Is 300mm enough for birds?

phinix

phinix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,103
Edit My Images
No
I never done birds photography but was wondering lately to see if I would like it.
I never had longer focal length than 90mm. To try new things I would prefer not to spend a lot of money, so after looking at lens, I thought that lens like Tamron 70-300mm on Z mount, would be in my price range.
Would 300mm lens be enough for birds? What kind of distance I would need to stand to get bird covering major part of the frame at 300mm?
I know you going to say that 400-600mm would be best, but it would be too expensive for me.

EDIT:
I noticed Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD for Nikon F for around £500 - I could use this with FTZ II adapter on my Zf - 400mm would be better I guess?

Second option: Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
 
Last edited:
I would say that 400mm is a minimum for bird photography, unless you can get extremely close or the birds you are photographing are very large.
I know nothing of the Tamron 100-400 but remember that it will be f6.3 at the 400mm end and this will obviously affect how much light the lens lets through and hence the quality of the image. One thing is for sure ... whatever focal length you buy, you will always desire more reach!
 
I think one consideration could be how you want to go about getting the photo.

I just wander about and try to a get shot of what pops up and feel like I'm more likely to get a better photo with longer lens. Whereas if you're going to be in a hide and baiting the birds then perhaps you don't need as much reach as you're drawing them in.

If the helps, first one is at 390mm from 8m away and the second is 290mm within 10ft (thanks to being sat in camo all quiet and still like on the river bank)

HomeBirdSil Mar20 by Dawns Prey, on Flickr

And this one was within 10ft, had been sat on the river bank for a while quietly in some camo gear...
River Wear Mar22 4 by Dawns Prey, on Flickr
 
Depends what it is. Sometimes 300 or even 200mm is enough, sometimes you need aal the way to 800 and this is probably the case most of the time. Basically unless you can get really close, everything will be too short
 
As well as the actual lens , the camera crop factor comes into it as well . A 1.6 crop camera gives more effective reach as the lens effectively becomes circa 450mm or if you take the MFT route Panasonic/ Olympus then you have a 2x crop so 300mm = 600mm reach and with there pro lenses you can add tele converters to so a 300 + 1.4 becomes 420mm with a effective reach of 840mm and with todays I.b.i.s systems is also hand holdable . .
Which ever route you decide on rest assured bird photography is infectious and will eventually turn into a expensive pastime
 
the black fox said:
rest assured bird photography is infectious and will eventually turn into a expensive pastime
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I am now fully immunised against all strains of birding
 
When I first started shooting birds I used a wireless trigger with the camera on a tripod a few feet from the target area with a 300mm lens. It rathe restricts you though. No matter how long a lens you have it's never enough, I'm sure the little blighters read the the lens length and then move further away.
 
rd6743 said:
I just wander about and try to a get shot of what pops up and feel like I'm more likely to get a better photo with longer lens.
Click to expand...
It also depends a lot on why you're photographing a particular bird

I take a picture if I see something that interests me, so I don't care if every feather is visible or not. In this case, I wanted to show a gull getting away with someone's slice of bread....

Gull flying with bread in beak 5D IMG_2836.JPG

...and here my attention was caught by these two "gate guards" in the middle of the River Exe...

Birds on stones in River Exe DSC00561.JPG

So my advice is that you need to first answer the question "why do you want to photograph a bird?"

Both pictures were taken with not very long zoom lenses.
 
Last edited:
My two pence. 300mm is on the short side with the possibility of a fast prime on which you can stick a teleconverter. 100-400 is usable for larger birds like geese, ducks, cormorants. 150-600mm is the most common choice. At the end of the day it’s all about what birds you want to photograph, the image quality you will be satisfied with and how much time/money you want to invest.
 
the black fox said:
As well as the actual lens , the camera crop factor comes into it as well
Click to expand...
Crop factor does nothing that cropping in post doesn't also do.


the black fox said:
Which ever route you decide on rest assured bird photography is infectious and will eventually turn into a expensive pastime
Click to expand...
I would agree with this *IF* you take the more technical approach (fill the frame/high resolution/etc).

