Recommendations on a cheap telephoto lens for birds?

[masp]

I've been doing a lot of lens research lately to help decide which camera I want to buy, and it seems like Nikon produces some fairly decent kit lenses for the money. For instance, the 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR lens gets fairly good ratings (particularly sharpness) from slrgear (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1088/cat/13), bythom (http://bythom.com/55200lens.htm) (thanks for the link Marko) and other sites. Canon also makes a 55-250mm lens (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1113/cat/11) that gets good reviews for sharpness when stopped down.

The Nikon 18-55mm VR (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1154/cat/13) also gets a decent review for sharpness when stopped down. On the other hand, this guide from photo.net (http://photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/) recommends that you go with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 $430 as a starter lens. He suggests you should go mainly with prime lens for a better price performance ratio. However all the long telephoto lenses he recommends are massive, heavy and expensive. So are kit lenses and cheaper zoom lenses generally inferior choices or can you find exceptions?

[Greg_Nuspel]

With birds you want a very sharp lens for all the detail, feathers are soft but shouldn't look soft. I would recommend saving for and buying the higher grade lenses. Lenses are an investment if you take care of them they will last you a long time.

[masp]

What are the lighter lenses that I can still expect to get decent detail with? I'm also considering using a slightly shorter but faster lens with a teleconverter if that might save me some weight and cost.

How do the shots from slrgear.com's review of the Olympus 70-300mm (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1102/cat/15) f/4-5.6 look? Potentially it has a 600mm reach, or more with a teleconverter, and is not much more than two pounds with a four thirds or micro four thirds camera. They're just small jpgs though, so maybe not the best samples.

http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=16050
http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=16025
http://retrent63.com/TP172568a.jpg
http://retrent63.com/TP172604.jpg
http://retrent63.com/TP292881.jpg
http://retrent63.com/TP292884.jpg
http://retrent63.com/TP292906.jpg
http://retrent63.com/TP222690.jpg

Edit: Sort of answered my own question when I stumbled upon the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx. It seems to get good reviews at slrgear.com too. Aside from it's 25.2 oz weight (though relatively light) and the fact that the white L series design screams STEAL ME, it seems like a nice bargain.

Further research had me looking into at Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II. Seems to sell for almost $2000 and weight 3.4 lbs. Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 II and Tamron's 70-200mm f/2.8 clock in at about the same weight, with the Tamron about a half pound lighter, and both seem to cost around $700. More reasonable, though the fact that the Canon 70-200 weighs about half as much makes it more appealing, despite the smaller aperture. Also, I would guess that the Canon L series lens would hold it's value a bit better.

[F8&Bthere]

Well if a big reason for buying a lens is for bird photography it almost always forces you into bigger and more expensive lenses. You need long reach (I'm thinking at least 300mm), good speed (to catch sharp wings instead of blurred), and fast autofocus usually helps a lot too (meaning built-in focus motor).

Keep in mind that many teleconverters aren't really compatible with slow lenses. For example, some Nikon TCs won't allow AF for lenses with less than f4 max aperture.

So I don't think a 55-200/4-5.6VR with a TC is a good option.

If a person really wanted to do a lot of birding on a budget I'd say something like the Sigma Bigma EX 50-500 or the newer 150-500mm with OS might be options worth considering, or maybe a Nikon AF-S 300/4 with a Kenko pro series teleconverter. Any of those will still be in the $1000 - 1500 range though.

I'm using Nikon as examples because I'm more familiar with it. Your posts have mentioned both Nikon and Canon though so I was confused if you have a body yet or not.

If birding is just an occasional thing, and you want to travel light/compact, and the budget is limited, well maybe the Nikon 70-300. I've read good things considering it's price. It's not "fast", but I think 200mm or less is just not enough reach for birds or most wildlife even with the crop sensor.

[Marko]

I can vouch for the canon 70-200 F4 L lens...it's awesome in terms of sharpness with normal stationary objects. I shot some birds with that lens on a few occasions with my Canon 30D....and it was VERY difficult to get sharpness using AF tracking. Not sure if it would have been much faster on a 5dmark2...

But in general I'm with F8 here, you'll likely want more reach (300mm Plus plus) though for birds.

