best bird lens if you pls

[MrFotoFool]

I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).

The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html

The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.

 

[Isaac Grant]

Isaac, valid points and you have reason to be satisfied. Thanks for the details!

With bird photography we have some different perspectives. One might be an artistic presentation another might be a sharp detailed close up partly for ID purposes. Pleasing shots are to be had with all the better lenses and the most impressive artistic shots are not going to be that dependent on the lens - more on the shooter.

On CR, myself included, it's easy to get carried away with who has the craziest sharp picture, even if it's artistically a dud. I'm now trying to be more objective than in the past as far as composition is concerned - background, subject positioning, interesting activities, secondary subjects, etc. Sure I still want reasonably sharp but that isn't the be all and end all.

Jack

I agree with you completely that we all can work on the artistic side of things and that is something I try and do all the time and would like to think I am getting a little better at it. But the OP has asked about the best birding lens. So that will pretty much be down to resolution, durability, ease of use, water proof, etc. and has very little to do with artistic shots. For example, here is a shot I got yesterday in a high wind. It is not as sharp as it could be due to the fact that I did not have enough shutter speed (damn wind gust picked up right as I was shooting the bird!!!). But I think the perch and the background make for a nice image. Again at 600mm and not soft at all which is a very common misconception about this lens... I should add that in windy condition and when fully extended it is very difficult to hold the Sigma steady. The large hood and length of lens makes it like a sail which is not ideal to say the least.

Swamp Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[AlanF]

I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).

The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html

The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.

Art Morris says all things to all men, depending on what he is up to. His favourite toy lens is the 400/5.6. He has said differently in more recent years but in a rather recent interview repeated that. His modus operandi is to get close to birds. He repeatedly goes to the same places where he knows he can get close. To be honest, he is spot on there - get close if you can.

 

[Isaac Grant]

I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).

The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html

The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.

Art Morris says all things to all men, depending on what he is up to. His favourite toy lens is the 400/5.6. He has said differently in more recent years but in a rather recent interview repeated that. His modus operandi is to get close to birds. He repeatedly goes to the same places where he knows he can get close. To be honest, he is spot on there - get close if you can.

Just for clarity, I have the Sigma C, not the S. It is much lighter and easier to use. And Art is wise and I follow that train of thought all the time. Good field craft will go a very long way in closing the distance between a good lens and a great lens. Funny I used to go birding with Art many moons ago at Jamaica Bay wildlife refuge in NY. He used to do the shorebird studies for fall migration. When he stopped I took over for a few years.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Besides focal length, knowledge and patience goes a long way.

I also find silent continuous shutter very important too. I hope the 5D-IV will have a slightly faster silent continuous drive.

 

[Isaac Grant]

Besides focal length, knowledge and patience goes a long way.

I also find silent continuous shutter very important too. I hope the 5D-IV will have a slightly faster silent continuous drive.

This is something that I always want to bring up but rarely do. There are countless threads and forums on so many different sites re best lens, and sharpest lens, and what camera to use but so little mention of field craft and technique. Knowing the birds and being able to approach in a slow and respectful manner will allow for so many shots that would have otherwise flown away. Same goes with patience. Find a spot and quietly wait and the birds will come to you. If you are taking shots from in very close and need little to no cropping then you can really get some excellent shots with not so expensive gear.

 

[quod]

Anybody have experiences with both these lenses?

I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.

Some lenses are not as long as they are labelled (for example a 400 may actually be 380, etc). Just curious if you have tested the actual distance and if they are the same or if one is truly longer than the other (when the zoom lens is at 400)?

 

[AlanF]

I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.

Some lenses are not as long as they are labelled (for example a 400 may actually be 380, etc). Just curious if you have tested the actual distance and if they are the same or if one is truly longer than the other (when the zoom lens is at 400)?

You will see comments that the 100-400mm II is less than 400mm. That is true at shorter distances away as there is "focus breathing", which you will always get for internal focussing lenses. But, at long distances it is 400mm.

 

[quod]

Some lenses are not as long as they are labelled (for example a 400 may actually be 380, etc). Just curious if you have tested the actual distance and if they are the same or if one is truly longer than the other (when the zoom lens is at 400)?

