Focal length for Birding? Upgrade from 200-500mm

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ado Wolf

Ado Wolf

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I know this may be a provokative question to ask.. that might stir up debates.. but here goes:

I am looking for an upgrade for my 200-500mm. It is sharp and versatile, but not suitable for long hikes (heavy / front end heavy). For mammals (deer, fox, wild bore) I happily use my 300 PF. I need however a longer focal length for birds (tits, jays, herons, etc.) and I dislike using TCs (IQ drops for feather detail).

Lenses I am considering (to use on D7500 or Z50) are:
- 500 mm PF (minimum focus distance is my only concern)
- 100-400 S mm (too short for small birds?)
- 400 mm S PF (F unknown, weight unknown)
- 200-600 mm (weight unknown)
- 800 mm S PF (weight unknown)

I don't mind waiting.. I prefer F 5.6 or brighter and a maximum weight of 1.5 kg / 3.3 pounds. I don't mind using older lenses, if any fits the profile..

Note: where I live, birds are either too close or too far. Too close would be birds that fly momentarily and land on a branch about 3 m / 9 feet away. Too far would be the majority of birds that are "sensitive" / "erratic" and would fly off at the sight of humans. So that's quite a challenge.

Thanks in advance for your advice / suggestions / recommendations.
 
Member's gallery
I use the 200-500 and was seriously considering shelling out for the 500 pf because of how heavy and awkward the 200-500 was to carry. I had used a monopod with a gimbal head, so I wasn't bothered by the weight while shooting, but hiking with the rig available for use was just too much for this 73 year old to manage anymore. Then my shooting buddy sent me Steve's MonoGimbal video review (here) and his point about how you can carry the rig with the lens weight spread across your shoulders really resonated with me. I tried it and it works like a charm. Before spending a lot on a different lens, you might want to give the MonoGimbal a try. FWIW
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Thanks @tclune for the feedback. I do use it together with my Gitzo Monopod and RSS tilt-head. But even then, I have to carry it on my shoulders for 12 km / 7 miles which isn't an easy task, particularly when I hike up mountains.. there are moments where I need my hands for stability.. so removing the Monopod, packing it in my backpack and then mounting again is not really practical.. I even bought the Cotton Carrier Harness which takes off the wait at times.. but even that turns into backpain after so many miles.

That is why I am willing to sacrifice focal range or max F-stop for saving weight.
 
Member's gallery
Ado,
I think what you're running into is the fact there really is no perfect solution (yet). I also shoot the 200-500 and find it heavy but image quality is quite good. I contemplated the 500pf. After much thought, angst, and internal debate I decided to stick with the 200-500 for now. I have a "smart album" created in my photos library (Apple) for each lens I use. I looked over the 200-500 lens folder. About 75% were at 500mm however among the 25% that were at some lower focal length, many of them were also in my favorites album. Had I only been carrying the 500 fixed I would have either missed the shots completely or the composition would have been less pleasing to me. The versatility of the variable focal length (zoom) won out.

My wife and I frequently hike 5-7 miles a day 3 to 4 days a week while I'm carrying this rig (plus either a macro lens or a shorter lens in my backpack). It's heavy no doubt but I manage. I use a Black Rapid strap that goes across my body not around my neck. However I don't have any back problems yet. I do have a bad shoulder but avoid strapping the camera in a way that causes that shoulder to suffer (ie don't carry it on the bad shoulder).

Wish I had a better answer for you. Regarding the 200-600, looking at the Sony offering, it isn't a lot different weight than the 200-500 Nikon. The Sony in use weight (lens hood and collar) is about 2400g or about 5.3 pounds where the Nikon is about 2300 g/5 lb 1.2 oz *with tripod collar". (this is based on some research I was doing when thinking about moving to Sony a while back).

I have no idea what the Nikon Z mount 200-600 will weigh but I would be surprised if it came in significantly less (or more).