[Michaelaw]

I can vouch for the quality of the Zuiko 70-300mm as I shot with it for a couple of years using an E-510 and E-3. I have never owned a sharper lens. If you go to my Photoblog in my sig and go to the archives July 2009 and earlier are some examples of work done with this lens. Pretty much all the bird and animal shots are using this lens.

[masp]

Thanks for the tips guys. I checked out the Canon 70-200mm f4 and it has glowing reviews. I guess the $650 price is about as good as it gets, though I wonder which teleconverter would work well on it. 2x would get me more reach, but less light and the lens isn't very fast to begin with. 25.2 oz seems pretty big and heavy already, though I hear it is light for it's class. Canon's 55-250mm might be the lightest it gets at 13 oz. It's basically a $250 kit lens, though it gets a good review from SLR Gear for sharpness and CA. A TC is probably not possible on it of course.

Is the Nikon 70-300 basically the Canon 70-200's equivalent? The Nikon is slower, weighs about the same at 26.3 oz, is more compact at 5.6" to 7" and costs $515 at Amazon today. If it's true that you generally get what you pay for, the Canon's IQ is probably slightly better with less CA and distortion, according to SLR Gear. Even so, they say that the Nikon's IQ is acceptable at 300mm. VR is a plus compared to the Canon 70-200. Unlike Nikon, Canon's consumer level 70-300 has a rotating front element so it is probably a worse choice, though it is marginally lighter at 22oz.

Non Canikon lenses:
The Sigmas offer very nice reach, but they weigh in about 4 pounds according to slrgear. Pentax offers the very big and heavy 60-250 DA* (43 oz) in this area. Sony's 16 oz. 75-300 is in the kit lens price range and it's soft at 300mm according to slrgear. The m4/3 and 4/3 options are a bit cheaper and maybe a pound lighter at most (counting the body) than these options, but sharpness deteriorates past 150mm (300mm 35mm equivalent). Slightly slower shutter release with m4/3 may be an issue too. They have higher quality lenses, but these are mostly just as heavy as their bigger competitors. I guess there is no free lunch.

I looked at some of the third party Tamron and Sigma lenses, it seems to be the same pattern, but I didn't notice any standout competitors. The sharp lenses are heavy and the less sharp ones are lighter. Does this cover most of the market, or have I missed anything? I think I've mostly exhausted the market options at this point. One other thing I hadn't looked into is possibly getting a telephoto m42 or Leica M mount lens for a micro four thirds camera. Having to manually pre-focus would be more work, but perhaps I'd get an edge in terms of optics and weight?

F8: Nope, I'm still shopping for a DSLR at this point and comparing various systems for what I want. They all look quite similiar so far. One thing I found is that Nikon can use it's pop-up flash as a master flash, so maybe you save a few bucks on lighting compared to Canon, but otherwise it's looking pretty close.

Michaelaw: Thanks for the input! Are you talking about this lens? (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1102/cat/15) What aperture and shutter speeds do you usually use with that lens? slrgear says that it's sharper when stopped down considerably, but of course that requires a lower shutter speed. I suppose it works well on bright sunny days.

[F8&Bthere]

Thanks for the tips guys. I checked out the Canon 70-200mm f4 and it has glowing reviews. I guess the $650 price is about as good as it gets, though ...

Well if you can get a 70-200 constant aperture f4 zoom, Canon L series lens, for $650, I'd say that's yet another example of how Canon's lens lineup is more attractive than Nikon's (to me at least). Nikon just now finally started to see the light and come to market with some lighter, less expensive f4 zooms, but you couldn't even get a used one for that price 3 years from now.


Is the Nikon 70-300 basically the Canon 70-200's equivalent?

Not if the Canon 70 - 200 is an L lens, constant f4. Nikon's is variable aperture 4 - 5.6 and more like a kit lens in construction quality. L lenses are Canons premium grade. I don't know, but I doubt even optically they are in same league.


I guess there is no free lunch.

You got that right. :)


...One other thing I hadn't looked into is possibly getting a telephoto m42 or Leica M mount lens for a micro four thirds camera. Having to manually pre-focus would be more work, but perhaps I'd get an edge in terms of optics and weight?

The physical/optical limitations of lens design always means there is a tradeoff somewhere. If you don't mind giving up small birds/distant birds and just want one long-ish zoom with great optics to do a bit of everything, something like a 70-200/f4 zoom would be sound consideration. And because it's f4 you could probably add a teleconverter and maintain decent AF performance.


