what is the best nikon lens for bird pictures

[derek68]

just trying to find out what other members views on what the best nikon lens for bird pictures i have a nikon d300s and a sigma 150mm-500mm lens but would like to get a nikon brand any help would do

[kiwi]

600 f/4 I'd say


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

400 f/2.8 I'd say

in real world terms.. currently an AF-S 300mm f/4 would be hard to beat for usability, price, and value for money

[chamellieon]

Nikon 80-400 (not sure what the other specs are)

[kiwi]

ok, if $ no issue, I reckon

600 f/4
500 f/4
400 2.8 with 1.4tc
300 2.8 with 1.7tc
200-400 f/4
300 f/4
80-400
70-200 with 2x tc
........
70-300 vr

In that order, but I'm happy to debate, lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NikonUser]

If you can handle the weight then nothing beats the 600/4. If you want something lighter then the 500/4 is also a great option.

[derek68]

thank you i was looking at 400mm 2.8 but some reviews were saying it was to heavy to use for birding

[kiwi]

thank you i was looking at 400mm 2.8 but some reviews were saying it was to heavy to use for birding

It's not so much that it's heavy, compared to the 600 it's about the same. It's that it's front heavy due to the size of the front element. I have one

The 500 is very hand holdable and light in comparison and also takes the tcs well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

In the real world (i.e., if you are spending less than $3000 on the lens), your best current choice for a Nikon body is the Sigma 150-500.

• 600/4 VR - superb but incredibly heavy and over $15,000
• 500/4 VR - vastly more practical but still very heavy and $13,000
• 400/2.8 VR - too short for most bird work, really a rainforest specialist item. Incredibly heavy and difficult to work with, over $13,000
• 200-400/4 VR - excellent lens, but a bit short and very heavy for a 400/4. At almost $10,000 it is very, very expensive for what it is.
• 300 2.8 VR - really too short for birding. Almost unusable without a teleconverter. But very practical if you can accept the idea of buying a lens that doesn't do what you need without adding extra glass - not really a great starting point. Quite heavy. $8000 plus teleconverters.
• 300/4 VR. There isn't one! Go figure.
• 400/5.6 VR. There isn't one! Go figure.
• 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR. Nice glass let down by the very low-tech focus mechanism. For birding you need fast, accurate focus. No ifs or buts, it is something you need. Around $2,500 but you'd do better with a Sigma 150-500.

If you want something better than the 150-500, your best plan is to switch to Canon for the elderly but still class-leading 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS - by far the most popular birding lens in the country. If you are going for the big iron (500/4 or 600/4) then Canon is a far better choice at present. But if you are patient and can hold on to your Sigma for a while longer, Nikkor should bring out some decent semi-affordable birding glass any year now. They have to - they can't go on as they are now, and the new aggressive Nikon have been bringing out lots of great new glass these last three years or so, it's has to be a good bet that a 400/5.6 VR or a new 80-400 isn't too far away.


Sent from my computer using a keyboard and a brain.

[Wayne]

I say AF-S 600/4 or AF-S400/2.8 VR with 1.7TC (dual use as sports lens)

[Sar NOP]

The 600 VR is the "King" for general birding, especially small birds. It's heavy to carry around and to set up, but what a superb glass ! It really loves TCs, even the new aspherical 2x.
I love the 200-400 VR for bird in flight and close range shooting, but it doesn't like to work with TCs.

[kiwi]

The 600 VR is the "King" for general birding, especially small birds. It's heavy to carry around and to set up, but what a superb glass ! It really loves TCs, even the new aspherical 2x.
I love the 200-400 VR for bird in flight and close range shooting, but it doesn't like to work with TCs.

Yip, my mate with a 600 is getting very nice results with the new 2x, also on the 70-200 making it a pretty useful 140-400 full frame

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harrier]

What is wrong with the Sigma?

[Sar NOP]

Yip, my mate with a 600 is getting very nice results with the new 2x, also on the 70-200 making it a pretty useful 140-400 full frame

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, the TC-20EIII is an amazing 2x converter :

600 VR+TC-20EIII




70-200 VRI+TC-20EIII

[Tannin]

Sigh ..... very impressive pictures, Sar, but they do not constitute evidence of the quality of the teleconverter. They merely provide evidence of your skill as a photographer (something we already knew about). There is no reason at all why you couldn't take these same shots using a different lens and a different teleconverter for the same results we see here.

[kiwi]

Sigh ..... very impressive pictures, Sar, but they do not constitute evidence of the quality of the teleconverter. They merely provide evidence of your skill as a photographer (something we already knew about). There is no reason at all why you couldn't take these same shots using a different lens and a different teleconverter for the same results we see here.

Even with the older 2x tc?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

Can't speak for the older Nikon TC but Sar's shots are the same sort of result I'd expect (and get) from my 500/4 and the Canon 2X teleconverter. (Samples on my website if you can be bothered looking at them.) People say the Kenko Pro 2X is very good too, but I've never used it myself, so I can't comment from experience.

[kiwi]

My experience is that my 1.7 isn't great unless it's stopped down, it's pretty average wide open on my 400

I have a kenko 1.4 which is sharp

I have an old manual mc7 kenko 2x that has all the magic of the bottom of a coke bottle

I did borrow an older nikon 2x tc ii and thought it pretty average also, but can't recall whether it was worse than 1.7 wide open

[JorgD]

Does Nikon still AF at f8 or do you end up manually focusing everything when you have a 600 f4 with a 2x converter? Just wondering, as I am a Canon user and find that my cameras don't AF at f8. I believe the 1D can, but I don't have one of those.

[Tannin]

In the Canon world, Jorg, it's only the cheap bodies that don't AF at f/8. (XXXd , XXd, and both 5Ds.) All Canon pro bodies (1D and 1Ds) do AF at f/8.

I can't remember about the 7D - which I should be able to, as I own one, along with an f/4 lens and a 2X converter.

In reality, the extra resolution of that wonderful 7D sensor, matched with the accuracy of its truly excellent AF system, means that I've never yet been tempted to put the 2X converter on the 7D. I'm sure I must have looked that up once. Can't remember a thing about it.

As I have written about at length somewhere ere here, auofocus system f-stop limits are not the simple things to change that they might appear to be. It's a major design decision requiring non-trivial tradeoffs that no camera maker would take lightly.

In any case, the question really isn't that important. 2X converters are right on the ragged edge of usability and are not something that anyone in their right mind would rely on as a major part of their kit.

With a top-quality high-speed lens - a 400/4 for example - a sensible rule is:

• Bare lens: best practice
• 1.4 converter: if you must
• 2X converter: if you are desperate
• 3X converter: if you have no clue

With a semi-affordable lens such as a 400/.5.6:

• Bare lens: best practice
• 1.4X converter: if you are desperate
• 2X converter: if you have no clue
• 3X converter: if you have no brain