But there is a more artistic approach that is also valid; bird small in the frame showing a lot of environment, silhouettes, etc... it's just a lot more involved and not many take this route.
 
If I thought when I posted this who would disagree and made a list ,you would definetly be near the top Steven LOL
 
taxboy said:
Like most photographic questions - it depends on what you are hoping to achieve. You may find this video of interest
View: https://youtu.be/bGZM8v1Uu8g?si=QaI7rSve-ncx3OnI
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link taxboy, as a beginner I realy enjoyed it, the infomation really gave me things to think about. Now I just have to remember it lol, close is not always best. Just opened my youtube account and subscribed lol.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Crop factor does nothing that cropping in post doesn't also do.
Click to expand...

Well with crop bodies you generally get more pixel density or a higher pixel pitch hence you can "crop more" (making a massive assumption that optics are equal across brands and formats).
currently Panasonic with 25mp sensor and Fuji with their 40mp gives the highest pixel density.

in case of OP he has 24mp FF sensor. I think cropping massive amounts with a 300mm lens isn't going to get him big prints.
but if all you want to do is share your birds on instagram and Facebook then you can crop 2x with a 24mp sensor and still have 6mp image which is probably enough for social media.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:
For a 300mm lens a man at 30yards/30meters will pretty much fill the frame. A bird is much smaller than a man so you would need to be much much closer than you think for a frame filling photo of a bird. This photo I took of a bird was by happenstance and the distance via google map is shown too . . . I was between huts (circled in red) and the bird was in the tree (also circled in red) . . .

Langland bird photo distance of 300mm December 2023.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
making a massive assumption that optics are equal across brands and formats
Click to expand...
And that is key...
There are pretty much no lenses that are diffraction limited (maximally sharp) at wider than f/4 ; which is what is required for 40MP on APS and ≤ 4um pixel pitch (2 pixels/airy disk). Otherwise I would use my Nikon 1 a whole lot more (adapted/native).
 
nandbytes said:
Well with crop bodies you generally get more pixel density or a higher pixel pitch hence you can "crop more" (making a massive assumption that optics are equal across brands and formats).
Click to expand...
My Panasonic G9 and 100~400mm combination gets me close enough to record small birds on branches, to my satisfaction.

Once again, what will please you will depend on your need for detail in the image, among other factors.

Small bird in tree G9 P1013288.JPG
 
Fixer said:
For a 300mm lens a man at 30yards/30meters will pretty much fill the frame. A bird is much smaller than a man so you would need to be much much closer than you think for a frame filling photo of a bird. This photo I took of a bird was by happenstance and the distance via google map is shown too . . . I was between huts (circled in red) and the bird was in the tree (also circled in red) . . .

View attachment 411286
Click to expand...

That's not bad, about 15m or so. But yeah, sounds like I would need longer lens.

That Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM sounds good. Huge and heavy though :)

 
phinix said:
That's not bad, about 15m or so. But yeah, sounds like I would need longer lens.

That Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM sounds good. Huge and heavy though :)

Click to expand...

Not as heavy as the Sigma 60-600mm, I know, I have one. The 150-600 weighs about 300g less but since both are over 2kg it's probably not a significant difference -- the rpice however is!

They are both big, heavy lenses but I usually use my 60-600 handheld without too much of a fuss.

