Favorite wildlife lens?

[A.M.D.A.]

I'm curious to know what is everyone's favorite lens for wildlife photography – with birds in particular.

And why is that lens your favorite, is it mm's, sharpness, max f-stop, low weight, compactness, unobtrusive, etc..
--------------------
Right now I am rather limited, the lens I use more for wildlife/birds is a PENTAX-A* 300mm f4 MF-only with a PENTAX *ist D. I also use about equally a Panasonic FZ7K, it's long AF/MF tele zoom really helps. But the FZ7K yields awful results at ISO 200+.

[SmartWombat]

My only wildlife lens so far ... 300mm f/2.8
mms, sharpness, min f/stop
high weight, large, obtrusive

I want more reach 500 or 600mm

[OldClicker]

"I want more reach..." I hear that. My current 'reach' and favorite is a 70-210 f/4 beercan that I like to stay under 180mm with. It gives me great bokeh and is sharp, but it's not going to give me a satisfactory tweety bird at 30 feet.

I also have a Canon 70-200 f/4 IS that is nice, but I'm trying to wean myself off it because I was suppose to sell it when I bought the Sony in October. (Don't tell!)

TF

[Ron Kruger]

I use a 200mm f/2.8. I shoot all types of wildlife, and instead of reaching out with a slower and longer lens, I try to get closer to fill frame. If all I was shooting was tiny birds in the back yard, I'd probably want something longer. But I do most of my shooting deep in the woods, where a lot of encouters are close or not at all.
A lifetime as an avid hunter, a good knowledge of the animal or bird's natural habitat and habits and a considerable amount of patience, has taught me how to get close undetected.
The thing I like most about this lens, is that with the internal IS in my camera, and the fastness of the lens, I can get good pix hand held in all but the lowest light situations. It's very moble, extremely fast to operate and extremely sharp. I enjoy the hunting aspect of photography and rarely carry a gun or a bow any more.
The only drawback is it is heavy, but I'm strong enough to carry around a few pounds. I can carry it all day, but if I get a lot of action, my right hand does cramp a little from gripping it. I also have a different perspective about weight as well. A lot of emphisis is put on light equipment, but just as with a gun, a camera that is very light is also harder to hold steady. I've learned to be an excellent marksman, and I find shooting a camera off-hand incorporates the same principles of bracing yourself, holding your breath and lightly squeezing the trigger (shutter). So I really don't want a light lens.
I'll admit I'd love to have a 400 or 600mm f/2.8, but I don't have $8.000 to $16.000 to spend on one. I had to finance the nearly $1,000 for this one, but I think it is one of the best investments I've ever made. I've been very pleased with it.

[AgingEyes]

If the situations allow, I use mostly a 200-400 and it's because I don't have anything longer

I think being able to get close is good, but in some situations, where the birds are is inaccessible to the photographer. For example:

Some more bald eagle shots

I was shooting across a river. Across the river where the eagles are is a large area purely reserved for the eagles (could have thousands of them) during that time of the year.

IMO, it's great to learn and be able to get close, but a longer lens still give you more opportunities to shoot.

And then there's the difference perspective and the apparent shallow DOF that gives you the kind of look that only long lens could.

I personally also prefer a heavier camera. I couldn't believe what I was holding the first time I laid my hand on some of the DSLRs today.

[Ron Kruger]

To get close to shore birds, ducks and such, I use a Poke Boat. It's like a cross between a kayak and a canoe, but much more stable than either. It's made for duck hunting and the general class of these boats are called "sneak boats." It's made of kevlar and only weighs 38 pounds. It comes in drab colors, but I painted it and the paddle to camofuage it further, and I wear full camo while in it. All aminals and birds are less lerry of you when you're in the water. This rig looks like a floating log, and I look like a bump on a log, because I can maintain a very low profile. I've been able to get close enough to eagles, ducks, green herons, blue herons and even killdeer to fill frame.

[AgingEyes]

To get close to shore birds, ducks and such, I use a Poke Boat. It's like a cross between a kayak and a canoe, but much more stable than either. It's made for duck hunting and the general class of these boats are called "sneak boats." It's made of kevlar and only weighs 38 pounds. It comes in drab colors, but I painted it and the paddle to camofuage it further, and I wear full camo while in it. All aminals and birds are less lerry of you when you're in the water. This rig looks like a floating log, and I look like a bump on a log, because I can maintain a very low profile. I've been able to get close enough to eagles, ducks, green herons, blue herons and even killdeer to fill frame.

I also heard it is much easier to get closer to the birds from the water. Thanks for the info.

[A.M.D.A.]

Thanks for playing along, everyone.

Ron, interesting posts of yours... useful tips and info there.

