Jump to content

Lens for bird photography,


Recommended Posts

I have been doing some bird photography and the need for a long lens for my A7 is becoming apparent. There is nothing in the FE lineup.' A' mount has some nice long Sony lenses but they are unstabilised and this is an application where stabilisation is useful, Only Sigma seem to produce a stabilised long (400-500mm) tele in A mount.

 

Anyone got any recommendations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, if the birds are close enough a 55mm lens will do and the FE  55mm will do very well indeed but not all birds come to feed out of your hand and I doubt if the 55mm will be effective for (say() a bittern on the other side of the lake!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, when using the 70-200G what focus settings do you use? I've tried bird in flight photos once with the phase detect in the center region, and wondered if there is a better option, tracking perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments and pictures. Less than 400-500mm focal length doesn't meet my needs and 600mm is even better, all of which puts me into the market for a Sigma 'A' mount 150-500mm or 150-600mm DG OS as this is the only long lens with image stabilisation. If I drop the need for IS then Sony/Minolta or Tamron is also possible including the excellent Sony 70-400mm G  lens.

 

Vivek's comment makes me think about buying an A6000 instead of a longer lens. Just using the APS option on the A7 offers no image benefit (just crops automatically to about 10Mpx) though it makes framing a bit easier but a good APS camera with the 300mm lens which I already have is pretty much as good as a 450mm lens on full frame. It could be a reasonably good option if the ergonomics and focusing are OK. Cost wise it will be much the same and probably be lighter.

 

I just don't like the idea of multiple bodies, lenses don't drop in value as fast as bodies do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand your dilemma...

 

I do use the A77 II along with the excellent Sony 70-400mm G lens but on a body without IBIS, no idea how many would be keepers.

 

You could also buy the A7 II and a 70-400 G lens, not really a cheap option though (and well, yet another body).

 

The A6000 option along with your 300mm lens has another advantage compared to the A7 used in APS-C crop mode: the AF performance. The pricing on the A6000 is quite interesting too. Not sure when (and if) an IBIS successor to the A6000 will hit the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest PenGun

Well yes, if the birds are close enough a 55mm lens will do and the FE  55mm will do very well indeed but not all birds come to feed out of your hand and I doubt if the 55mm will be effective for (say() a bittern on the other side of the lake!

 Some will. My Daughter feeding Whiskey Jacks up on Robotham Ridge yesterday, about 1000 meters. We were the only truck that made it up the hill that day, the logging company blocked off the latest access road we made. The little Samurai goes where the quads go though. ;)

 

lucyjack1.jpg

 

 FE 35 2.8 on an a7R, it's cropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and you can get some nice close up pictures of the squabbles over food but it's more distant shots that I am after.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

or if you don't mind a bit of group sex

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you waste any time and money on this you should consider what it will take to do this well and what it will take to do this great. 

 

The 70-200 and A7r aren't up to the task even when the birds are 10 ft away https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/an-imatest-is-worth-1000-pictures/ or Test # 3 @ https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/

 

For the most part if you want to get serious both well and great will require Nikon systems. 

 

I would consider the 7100 and the new 300 PF lens and a 1.4 TC if you're on a budget.

 

If not then the 300mm 2.8 + the 1.4 on a D810. 

 

If you really want to excel the D810 and 400mm 2.8 

 

Lastly if you've been shooting the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135mm or the Otus 85mm and 55m or the Nikon 200mm f2 - all zoom lenses will disappoint greatly - even the Nikon 'trifecta' lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm sure you know, an A7ii with in body stabilization will stabilize any lens you choose. That may allow you to save some lens money to help offset body update costs. It will certainly broaden your lens options. Or, go for a Sony A mount body. Every one of them has in body stabilization. A used A mount body doesn't have to be expensive. That would let you assemble a nice dedicated birding system without breaking the bank. A77 and A65 are recently discontinued but very competent 24mp APS-C bodies.

 

Remember that APS-C does not really extend the lens focal length, it just narrows the field of view.  For example, using a 400mm lens at 50 yards, the image of a bird is the same size in both APS-C and FF images. There will be a lot more real estate visible around the FF bird, the APS-C image will have the narrower field of view of a 600mm lens, but the bird itself will be identical.