Hope this helps and I hope you get it figured out. Pain while taking photographs would surely reduce the fun.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Photographing small birds really requires the use of a blind or the 800 mm focal length. Both are somewhat cumbersome to carry around. In places such as central Florida shooting marsh birds, blind visitors such as water moccasins, rattle snakes and gators and generally being up to your rear end in mud and water makes the blind not the best pick for some. An 800mm f5.6 is a bit heavy but it is manageable for most to carry shorter distances by breaking down the lens from the tripod and head and having a bandolier carrying rig. When the 800 PF appears, if it is 2/3 the weight you will still need a gimbal head and tripod if you want greatest acuity and, with mating birds, the courtship shots will involve a hour or more of just standing and watching to get the rarer and interesting activity.

A couple of years being trained by the US Marines that a 20 mile hike with a 100 pound pack on your back is a great way to spend a bitter cold or a hot summer day will make the experience of using 800mm seem reasonable. :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I know this may be a provokative question to ask.. that might stir up debates.. but here goes:

I am looking for an upgrade for my 200-500mm. It is sharp and versatile, but not suitable for long hikes (heavy / front end heavy). For mammals (deer, fox, wild bore) I happily use my 300 PF. I need however a longer focal length for birds (tits, jays, herons, etc.) and I dislike using TCs (IQ drops for feather detail).

Lenses I am considering (to use on D7500 or Z50) are:
- 500 mm PF (minimum focus distance is my only concern)
- 100-400 S mm (too short for small birds?)
- 400 mm S PF (F unknown, weight unknown)
- 200-600 mm (weight unknown)
- 800 mm S PF (weight unknown)

I don't mind waiting.. I prefer F 5.6 or brighter and a maximum weight of 1.5 kg / 3.3 pounds. I don't mind using older lenses, if any fits the profile..

Note: where I live, birds are either too close or too far. Too close would be birds that fly momentarily and land on a branch about 3 m / 9 feet away. Too far would be the majority of birds that are "sensitive" / "erratic" and would fly off at the sight of humans. So that's quite a challenge.

Thanks in advance for your advice / suggestions / recommendations.
Click to expand...

With 500mm and a DX body, you're reaching the limit on gear being the answer. Adding another 100mm to 600mm or choosing a different 500mm lens is not going to completely solve your problem.

The 500mm PF is a very good option and checks most of the boxes. Optically it's very good - better than the 200-500. It works well with the FTZ on the Z bodies - but it is an F-mount lens. The roadmap 400mm PF is a good alternative, but you are giving up reach. If the optics are good and the aperture is fast enough, the 400mm lens might still be a good option with a teleconverter some of the time.

I'd reconsider your comment about using a 1.4 teleconverter. It does soften a 200-500 to the point where it may not be acceptable to crop, but it does work in bright light for a static subject. Teleconverters work better with better glass - they are essentially magnifying your lens so good lenses have a better starting point and softer lenses are quickly unacceptable. Generally a teleconverter is going to be better with a fixed focal length or a fast zoom.

The 200-600 seems likely to be similar to the 200-500 in performance. It's not an S lens, and will probably be an upgrade over the 200-500, but borderline with a teleconverter. It will be relatively large to reach 600mm at the long end. That's physics.

The 800mm PF will be expensive but a good option for small subjects. It's going to be tough to maintain technique that is good enough to produce sharp images so you'll need a good tripod and great technique. I suspect many people who try to use an 800mm PF lens on an APS-C camera will struggle to get sharp images because of technique. Even top pros will find that combination difficult and accept a keeper rate of 10% of what you would get with half the focal length. That's what Michelle Valberg is seeing with 1000mm+ focal length combinations on full frame cameras.

An APS-C body means you are already cropping. Depending on your ultimate use, you might be comfortable cropping further - maybe much further. But that places a burden on ISO levels. Longer lenses can mean higher ISO levels for faster shutter speeds, but cropping with a camera body or in post is already causing ISO limits to drop compared to full frame or uncropped.

Small bird photography is difficult. It takes the longest glass you can manage and afford, and great technique because of the magnification. Even then you often end up cropping. I'd take a hard look at your technique and fieldcraft. Can you be more patient and use fieldcraft rather than a longer lens?

