Getting the bird

To be honest 300 mm is a very borderline focal length for photographing smaller birds with DSLR , you need to be so close to get a small bird a decent size in the viewfinder , probably within 4-5 ft if not less . You will likely struggle even more at reserves as apart from the feed stations , birds are generally at fair distances . As you already own Nikon kit , I would say your best bet is to go for the one of long zoom lenses you mention . People will argue which is the better , but think that extra 100 mm on the sigma would swing it for me , though think I would want the Sports version .
 
Last edited:
I think i would be thinking i have the D500 should i get a 150-600 or the 200-500
 
200-500 is good, but nothing beats trying to get closer. Now, my own experience.... Those birds in the distance are only ever going to be record shots, wish I'd realised that sooner. 600mm equivalents aren't magical and can't compare to even a decent scope, even cropped heavy. Most of those really special shots you see are close by, it's hidecraft or wildcraft that get those rather than some magical magnification of the glass. Many RSPB etc hides get you good vistas but not great photos unless you're lucky.

I will say, I sold up my various systems and now use MFT with the Panny 200 prime, though. In the U.K. we aren't blessed with great light and the 2.8 gets used more without the TC than with. That extra optical stop is worth it's weight in gold - not just for halving the ISO but for increased speed of AF.
 
Last edited:
300mm is good enough for M43, I had the Panasonic 100-300 when I was using the M43 system and it's decent, of course there is better like the 100-400 Pana-Leica, or the Olympus 300 F4, but for casual wildlife the 100-300 is fine. For APSC, if you really don't want to be cropping too much then I'd say 400mm minimum for small birds, the Sigma 100-600 would be decent. If you do go FF then things change again, you really would want the longest you can afford
 
danbroad said:
200-500 is good, but nothing beats trying to get closer. Now, my own experience.... Those birds in the distance are only ever going to be record shots, wish I'd realised that sooner. 600mm equivalents aren't magical and can't compare to even a decent scope, even cropped heavy. Most of those really special shots you see are close by, it's hidecraft or wildcraft that get those rather than some magical magnification of the glass. Many RSPB etc hides get you good vistas but not great photos unless you're lucky.

I will say, I sold up my various systems and now use MFT with the Panny 200 prime, though. In the U.K. we aren't blessed with great light and the 2.8 gets used more without the TC than with. That extra optical stop is worth it's weight in gold - not just for halving the ISO but for increased speed of AF.
Click to expand...


Agree, there's no sub for getting closer, but it's not always possible - even in your garden - birds are just so skittish. With long tele lenses images can often suffer from atmospheric haze, conditions dependent - if you can get closer [using a hide or whatever] then a faster, even shorter prime is much preferable. I got sharper images from my old Nikon 300 F4 + TC than I could with any other tele zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top