Hand held, wide open:

BirdPics- by Martin Baxter, on Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMHO As always the choice of lens comes down to budget and getting the best tools for each situation. Most of my photography is birds, from the Robin in my garden to the Sea Eagles from 1 mile away. I am lucking enough to have afforded a good range of lenses, Nikon 300PF F4 for lightweight walkabout, Sigma 70-210 F2.8 sport for closer often falconries, Sigma 150-600 f5.6 + 1.4TC for longer range and monopod + ballhead/tripod + gimbal and my ultimate Nikon 500PF + 1.4TC for HH lighter long lens. Still would love a Nikon 600 f4 but I doubt I will ever get to afford one !
I suggest you get the longest lens your budget allows.... Sigma/Tamrom 150-600 is a good budget choice IMO

Example Sea Eagles playing from nearly a kilometre away with 500PF on D7500 heavy crop and sharpen

$$ Sea Eagles Playing.JPG
 
Putting a 500mm mirror lens on a suitable Micro Four Thirds camera, gives you the equivalent of a 1,000 mm lens on a full frame or a 750mm lens on an APS camera.

It's far from the acme of optical sophistication but for someone like me, it does the job...

Crow in a tree 500mm E-PL5 P6200008.jpg
 
300mm can be enough but its on the limited. If working from a hide then it can work. If your choice is m43, in that case the 300 becomes a 600 due to the small sensor and that would be ideal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ener said:
300mm can be enough but its on the limited. If working from a hide then it can work. If your choice is m43, in that case the 300 becomes a 600 due to the small sensor and that would be ideal
Click to expand...
Your post has been edited.
Please use the contact us facility, for rates if you want to advertiser here.
 
Rough estimate :

Focal length required in mm = 24mm x subject distance (mm )/ height of bird (mm )

This is to fill the 24 mm height of a full frame.

So for a 4 inch high bird ( 100mm ) at 20 yds/metres you need about 5000 mm !!!

Filling by 1/4 max is probably more reasonable so replace 24 by 6 in the above - that gets you near to the FLs most use - about 1000mm or cropping/ crop body on 500-800mm

Cropping and or crop sensor cameras help.

In practice, hide and get close and maybe 400-500 might be enough on a z6.

My standard long lenses tenfold to have max effective FLs of 800-900
 
firewireguy said:
It maintains your resolution. Otherwise why not just use your 12-24mm and crop.
Click to expand...
You can; if you have enough resolution to start with...

resolutionSm.jpg



And crop factor doesn't "maintain resolution"... it loses resolution in 99% of cases. That's because in most cases the lens/settings/situation does not allow the projected resolution to match the sensor resolution; so the only thing you can do is reduce the amount of resolution that is recorded (crop/crop factor/TC's, etc).

If you increase pixel density there is usually some gain in recorded resolution; but it is typically far less than the number would suggest.
 
I have a nikkor 300 f/4 PF on my D750, with a 1.4 tele converter. It's great for bird photography nearly all the time, sometimes a bit of extra reach would be useful even with the telelphoto when out walking with the lens.

These were taken about 5m away from a hide

Kingfisher by S8, on Flickr

Chaffinch by S8, on Flickr

This tonk guy was about 10m away

Vulture by S8, on Flickr
 
A 4k crop of a pigeon watching me watching him . . . high in a tree :

Pigeon 01.jpg
 
phinix said:
I never done birds photography but was wondering lately to see if I would like it.
I never had longer focal length than 90mm. To try new things I would prefer not to spend a lot of money, so after looking at lens, I thought that lens like Tamron 70-300mm on Z mount, would be in my price range.
Would 300mm lens be enough for birds? What kind of distance I would need to stand to get bird covering major part of the frame at 300mm?
I know you going to say that 400-600mm would be best, but it would be too expensive for me.

EDIT:
I noticed Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD for Nikon F for around £500 - I could use this with FTZ II adapter on my Zf - 400mm would be better I guess?
Click to expand...

300mm in principle: I wouldn't rule it out, it depends on how you use your camera.

In practice, when you say 'stand', then that suggests you're going to use your camera in a certain fashion that will more often than not require more than 300mm.
 
Songbird Admirer said:
300mm in principle: I wouldn't rule it out, it depends on how you use your camera.

In practice, when you say 'stand', then that suggests you're going to use your camera in a certain fashion that will more often than not require more than 300mm.
Click to expand...