Personally - I'm planning on using the 400mm PF and occasionally add the 1.4 TC, but I'm keeping my 600mm f/4. That will give me a smaller and lighter option with high quality plus the big lens.
 
Member's gallery
The 400 F4 prime in nikon's roadmap looks like something you might want to wait for. It'll probably be lightweight and F8 with a 2x TC is acceptable, while being a 560 F5.6 with a 1.4 TC sounds cool.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I know this may be a provokative question to ask.. that might stir up debates.. but here goes:

I am looking for an upgrade for my 200-500mm. It is sharp and versatile, but not suitable for long hikes (heavy / front end heavy). For mammals (deer, fox, wild bore) I happily use my 300 PF. I need however a longer focal length for birds (tits, jays, herons, etc.) and I dislike using TCs (IQ drops for feather detail).

Lenses I am considering (to use on D7500 or Z50) are:
- 500 mm PF (minimum focus distance is my only concern)
- 100-400 S mm (too short for small birds?)
- 400 mm S PF (F unknown, weight unknown)
- 200-600 mm (weight unknown)
- 800 mm S PF (weight unknown)

I don't mind waiting.. I prefer F 5.6 or brighter and a maximum weight of 1.5 kg / 3.3 pounds. I don't mind using older lenses, if any fits the profile..

Note: where I live, birds are either too close or too far. Too close would be birds that fly momentarily and land on a branch about 3 m / 9 feet away. Too far would be the majority of birds that are "sensitive" / "erratic" and would fly off at the sight of humans. So that's quite a challenge.

Thanks in advance for your advice / suggestions / recommendations.
Click to expand...
If lighter weight and equivalent (or better) IQ are your primary goals, then the 500 PF strikes me as your best bet. I shoot with the 200-500 on a D850, and have been reasonably satisfied. I occasionally use a 1.4 TC with this rig, but only when there's sufficient light and stationary or slow-moving subjects. I too am interested in extending my reach with a faster aperture, and have decided to wait for a 600E. Weight is not a major issue for me, which is why I haven't bothered buying the 500PF - I'm not convinced that the IQ and AF are sufficiently better than the 200-500 to warrant parting with $3500. In your case, however, the 500PF might be exactly what you're looking for, since an easier carry on those long hikes is your primary goal. Best of luck in your deliberations!
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
If lighter weight and equivalent (or better) IQ are your primary goals, then the 500 PF strikes me as your best bet. I shoot with the 200-500 on a D850, and have been reasonably satisfied. I occasionally use a 1.4 TC with this rig, but only when there's sufficient light and stationary or slow-moving subjects. I too am interested in extending my reach with a faster aperture, and have decided to wait for a 600E. Weight is not a major issue for me, which is why I haven't bothered buying the 500PF - I'm not convinced that the IQ and AF are sufficiently better than the 200-500 to warrant parting with $3500. In your case, however, the 500PF might be exactly what you're looking for, since an easier carry on those long hikes is your primary goal. Best of luck in your deliberations!
Click to expand...

While the sharpness isn't that far off between the 200-500 and 500PF (assuming good copy of the 200-500) the AF is night and day between the two. Initial acquisition on the 500PF is instant and going from far to near is much faster. I'd argue that AF and weight are the two primary reasons (in that order) to upgrade with any IQ differences being a distance third.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Thanks @jeffnles1 for your input. I share the same praise for the 200-500 quality and well as versatility (particularly close focus capabilities). I even have Landscape shots taken at 200mm which I admire a lot. The weight is really the only inconvenience of that lens. What pushed me more in this corner was the last fall I had last weekend, going up a steep hill covered with frozen snow. I fell straight down on my injured knee (replaced ACL) because I kept my arms high to "save" my equipment.. if my gear was a bit lighter, I could have used one hand to support my bodyweight. Maybe the 100-400 S is the next best thing at the moment.. versatile, light, with close focus.. only 100 mm shorter..