No, I haven't. Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

To the OP.
Best birding lens - nothing is perfect but I would suggest (you did ask for the BEST!) a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk2 or a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.
Personally I prefer the 800 F5.6 (probably why I have been using one for 2+ years) but with your 7D2 the extra stop of the 600 F4 L IS Mk2 would be an advantage.
With either of these lenses any problems are you fault!

Pity they are so big, heavy and expensive!

 

[Isaac Grant]

To the OP.
Best birding lens - nothing is perfect but I would suggest (you did ask for the BEST!) a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk2 or a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.
Personally I prefer the 800 F5.6 (probably why I have been using one for 2+ years) but with your 7D2 the extra stop of the 600 F4 L IS Mk2 would be an advantage.
With either of these lenses any problems are you fault!

Pity they are so big, heavy and expensive!

Maybe that is why I shoot only with the Sigma 150-600 C. Still have that built in excuse 8)

 

[ejenner]

If you're not sure what to get, I would start with the sigma 150-600C or the Tamron equivalent.

I'm really glad I did because when I came into enough cash to get whatever I wanted I felt very comfortable forking out the money. And I sill may keep the sigma.

And it it turns out you zoom a lot and end up with a 100-400 II, it will all end up less expensive than going almost any other route.

 

[rpt]

I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...

 

[AlanF]

I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...

Please correct me if I have this wrong as I don't have first hand experience. My reading was that the Sigma dock allows you to do extra things, like adjust for various focal lengths, type of AF etc, but you can still AFMA a Sigma lens using the built-in Canon microadjustment without the dock?

 

[AlanF]

I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).

The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html

The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.

Art Morris says all things to all men, depending on what he is up to. His favourite toy lens is the 400/5.6. He has said differently in more recent years but in a rather recent interview repeated that. His modus operandi is to get close to birds. He repeatedly goes to the same places where he knows he can get close. To be honest, he is spot on there - get close if you can.

Just for clarity, I have the Sigma C, not the S. It is much lighter and easier to use. And Art is wise and I follow that train of thought all the time. Good field craft will go a very long way in closing the distance between a good lens and a great lens. Funny I used to go birding with Art many moons ago at Jamaica Bay wildlife refuge in NY. He used to do the shorebird studies for fall migration. When he stopped I took over for a few years.

Isaac, that is interesting news. It is pretty obvious to me for one that your success is from field craft and knowing how to get the best out of a lens.

 

[tomscott]

Just remember that yes the sigma is sharper (very slight) than the Tamron but its also the darkest of all the tele lenses available.

It reaches F6.3 at 387mm and the Tamron reaches F6.3 at 428mm so if your looking for a lens that will still AF well up to 400mm then the Tamron is the better lens. There are also mixed reviews, I thought the Tamron was slow over 428mm anything where the max aperture reaches F6.3 for moving subjects for still subjects its perfect. Dustin Abbot also found in his review that the sigma hunts more than the Tamron but it is sharper. So I'm not sure if either one will focus quicker as I only have experience with the Tamron and the lens being darker made me cross it off the list.

The other issue with the Tamron I found - You can lock in 400mm which I thought would be the best for any BIF scenario, but there is play in the lock switch which plays up to 428mm so with about a mm rotation of the zoom ring the lens moves from a 400mm F5.6 to a 428mm F6.3. Even if you do go out of your way to ensure you get the best AF the lens can provide it doesn't necessarily mean that will work. Have to make sure you hold the zoom ring against the lock to ensure no movement.

As you can see from Issacs pics with great field craft you can get great images with any of the lenses, generally getting closer and nearly filling the frame aids so much as you can get more AF points over the subject or that one AF point will have a large area on the subject to focus on. Also you are using more of the sensor which always creates better images. Unfortunately this isn't the case most of the time and the AF speed of the canon lenses can't be beaten.

The great thing about the Sigma and the Tamron is that although they are F6.3 they will still af with all the points so it does aid creativity, you don't have to focus recompose to get critical focus on the eye, whereas the 100-400mm on a 7DMKII with a 1.4 will only focus at F8 centre point to get a similar focal length to the tammy and sigma on crop. This is often overlooked

What I found with the Tamron is its great bang for buck but its not a lens you can just pick up and use there are variables and areas in the lens where it performs better or worse. On paper it looks like one of the best value propositions on the market and I would agree. But there are a few trade offs I'm not used to when using Canon L glass. You have to really concentrate using it to get the best ensuring what focal length your at and what F stop. Also locking out the focal length for bird in flight will give you twice the amount of Crititical focus shots, but again you have to be careful not to let the lock switch play too much. At 600mm you can get decent results but <40% of a bird flying horizontally just doesn't give you enough frames to ensure you get the bird at its pinnacle position to give you the look your after, it means you have less frames to pick from. Its also using 600mm it takes practise and a much higher shutter speed to keep critical focus than you would expect.