Yes, others mentioned using a hide etc - I would simply walk around with camera, no hiding or using "birding tents" or anything like that.
Plus, I would not use those huge and heavy lens, just something like around 15cm max, as I'm not a birds pro photographer :)
Just exploring my options, in case I would like to get into this photography part :)
 
phinix said:
I never done birds photography but was wondering lately to see if I would like it.
I never had longer focal length than 90mm. To try new things I would prefer not to spend a lot of money, so after looking at lens, I thought that lens like Tamron 70-300mm on Z mount, would be in my price range.
Would 300mm lens be enough for birds? What kind of distance I would need to stand to get bird covering major part of the frame at 300mm?
I know you going to say that 400-600mm would be best, but it would be too expensive for me.

EDIT:
I noticed Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD for Nikon F for around £500 - I could use this with FTZ II adapter on my Zf - 400mm would be better I guess?
Click to expand...

'Just to elaborate on that, Phinix, because it was a quick running out of the door post.

It is not that difficult to get close to birds, by waiting, judgement, watching where they feed and so on; it doesn't always work but it's surprising how many times it works out.

But, I take most of my pictures lying down (and sneaking forward bit by bit) or sat down, unless I have some cover and something to rest my elbows on, for two reasons: 1) keep the camera steady 2) get closer to birds.

I reckon that standing up I would not have been able to get as close to birds, as a general rule. My camera is 357mm and that is enough for me given how I take pictures but standing up and taking pictures, it wouldn't be. More often than not I reckon you'd not be in the range you'd like to be when standing up and taking pictures with a 300mm camera.

On that basis, it may be worth investing a bit more money rather than be disappointed.
 
Songbird Admirer said:
'Just to elaborate on that, Phinix, because it was a quick running out of the door post.

It is not that difficult to get close to birds, by waiting, judgement, watching where they feed and so on; it doesn't always work but it's surprising how many times it works out.

But, I take most of my pictures lying down (and sneaking forward bit by bit) or sat down, unless I have some cover and something to rest my elbows on, for two reasons: 1) keep the camera steady 2) get closer to birds.

I reckon that standing up I would not have been able to get as close to birds, as a general rule. My camera is 357mm and that is enough for me given how I take pictures but standing up and taking pictures, it wouldn't be. More often than not I reckon you'd not be in the range you'd like to be when standing up and taking pictures with a 300mm camera.

On that basis, it may be worth investing a bit more money rather than be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, sounds like you are a proper birds lover :)

I understand. I would use tripod to keep it steady if needed, but I see your point. 300mm is perfect for specific approach, like you, hiding, waiting, crowling to the target even :D
I would maybe be less "approachable", going in Rambo style and either hit the target or not :)
Maybe that tamron 100-400 would score me more hit points.

I'm not buying anything juest yet, just exploring my options, as getting huge lens like this (focal length) would be just for this purpose - birds and wildlife, which I would do very sporadically.
 
Last edited:
phinix said:
Yes, others mentioned using a hide etc - I would simply walk around with camera, no hiding or using "birding tents" or anything like that.
Plus, I would not use those huge and heavy lens, just something like around 15cm max, as I'm not a birds pro photographer :)
Just exploring my options, in case I would like to get into this photography part :)
Click to expand...

Nor am I, I'm a hobbyist. I'm very much a walker also and I never go in bird hides.

It is possible to get some nice pictures with less expensive equipment, including a superzoom.

Were I you, I would have a look 'round at some of the pictures, decide which are of a similar quality to what you're hoping to achieve, have a look at what cameras they're using and ask them how they take their photos. That last point , i.e. how people take their photos, really matters; given it is a big part of the quality of people's pictures.

The good news is that you do not need to be a technical genius to get some nice pictures. It's a creative pursuit after all and your ability to get close to birds and general fieldcraft will count for more than technical understanding of a camera (although obviously you need the basics at the very least). At least in my opinion anyway, but then again I'm biased as I was never science minded and trust myself more to utilise fieldcraft than I do to quickly adjust settings and get it right. I just take a few practice shots when I get somewhere and stick with those settings, unless the conditions change.