Thanks @RoyC for your reply. I agree the 800 PF will probably be too heavy as well... and won't be a "hand holding" lens.. I do like the reach though! Last time I was in Florida, I photographed mostly alligators in the everglades : ) I was shocked how close one can get.. even tool a phone selfie with one (ok, I admit, not the smartest move, but when adrenalin is pumping, reason sometimes goes out the window LOL)

Thank you @EricBowles for your answer. Regarding TCs: I used mine with the 300 PF and didn't like it.. maybe my copy isn't good (I bought it 2nd hand). the IQ is just OK in the center but diminished towards 2/3rd of the frame. That's why I find cropping a better option (with the 300 PF). By the way, I still like using my DSLRs, so an F mount is still a valid solution. You are right about the 800 + Tripod.. so that is becoming less and less of a solution (tripod = more weight.. which is the issue with the 200-500 in the first place). I think I will train myself to better master using my monopod / carrying it too.. this might solve the problem I am facing.. that is until we know more about the 400 PF.
 
Member's gallery
"Thanks @jeffnles1 for your input. I share the same praise for the 200-500 quality and well as versatility (particularly close focus capabilities). I even have Landscape shots taken at 200mm which I admire a lot. The weight is really the only inconvenience of that lens. What pushed me more in this corner was the last fall I had last weekend, going up a steep hill covered with frozen snow. I fell straight down on my injured knee (replaced ACL) because I kept my arms high to "save" my equipment.. if my gear was a bit lighter, I could have used one hand to support my bodyweight. Maybe the 100-400 S is the next best thing at the moment.. versatile, light, with close focus.. only 100 mm shorter.."

Ado, I have the Sigma 100-400 in F mount. It really is a versatile and handy lens. About the same weight as a 70-200 maybe even a little less. What you lose at the long end you gain at the short end. I'm sure the Nikon 100-400 is even sharper although I find the 100-400 Sigma, in most cases, to be as sharp as my 200-500. At the far end, the 200-500 is a little sharper but the images from the 100-400 are quite usable and I have several blown up to 16X20 with excellent results. The F6.3 vs. F 5.6 does hurt a little in the extremes of low light but for the most part it's fine.

Yes, 100-400 may be an option for you. I haven't looked to see what the weight was on the Nikon Z mount is.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks @Abinoone for your input. The 500 PF does tick most checkboxes and I can use it on all my 3 cameras. It is expensive, but it will last years (long-term investment). I think I will wait for the 400 PF before taking that decision. My 200-500 is a great copy, as it almost matches the IQ of my 300 PF at 300 mm.

Thank you @Palmor. The AF of the 200-500 is a bit sluggish.. but it wasn't much of a concern so far. But I sure would appreciate improved AF as well.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Yes, 100-400 may be an option for you. I haven't looked to see what the weight was on the Nikon Z mount is.
Click to expand...
Both the 100-400 S and 500 PF are very comparable when it comes to Dimensions and Weight, here you go:
500 PF / 1450g / 237mm long / 106 mm diameter / 4.0 Stops VR / 3.00 m close focus (0.18x magnification)
100-400S / 1355g / 222mm long / 98 mm diameter / 5.5 Stops VR / 0.75 m close focus (0.38x magnification).
most reviews also said it works well with the 1.4TC and knowing I will use it with the Z50 which is 250g lighter than the D7500, I save even more weight. The only inconvenience is that I cannot use it with my D7500 and D850.
 
It's surprising to me that one doesn't gain very much field of view going from 500mm to 600mm. Even at 20 feet away on the d7500 the 500 covers a width just over 11 inches while the 600 covers about 9.5 inches. Not enough to switch in my view unless the 600 has some dramatic advantage in IQ, weight, AF or all of the above.