 

There are lots of very nice cameras and lenses out there. Don't listen to fanboys or trolls be they Sony, Canon or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lefty - you're halfway right.  The 1.5x crop factor simply means a narrow field of view as you described..  However, greater 'effective reach' is possible with some APS-c sensors due to greater pixel density (pitch). 

 

Here's an example -  the NEX 7 (APSc) has a pitch of 3.88 um resulting in about a 25% reach advantage over an A7r (full frame) with a pixel pitch of 4.86 um.

 

The same math is appx the same for the Nikon D7100 (APS-c) when compared to the full frame D800 or D810. 

 

There are a lot of 'nice' everything out there (and a lot of complete crap - like the 24-240 is bound to be) but if you want exemplary photos of far away  moving objects with fine detail you probably need to consider a budget of $3500 as an entry and $8000 - 13,000 to get 'wow' photos.  And Sony isn't in that arena.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lefty - you're halfway right.  The 1.5x crop factor simply means a narrow field of view as you described..  However, greater 'effective reach' is possible with some APS-c sensors due to greater pixel density (pitch). 

 

Here's an example -  the NEX 7 (APSc) has a pitch of 3.88 um resulting in about a 25% reach advantage over an A7r (full frame) with a pixel pitch of 4.86 um.

 

The same math is appx the same for the Nikon D7100 (APS-c) when compared to the full frame D800 or D810. 

 

 

There are a lot of 'nice' everything out there (and a lot of complete crap - like the 24-240 is bound to be) but if you want exemplary photos of far away  moving objects with fine detail you probably need to consider a budget of $3500 as an entry and $8000 - 13,000 to get 'wow' photos.  And Sony isn't in that arena.   

 

 

Hi Max, I hear you, to get the same number of pixels in APS-C and FF size sensors, clearly the APS-C pixels have to be closer together. Denser pixels should get us higher resolution. But, we've got to blow them up further to get to the same size reproduction, so definition falls off quicker. Presume that's where you're coming from with a 25% reach advantage through cropping on a lens with a 50% difference in focal length field of view. You get some advantage from denser pixel spacing, but not the whole thing.

 

While not important to understanding what focal length lens you need, what we're really talking about is sensors, not lenses. Funny stuff. The common framing of "Acts like a xxx lens" is what I was addressing. That often leads to the misconception that 400mm FF lens magically delivers the image of a 600mm when you put it on a APS-C camera. That's sure what I thought when I got my first DSLR. Popped that old long lens on and much to my surprise the deer standing at the edge of the woods in my back yard didn't look any bigger than he did in my old SLR. That sent me on a scramble to figure out why.

 

Another issue that's bugged me is lens vs sensor resolution. It was clear with my first DSLR, a Sony A100, that even the kit lens out resolved the sensor. Hohner did a side by side with the kit and a G lens. You couldn't tell much, if any, difference. Once lens resolution gets higher than sensor resolution it disappears, you can't see it. As sensors have been getting better I have been puzzling about where that crosses over and we really need sharper glass. This guy has helped me figure it out http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/01/29/are-sensors-outresolving-lenses-keep-reading/ and there's discussion in another blog on this forum.

 

The answer turns out to be that current lenses are still in the drivers seat. On a FF sensor, an Otus will resolve to about 100mp. An old 50mm Minolta about 50mp and most of the rest of the old Minolta glass to at least 36mp. But, we can see differences in lenses, what's up? Looks like the answer is mostly contrast, and that comes mostly from better coatings, not glass. Pull a slider in post to fix contrast, the veil falls away and an image from that old, currently cheap, Minolta glass begins to look a lot like an Otus. Both are at least twice as sharp as the 24mp sensor in my A7ii can resolve. Can high dollar cameras and lenses produce great images? You betchya. Do you have to spend the money on a lens so sharp it will cut you when the sensor can't tell it from a butter knife? Not really.