When I first bought a camera I watched a YT tutorial, Chris Bray, Australian who works for the National Geographic. He gave the basics and was always keen to say that all cameras are good cameras, now that you've got the basics just get out there and take some pictures, experiment, enjoy it and do not get lost in the science of it all. If it's good enough for him then it's good enough for me, and you learn a lot on the job/through experience.

I would say that it's easy to talk yourself into it being more difficult than it is, at least I did anyway, I didn't even have the experience of taking many pictures on holiday with a standard camera let alone trying to photograph birds. Like anything, when you're interested, motivated and keen to learn; it's surprising how much you pick up in a short space of time.

Best of luck!
 
bovey9 said:
These were taken with a 200mm but a longer lens would be better. A popular walk , like a park or canal path that have a constant flow of people will often prove an easier place to photograph birds as they are more used to people. Especially if they are being fed. View attachment 413170
Click to expand...

Wow! Thanks. That is just a prove of what I was thinking - if crowded, or popular places where people are always present, birds going to be used to that and could be good place to photograph them. That is a point for shorter, like 200mm lens, but yeah, in general, if I would like to walk in the woods, 300-400mm would be better.

To be honest, I'm not into birds, but I would love to photograph some owls! :D
 
Last edited:
phinix said:
Wow! Thanks. That is just a prove of what I was thinking - if crowded, or popular places where people are always present, birds going to be used to that and could be good place to photograph them. That is a point for shorter, like 200mm lens, but yeah, in general, if I would like to walk in the woods, 300-400mm would be better.

To be honest, I'm not into birds, but I would love to photograph some owls! :D
Click to expand...

There is always the chance that you'll buy a camera and find that you quite like being out in nature and photographing birds in general.

If not, then photographing owls might not be as appealing as you imagine.

The reasons being:

1) It's not easy to find owls in daylight. You would need to do your research on the habits and habitats of owls. Barn Owls for example, will hunt during the day when they have to, e.g. after a windy or rainy period because they haven't been able to hunt much, during winter when there is reduced rodent activity, when they're feeding their young. Tawny, Long-eared, Short-eared and Little, frequent different and certain habitat; and so you'd need to know which and you'd need to do your research on signs of owl activity.

2) Nobody is going to give you directions to an owl because a) bird photography is competitive b) many people keep their mouths shut when they stumble upon owls because they know that in the event they tell anyone, it will spread like wildfire and there is a decent chance an owl will be pestered, including when the bird is trying to bring up its young.

3) I know good places for all 5 British owls through doing a lot of walking. Are they still easy to photograph? Absolutely not. You would need a lot of patience, watching them from a distance for where they generally perch and then waiting and waiting, that's if you can find a bit of cover in a place that is in decent range for a photograph. These are shy birds and they do not appreciate human company. To illustrate, there is a Little Owl about half a mile from where I live, in a disused farmhouse. He roosts in a particular recess in that building. I pass that way to walk down to the local reservoir. What would it take to get a decent picture and how long would it take? I would expect to have to sit there for hour upon hour waiting for the owl to come out and perch on one of the posts. I can get my car up there but even with cover like that, I reckon it could be days of patience. When I'm trying to photograph songbirds, the time flies and the day's gone in no time; waiting for owls, an hour feels like a fortnight for me. I just don't have that same commitment to photographing owls as I do for songbirds.

'Long story short, you'd have to do your research, you'd have to do a lot of walking to find them, you'd have to have a lot of patience and commitment to photograph them. There are people who go through their lives photographing all sorts of birds but they do not get decent pictures of owls. It would be a lot of effort and time to get your rewards.
 
Dare I say theres birds and BIRDS. I'm no bird photographer, but theres a big difference between say robins in the garden or seagulls, to say a heron or eagle. I would suggest the type of birds your after may affect your needs.
Personally after the few birds I have shot longer is better. But as I say, I'm NOT a bird photographer, so take this with a big pinch of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top