Another thing to remember is that with the Tamron you can get 960mm with this on a crop body but it just doesn't play well its much softer than on a full frame body and seems much more suited to a 5DMKIII than a 7DMKII. You will get better AF with the 7D with its all cross type focus points at 5.6 but you get better IQ from the lens on a 5DMKII.

A 100-400mm MKII on a 7DMKII performs better at 640mm than the Tamron at 600mm on a 5DMKIII. The 7D has really caught up in image quality from my first set of test images its very impressive so its is genuinely a good compromise. The 100-400mm with a 1.4x on a 7D is also about equal to the tamron at 600mm on the 5DMKIII although you only get F8 and centre point you get 896mm.

I sent my Tamron back in the end and bought the 100-400mm MKII and 1.4x with 7DMKII to go hand in hand with my 5DMKIII. Best of both worlds, the combos beat the tamron and sigma in all situations. If money isn't an issue I would go in this direction. Even cropped its a better combo.

The Tamron is great and does work with BIF but I found at 600mm my keeper rate was <40% for CRITICAL focus with all my usual settings BBF case setting 6 etc etc at 400mm it was 65%> so that 6.3 does make a difference as its outside the perimeters of the AF system. From my own tests and everything I've seen online it seems like its just a tad out, just not critically sharp. Your milage will vary because everyone has different estimations. If you are upgrading from similar mid range glass then this will be very welcome, but if your used to premium L lenses with excellent AF then this will not instil confidence.

My lens was also and old version although bought September 2015 it didn't have the latest firmware updates which affects the IS system with the AF. The fact there has been 4 firmware updates in 18 months also puts me off to send it away every couple of months. The sigma in this respect is better but again will cost you more for the dock. My lens also needed a good bit of AFMA -10 on the long end and -5 on the short end.

Even the 70-200mm MKII with a 2x extender I found was more accurate but not as fast to AF. But obviously at 400mm with the Tammy at F5.6 it did much better at tracking a moving subject.

If you want to read more check my link earlier in the thread as there are some comprehensive tests of the Tamron, the sigma is more similar that different. I will do a similar test when my 100-400mm arrives.

 

[candc]

I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...

Please correct me if I have this wrong as I don't have first hand experience. My reading was that the Sigma dock allows you to do extra things, like adjust for various focal lengths, type of AF etc, but you can still AFMA a Sigma lens using the built-in Canon microadjustment without the dock?

you can use afma on the body with the sigma or tamron lenses mounted same as canon lenses. the sigma dock allows you to make afma adjustments at 4 different fl distance combinations. you can also change af speed and "is" behavior which work as presets recalled with the custom setting switch on the lens

it gives you more options but its a hassle to use. its easier if you can get the results you need with regular afma.

 

[tomscott]

The dock is also to update firmware which is a huge plus compared to the Tamron as you have to send it away.

You can also alter the focus limiter and set up profiles for lots of the user settings. Pretty cool but it is a hassle.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The dock is also to update firmware which is a huge plus compared to the Tamron as you have to send it away.

You can also alter the focus limiter and set up profiles for lots of the user settings. Pretty cool but it is a hassle.

I have the dock and have set up the Sigma to my liking with it. It is a very easy software and takes hardly any time to use. The interface is great and the user experience is great as well. Every time you plug it in it checks if you have the most up to date firm ware. Then you can choose what you want to do with it. I have my C1 setting set to dynamic OS and focus priority. I use this for all non BIF situations. For the OS and focus settings you only have 3 options so it is very easy. Hardly any no way to mess up. Also at any point you can restore factory settings and start over.

The dock costs about $60 and is SO worth it. I had the Tamron for a year and had to send it back twice for firmware updates. Had no lens for over a week and had to pay for shipping both times. That is a major hassle.