 

Lot of issues that aren't quite as simple as they initially seem in this wonderful world of digital we've stumbled into. Thanks for helping me understand more about the APS-C FF relationship. Hope I've added a little to the conversation too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the budget was $13k... I'd get an A99 and one of the Sony primes. The 500mm F4 (not the mirror one) for example, I'm not sure if it works with the 1.4 and 2x TC.

 

Whilst the Nikon stuff is good, I don't see them doing anything that Sony gear can't do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd have lots of lens choices if there actually existed a functional adaptor to Nikon F, for example.   I could give up autofocus, but none of these adaptors will even show me what the current f-stop is.  They can only change it, within a limited range.   Not interested in guessing games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're mainly in agreement and rare at that as the 1.5x is the predominate lie in marketing APSc cameras and it's a tough myth to overcome. 

 

Now to sharpness and resolution.  I've conducted several thousand Imatests over the last few years and of course there are a lot of qualities to a lens at any given focal length. 

 

Coatings are important, but also are the tru Apo-chromatic nature of 3 lenses in particular the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar and Otus 55 and 85mm.   

 

While resolution of certain lenses and apo-like nature are 'cooked in' to the design (telephotos) due to the straight on chief ray angles the lenses produce they have little diffraction and CA and this in turn affects resolution as there are few disturbed areas in high contrast transition zones.  (black v white)

 

Many older lenses were able to accomplish very high resolution scores but only when they did not produce CA - e.g. the Zeiss 180mm Sonnar 2,8 when shot at 5.6 to 8.0

 

The miracle of modern lenses is that coatings, CAD, aspheric elements and additional decades of understanding can deliver Apo-chromatic results from wide open on up. 

 

I have not tested Minolta lenses but given that they are from the era where the knowledge and processes weren't known I wouldn't expect the kind of incredible perfromance that can be acheived by today's lenses.

 

Last but not least, the market place is pretty effective at pricing lenses in relation to their IQ.  There's an unsold Minolta 300mm 2,8 on Ebay right now for $1900.  While not apples to apples (as the Nikon has VRII) the low prices are around $4500 typically.   

 

And VR has a huge effect on IQ when hand holding and chasing moving / flying objects.     

 

It's possible the 300mm PF, a 7100 or its update and the 1.4 TC makes for a very good birding outfit about $3700 total

 

But it's too early to know that.  The PF images I've seen aren't impressive for high contrast and CA at the edges.    At least 4-6 pixels of CA

 

 

  

Hi Max, I hear you, to get the same number of pixels in APS-C and FF size sensors, clearly the APS-C pixels have to be closer together. Denser pixels should get us higher resolution. But, we've got to blow them up further to get to the same size reproduction, so definition falls off quicker. Presume that's where you're coming from with a 25% reach advantage through cropping on a lens with a 50% difference in focal length field of view. You get some advantage from denser pixel spacing, but not the whole thing.

While not important to understanding what focal length lens you need, what we're really talking about is sensors, not lenses. Funny stuff. The common framing of "Acts like a xxx lens" is what I was addressing. That often leads to the misconception that 400mm FF lens magically delivers the image of a 600mm when you put it on a APS-C camera. That's sure what I thought when I got my first DSLR. Popped that old long lens on and much to my surprise the deer standing at the edge of the woods in my back yard didn't look any bigger than he did in my old SLR. That sent me on a scramble to figure out why.

Another issue that's bugged me is lens vs sensor resolution. It was clear with my first DSLR, a Sony A100, that even the kit lens out resolved the sensor. Hohner did a side by side with the kit and a G lens. You couldn't tell much, if any, difference. Once lens resolution gets higher than sensor resolution it disappears, you can't see it. As sensors have been getting better I have been puzzling about where that crosses over and we really need sharper glass. This guy has helped me figure it out http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/01/29/are-sensors-outresolving-lenses-keep-reading/ and there's discussion in another blog on this forum.