Camera Field of View Details and Calculator (FoV)

Calculator of Field of View of camera and lens, both the dimensional size of the Field Of View seen at a specified distance, and also Angle Of View.
www.scantips.com
 
Member's gallery
When I owned the 200-500mm lens and the D500 I often found the view angle to be too narrow at 200mm where I had the view angle of a 300mm lens on a full frame body. I would often use the 80-400mm lens instead to get a wide enough view angle. The 45MP FX D850 allowed for wider view angles than I got with the APS-C D500 and enough resolution for cropping in post with small subjects.

I saw a video where a fellow used his car as a blind and would dump some bird seed near a short bush. Birds would land on a branch of the bush before and after grabbing seed from the ground and he would photograph them while partially hidden behind a cloth drapped over the car window. He controlled the camera to bird distance with this approach.

I have found that if I simply sit for 5 minutes the birds will come to me in many areas if there is a food source with an insect attracting or berry laden bush or tree. Walking around was counterproductive and sitting still was nearly as advantageous as being inside a blind.
 
txstone said:

This Nikon lens simulator shows how the angle of view changes for various camera |lens configurations - 500 to 600mm makes a difference. With the 1.4x TC the difference becomes 700 to 840mm. Over 800 should be very useful in many wildlife applications. Then it becomes a matter of how well a particular 600mm lens accepts a teleconverter.
Click to expand...

Sure it makes a difference, just not a very big difference in my view. They don't tell us how far away that lighthouse is in the simulator because it is just a simulation, but it looks like it could be a couple hundred feet. How far away will someone shooting small birds be? Even if it is 100 feet away, which is way too far but just to give an extreme example, on a crop camera the field of view is only 4.8 feet wide with 500mm down to 4 feet with a 600mm. Add the tc and 700 is 3.4 feet and 840 is 2.8 feet.
 
Member's gallery
You have a 300PF. I find that a compact, lightweight, hand-held rig best for picking up the erratic flight of small birds. I could not imagine using a 200-500 for that although some do. I would upgrade to a D-500 or D-850 and a 1.4TCiii and be done with it. I think a 500pf is a bit better than a 300pf and a 1.4TC but not by enough to spend $3600. I think that the D-500/D-850 is much superior to a D-750 and there will be used ones around very soon.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
The 100-400 has a big advantage in magnification for close subject - dragonflies, butterflies, and small reptiles. Add the teleconverter and you have a terrific option. One thing to verify is magnification at the long end - the magnification at the long end could be different. The minimum focus distance at 400mm goes up to 0.98 meters - still quite good.
 
Member's gallery
@bleirer @txstone I agree the difference between 500 and 600 isn't great, but it is enough to make the bird fill a bit more of the frame. I made a test (see photo below) to see the difference between a 200, 300, 400 and 500 mm lens (all using 200-500 mm zoom) with the apple being as big as a small bird, being 5 meters away (20 feet).


CFBF2FB1-F9E3-431D-B115-FD07CA84A96B.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
thanks @Calson, for my case (birding) the 500 mm on a DX body ist just about enough to fill a decent portion of he frame with the bird (see above apple example), that is if I manage to get that close (which is only 40% of the time). I do agree with you, that the D850 acts as FF and DX body thanks to it's high MP.. I actually use this advantage in Landscape photos, using my 85mm prime as a 127 mm in DX mode for close up Landscape shots.
With regards to photographing from the car, I am more of a hiker and I photograph birds deep in forests where man usually doesn't go. So I am against bating there.. although I am fine with "feeding" birds in parks or in my garden, where birds are not in danger and are almost accustom to it.

thanks @Tom Reynolds , yes the 300 mm is a great hiking lens and I use it mostly when photographing mammals. Not only is it compact, light and F4, it also doesn't seem to scare critters away (like the 200-500 mm does). I did try it with the TC14, but I didn't like the IQ / lost too much feather detail.. I guess my TC copy isn't good (I did fine tune that combo as well, so it can only be the TC quality). That's why I am leaning more and more to the 100-400mm for it's compactness, versatility, close focus and sharper IQ (based on others threads in this forum as well as brad hill and other wildlife photographers. This way I will have just 1 lens rather than a 300 PF and 500 PF combo.. which I would otherwise need, to photograph both mammals and birds on hikes. You are absolutely right about sitting down for a few minutes and birds coming back. I have experienced this a few times.

