was also wondering if, as I am choosing between a 7d and a d7000, which one would be more suitable for bird photography, and subsequently whether Canon or Nikkor telephoto lenses perform better, or that the 3rd party lenses would be preferable? Has anyone used the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 before? Author: wilsondring Time: 18/10/2012 02:11
i am currently using 1D4 with a 800 5.6 and my wife is using 7D with 400 5.6.
weight is certainly an issue and as with budget, however, trying to remain on the topic of focal length, you should also take into consideration what body you will be using.
1DX = full frame
1D4 = x1.3
7D etc = x1.6
As for Nikon, it's either full frame or x1.5 (i think) ..
i have been tempted to get the new 1DX however, until today, it was NOT compatible with x1.4 teleconverters, which means that for real focal length, i lose x1.3 coz 1DX is full frame, whereas 1D4 is x1.3 AND ... i am unable to attach a x1.4 on my 800 5.6 ..
if you want light weight, handheld, consider 300mm 4.0 with x1.4 converter on a 7D or 60D (giving an additional x1.6) .. the package will give you 672mm, if you are using a 1D series body (except 1DX), you can even use x2.0 converter, giving you, 780mm with Image Stabilizer.
alternative to this package, would be a simple 400mm 5.6 on a 7D or 400mm with x1.4 converter on a 1D body .. 640mm and 728mm respectively without IS.
in my opinion, the 2nd package will give better image quality over the 1st, however the 1st option does give you IS which is handy but not essential (as you are likely to shoot with high shutter speeds and IS isn't as useful as you originally thought....
birders will never get enough Focal Length! even while i have a 800, i am still looking for more when I get to MP etc .. having said that, if forest birds, mobility, price is the priorities, then i think the above two options are more than adequate!
the benefit of the above two lightweight options are that you can probably get away with handheld or with just a monopod, 500 or 600 will certainly mean a gitzo series 3-5 tripod plus a big ballhead which can weight as much as your lens!!
Welcome to HKBWS Forum 香港觀鳥會討論區 (http://hkbws.org.hk/BBS/)