One thing I found is that Nikon can use it's pop-up flash as a master flash, so maybe you save a few bucks on lighting compared to Canon, but otherwise it's looking pretty close.

This is cool, but Pentax also offers this on some models, and Canon has on the 7D and probably will on most future models as well. Probably other brands offer it too (Sony, Olympus) but I am less familiar with those.

[masp]

Not if the Canon 70 - 200 is an L lens, constant f4. Nikon's is variable aperture 4 - 5.6 and more like a kit lens in construction quality. L lenses are Canons premium grade. I don't know, but I doubt even optically they are in same league.

I see what you mean here. I guess it's still true that Canon still has a slight edge in telephotos.

What sort of monitor or printing setup do you use with a Canon 70-200/f4? My stuff is only mediocre in that respect, so I wonder how much detail I will actually be able to see. Do you use your own printer or a professional service?

Anyway, I"m comparing birds 70-200mm canon l - Flickr: Search (http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=birds+70-200mm+canon+l&m=text) and birds 70-300 olympus - Flickr: Search (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=birds+70-300+olympus) right now, I don't see a massive difference, but I'll see if I can track down better example shots. Then again, maybe it's my monitor too.

[F8&Bthere]

I see what you mean here. I guess it's still true that Canon still has a slight edge in telephotos.


Well all I was thinking is that even though I'm a Nikon shooter I think Canon has a good selection of lenses and the prices of their higher end lenses are quite attractive in comparison. Nikon has some great glass too, but to be fair it's hard to compare a consumer grade lens from one brand to a premium lens of another. I think all the major brands have some great lenses.

[masp]

Hmm, so as a Nikon shooter, which lenses in Nikon's have you found to have a great price/performance ratio?

I'm also curious about the 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras. I'm still trying to decide between the three choices. The E-520 kit comes with in body IS and a 70-300mm lens for $700 right now, which is probably the best deal available in terms of price to telephoto range. The bundled 4/3 lenses do seem to be better built if slightly more expensive than their competition, which seems like a good place to get started. I'm just a bit concerned that four thirds will be abandoned as the manufacturers move to micro four thirds instead.

[F8&Bthere]

Hmm, so as a Nikon shooter, which lenses in Nikon's have you found to have a great price/performance ratio?


50/1.8, 18-70/3.5-4.5, 55-200/4-5.6VR, 85/1.8 are all lenses I own that are quite good for the price. They may be sharp, and compact, but all compromises either in that they are normal length primes or consumer grade speed and build quality. Like you said, there's no free lunch. So anything that is longer, faster, sturdier, especially any of those characteristics in combination with a zoom, is going to start getting quite pricey with Nikon.

[Wicked Dark]

Olympus is not abandoning 4/3rds. Why would they?

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/olympus_four_thirds_not_going_mirrorless_official_ news_295946.html

Olympus still committed to Four Thirds DSLRs: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022303olympus43DSLR.asp)

Olympus standard grade lenses are the best in class. Sharp, well built and quick. Their mid-grade lenses are the best overall value out there. No premium paid for the label or a special color. Their legacy glass shines as well. I wouldn't use any of it if it wasn't superb.

The 520 kit gets rave reviews from Olympus users all the time as does the 70-300 by itself. Search this group if you want opinions and image examples -

Flickr: Olympus E-System Community (http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusesystem/)

In body IS has been great for me as I can use the technology with virtually any lens that will mount (with adapters you can use Nikon, Olympus and Leica legacy glass, even Minolta and some others). I've had Oly digitals for years and have yet to have dust on my sensor - that technology really works. Price points for all gear are fair and excellent in value. Even entry level cameras feature new technology and improvements - they don't just put them on the high end bodies. There are lots of body choices for different ergonomics and styling. There's a lot for a vanguard to choose from here.

[Fortytwo]

The whole fuss about the 4/3 system began when an Olympus official announced that they were going mirrorless within two years. That fired up the gossip about them abbandoning the 4/3 system to focus on micro 4/3. Olympus now denies this off course.

But it isn't that bad, when you really think about it. Without the mirror, a lot is possible.