The answer turns out to be that current lenses are still in the drivers seat. On a FF sensor, an Otus will resolve to about 100mp. An old 50mm Minolta about 50mp and most of the rest of the old Minolta glass to at least 36mp. But, we can see differences in lenses, what's up? Looks like the answer is mostly contrast, and that comes mostly from better coatings, not glass. Pull a slider in post to fix contrast, the veil falls away and an image from that old, currently cheap, Minolta glass begins to look a lot like an Otus. Both are at least twice as sharp as the 24mp sensor in my A7ii can resolve. Can high dollar cameras and lenses produce great images? You betchya. Do you have to spend the money on a lens so sharp it will cut you when the sensor can't tell it from a butter knife? Not really.

Lot of issues that aren't quite as simple as they initially seem in this wonderful world of digital we've stumbled into. Thanks for helping me understand more about the APS-C FF relationship. Hope I've added a little to the conversation too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Max, It took me awhile to catch on, but imatest, lenscore, technical lens measurements in general, often measure lens qualities that are not very visible in real pictures. Doesn't mean they're not valuable looks at a lens, just that one device measuring another sometimes does not have much to do with what current camera sensors can see.

 

Yes optics have gotten some better for the reasons you describe, but lens CAD has been around for 40 years and optics on primes were pretty good even before that. Those improvements are marginal. Coatings, as we also agree, have made the big difference in recent years. The Zeiss folks should be happy with the results they are getting and the premium they are able to charge for adjusting the coatings they squirt on the glass. It's good work when you can get it.

 

Contrast, CA and other defects can be largely dealt with in post, and some in the camera itself. That's part of the miracle of electronics/software that goes right along with changing the way cameras function. Post, plus the ease with which E mount, and other short registration length systems, adapt lenses, has fueled a revival of old glass. Many of the older Minolta lenses are nice, and resemble the older SLR and RF lenses people are using. I don't tout them over other decent optics from the same era. However, since I use them, sometimes for decades, I have been interested in sorting out how they stack up against sensors, and have been pleasantly surprised.

 

In photography, as in many things, you can spend a lot of money chasing the last fractional percentage of performance. If someone has the disposable income and interest, I say go for it. Good gear makes it easier to get good results. If you're a pro there's also logic in gear. There's money on each shot, and because the price writes off against income, real cost comes down between 1/3 and 1/2. I'm an amateur, with no other aspirations, so my out of pocket is exactly that. There's a limit on what I'm going to drop on shooting birds, and it's well below the $8k-$13k you have suggested it would take to go 1st class. I don't feel relatively deprived, and glad to see you saw a less expensive, although still pretty pricey, option.

 

Statistics on higher end photography have been scary for several years, and getting scarier. Year over year sales are down. High prices on high end stuff are part of the reason. There are not a lot of folks ready to drop $10k or more on camera gear. The scary part of that is that every time volume goes down, individual item prices have to go up for the camera companies to stay in business. Each time that happens sales go down more.  Augering in is what pilots call it. 

 

Sony is reducing the price level by changing the way cameras work. After the switch to digitial from film, mirrorless is the biggest change since the SLR. Are they as good as the very best of the DSLRs? Not yet, but with each iteration they get closer, and the iterations are coming quickly.   Because mirrorless is simpler, the cost keeps coming down and sales go up. Sony may save the industry for everyone. They're got the resources and they are taking a pretty good run at it. The next several years should be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first made the switch to Nikon because of IQ and IQ only, I thought I would head back to Sony of they fixed the color and the resolution issues.  But having used Nikon for 3 months now - with the exception of no EVF I find the Nikon very user friendly and very intuitive. The Nikon 'engine' is better.  WB, AE are almost always perfect and if not easily remedied.  The AF is really good especially on the long end. Nikon CLS is amazing.

 

Sony would have to come up with a massively better camera that could also (at the least) drive my Nikon AF lenses.  Not likely. 

 

On board 4k in a FF I might consider but for the most part I don't see Sony hitting a sweet spot that would make me buy Sony again. 

 

I have an A7r, the FE55 and the 70-200 that are all all kind of worthless to me at this point.  A couple more tests for my blogs and it's all going to end up on EBAY. 

 

It's a shame because the FE55 is the one saving grace.  There is no better normal AF lens anywhere else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...