Thanks @EricBowles , yes, a close focus distance (CFD) of 0.98m ist still very good, since the CFD of the 200-500 is 2.2m and it's great for close up shots of butterflies and dragonflies. That's why I am leaning more and more to the 100-400mm (+TC combo if the performance is better than my current TC14eii).
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
What pushed me more in this corner was the last fall I had last weekend, going up a steep hill covered with frozen snow. I fell straight down on my injured knee (replaced ACL) because I kept my arms high to "save" my equipment.. if my gear was a bit lighter, I could have used one hand to support my bodyweight.
Click to expand...

I got a Mr Jan lens carrier after seeing others here talk about it. I like having both hands free when hiking in the woods. Strap on ice/snow cleats work pretty well when needed.

Lens Carrier System

Yaktrax Pro Ice Grips
 
Member's gallery
If you stay strict with your weight requirements then the 200-600 and 800PF are not going to cut it.

So that leaves us with the 500PF, 100-400S and 400PF (TBD).

Now you say you want something longer like 500mm and are worried about 100-400 being 400 but you then say you are worried about the 500PF's MFD? The 500PF's MFD is 3m. How often are you really within 3m and needing 500mm (instead of your 300PF)? If you really do feel you will be within 3m too often then we will rule out the 500PF. Otherwise I think the 500PF is your best option. It is noticeably better IQ than 200-500 (at least my copies compared) and AF is significantly better. It also takes a TC much better than 200-500 and the MILC makes it much better than on a DSLR when TC is in use.

If we rule out the 500PF then I'd recommend the 100-400S and trying out the 1.4TC which from what I can tell is a very good TC and combined with MILC AF I don't think it will be as bad as your past TC experience. That said, my 300PF took TCs better than any other Nikon lens I owned (200-500, 500PF and 500E FL). So if you aren't happy with 300PF with TC then I don't know if you will be happy with anything with a TC until lenses like 400/2.8S come out.

The other big benefit for you with the 100-400 is the MFD and MM....this will help you if you are shooting birds under 3m.

The 400PF is a bit of an unknown....it looks like it will be f/4.5...maybe f/5....unlikely f/4 and not f/5.6. This may be the best option but again will probably require TCs to really make you happy with "reach" and the MFD will not be as short as the 100-400 but may slightly edge out the 500PF. It is hard to say...we only have the Canon 400/4 DOII to even compare to and it's MFD is 3.3m. I think Nikon will be better than that but it may not be much better than the 500PF and have 100mm less so less MM. However, the weight may not meet your requirement either. Canon's is 2.1kg but is f/4 and I really don't think the Nikon is f/4. So Nikon will be lighter but I don't know if it will get down to your 1.5kg requirement.

If you can get over the weight than 200-600 would probably be best for you. The Sony 200-600 is a 1/2 lb lighter than the Nikon 200-500. But MFD of Sony's is 2.4m...is that close enough?.,.Nikon will probably be very similar.
 
Member's gallery
thanks @Andy Work for the tip, the Lens Carrier System is indeed interesting. Similar concept to the Cotton Carrier Harness I currently use.

Thanks @arbitrage for your input. It is crazy how similar you and I go at analyzing the situation and assessing the options. I too believe 200-600 and 800mm are not going to cut it (weight wise). I will also try to avoid using a TC and instead work more on my technique getting closer to my critter without scaring it off. I am however willing to sacrifice on MDF, since I now always carry the Z50 with me, to use for close ups and Landscapes. So MFD is not a deal breaker like weight.
In fact, ff I use the 500 PF with my D850, it gives me flexibility of focal distance through the Crop-factor. I can also use it with all 3 cameras. I think I will wait on the 400 PF *at least the weight and F aspect to be published) and will then chose among the 3: 100-400 S, 400 PF, 500 PF.

Just out of curiosity, anyone out there NOT happy with the 500 PF?
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top