The mirror is what's keeping the flagship Canon 1D mkIV from reaching more than 10fps. If Olympus made a mirrorless professional camera, they could easily go to 60fps. How about that for fast shooting!
Shutterlife has no meaning if you don't have a mirror etc. Your camera could last for 100.000.000 frames easily! No moving parts equals reliable camera.
So, even if Olympus does go mirrorless, I would fear to much. Unless I was working for Canon, or Nikon etc...

[Wicked Dark]

I've heard speculation that the reason they don't and/or can't is because they can't get the focus mechanism to work right without a mirror. But Olympus is widely known for engineering first; bringing innovation to their sectors so who knows...they just might figure it out.

[Wicked Dark]

A new 70-300 appreciation thread has started with plenty of photos (even birds!) -

Flickr: Discussing An updated 70-300mm favourite shots thread for me... in Olympus E-System Community (http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusesystem/discuss/72157623529525307/)

[masp]

Oooh shiny. :D The shots from that flickr group are excellent. Particularly the horseback rider (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_asim/4120723484/), the boat, and the squirrel... amazing shots for consumer priced gear. This linked shot at 600mm (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marctonysmith/2791776444/in/photostream/) equiv. and this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marctonysmith/2823914254/in/photostream/) are quite impressive. Not sure how if it looks good when pixel peeping, but it's pretty darn good for it's price and size class. How sharp would you rate such shots compared to the competition? Granted, the shutter seems a little slow considering the focal length, so maybe it's not entirely the lens.

Only downside I have read about is the rotating front element on the Olympus 70-300mm, which unscrews your filters when you focus. Do you find that a problem with your lens, or have you found a workaround? I think I would like to use a polarizer on on the 70-300mm if I get it, which might be particularly difficult. There's speculation about a 100-300mm, but it's hard to know how much it will eventually sell for or it's size or weight. Probably more of all three though.

The 70-300mm does seem like the best deal going as far as a beginning telephoto setup though. A 600mm reach and it is so light compared to the other options. Canon seems to come in second with it's 70-200mm which is probably sharper, but only reaches out to 300mm. I guess it's possible to nitpick about the quality of bokeh and stuff, but if you get the right distance and angle, maybe it doesn't really matter that much. I guess you've mostly got me sold on the 4/3 system. It does seem like a great value for photographing birds and it seems like I can use older Pentax and Nikon lenses and perhaps other lenses with the right adapter too. What's interesting is that when I was considering an entry level Nikon, I would have to manually focus if using an older 50mm f/1.8 the same way a 4/3 camera would.

[Hillbillygirl]

One point that no-one seems to be pointing out is the fact that your Tc will also take away light gathering abilities also, and no matter what, it will degrade the image slightly.Try taking a shot of small birds under canopy of trees in shade with such slow lenses and you will be very disappointed.
On your 4-5.6 lens a 1.4X Tc will make it a 5.6-7.84 aperature and you will only have manual focus on most bodies on any aperature over 5.6 with a TC attached.
I would only recommend using a Tc with the highest quality glass. (speaking from experience here).We use both 1.4x and 2x Tc on both our super-telephoto lenses but they are the 300 f2.8L, and the 500 f4L glass which are at the top of the heap in IQ.
I would recommend you take a look here, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php, real reviews from owners of all lenses.
Hope this helps.

[Wicked Dark]

very true hbg, use of a teleconverter will degrade image quality. I wonder what the person went with in the end.

[ArtTwisted]

for Canon, the 70-200 F4, for nikon the 70-300 VR.

[Pharaoh]

I'd say look at the Sigma 120-400mm. From what I have seen, price to performance, it's definitely worth a peak.

[FredS]

I can vouch for the quality of the Zuiko 70-300mm as I shot with it for a couple of years using an E-510 and E-3. I have never owned a sharper lens. If you go to my Photoblog in my sig and go to the archives July 2009 and earlier are some examples of work done with this lens. Pretty much all the bird and animal shots are using this lens.

I second that.
This was taken my me ( Very inexperienced ) with E -520 with 70-300
Very little sharpening in Picasa and re-size

[Bambi]

nice. do you have one with the full reflection?

[FredS]

nice. do you have one with the full reflection?

No Sorry I do not have any. I never thought of that when I was shooting the Goose . Would of been a nicer picture.