AE, nice eagle shots! :thumbsup:

[Ron Kruger]

Anyone interested can check them out by putting "Poke Boats" in your search engine. I've had mine for over 20 years. It was one of the first models they made. I think the ones they make now only weight 24 or 26 pounds. They're really great for photography, but you have to be able to hand-hold your shots. They're almost as manueverable as a kayak (great for both streams and lakes), and as long as you sit down in one, you can't turn it over. I've had mine out in four-foot swells on Kentucky Lake.

[Ron Kruger]

I just checked out their website, and they now make Poke Boats that only weight 12 pounds, but they look a little flimsy to me. If you're interested, click on the button that says "waterfowl." That's a sturdier model that weight 22 pounds and comes in a camo pattern.

[Ron Kruger]

Here's a pix of a green back heron I got from my poke boat with a 200mm, hand-held. I got within 15 or 20 feet to get this.

[Ron Kruger]

Woops. Bear with me. I'll get the hang of it.

[Loupey]

I'm curious to know what is everyone's favourite lens for wildlife photography – with birds in particular.

For birds in particular, my favorite would be the longest/fastest lens I have which would be the 500mm f/4L IS.

But my most versatile and the biggest "bang for the buck" lens is my 300mm f/4L IS. A set of extension tubes in one coat pocket and a 2x teleconverter in the other pocket and I have a complete macro/wildlife/birding setup.

[SmartWombat]

...my most versatile and the biggest "bang for the buck" lens is my 300mm f/4L IS. A set of extension tubes in one coat pocket and a 2x teleconverter in the other pocket and I have a complete macro/wildlife/birding setup.

Except I blew the bang for buck argument, I agree.
My 300mm f/2.8 L IS and 2x goes a long way.

With the price of a 500, 600, or 800mm I am staying with the 300 for the foreseeable future.

[Dylan8i]

Im going to have to say my 60mm macro is. although once i get a chance to get out and really use my 70-200 alot it may switch to that (plus im planning on getting a 2x for it).

[mjs1973]

I would say that my favorite wildlife lens is my Sigma 170-500mm. It's by no means a great lens, but under the right conditions, and using good technique it does a very nice job. I'm sure it will be replaced with something much better in the future though.

[Eric D]

For me it Depends on what and where i am shooting. All around I would Say my 200-400mm F4 Lens (sometimes with a 1.4x T.C.) for most situations> Sometimes it is nice to have some zoom flexibility rather than just a fixed lens like a 300mm 2,8 or 500mm F4.

Happy New Year to all!!

[Jaedon]

Up until now my favourite lens for wildlife has been my Sigma 50 - 500 F6.3 simply for the reach. It is heavy (9lbs) and cumbersome but at F8 it is a gem of a lens for clarity and sharpness.

That being said however I got a Sigma 70 - 200 F2.8 for xmas that is becoming my new favourite ... although I have yet to take it into the field. The things I can see now with the aperture wide open... F2.8 over F6.3 is amazing and the clarity at f2.8 is outstanding. Having shot with the 500 handheld for so long.. weilding a 200 mm lens is a breeze.

Camera needs to go back to the shop again to have the AF fixed.... and my backup needs to go back as well with the shutter sticking. Hmmm.... one more trip with either of them after this repair and I get an upgrade =) ....need to find something wrong with the bodies again lol.

[Canon_Bob]

Easily my favorite for most birding is the 600mm f/4.....BUT...I do use at least three other lenses regularly in my birding situations: 300mm f/4L, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L, and the 70-200 f/2.8L. It's really more dependent on the environments that I'm shooting in at the time. My favoriite BIF lens is the 300mm f/4 or the 70-200 2.8. My favorite "general purpose" is the 100-400.

[Ron Kruger]

You're one of the best bird photographers I've seen, Bob. Thanks for the insights.
F/4 is pretty fast for a 600mm. Must have cost you a bundle. Is it also an IS lens?

[Canon_Bob]

You're one of the best bird photographers I've seen, Bob. Thanks for the insights.
F/4 is pretty fast for a 600mm. Must have cost you a bundle. Is it also an IS lens?

Yes, it is IS. However, most folks would be surprised at how much I turn IS off! When working in the super-telphoto world, little things can cause lack of sharpness. IS can sometimes have a tendancy to cause "focus chatter", so I often turn it off when using a very solid support, or TC's on the 600. The 600 is a big, expensive piece of glass. It is nice to say the least, but definitely not the cornerstone of great bird photography. most of my portfolio was shot with the 100-400 (you know, the one that everyone says is not capable of sharp images ). It's more about technique than equipment. Big lenses are nice, and give you more options....but there's never a substitute for getting closer to the subject.

[Ron Kruger]

Interesting. Do you think "focus chatter" with IS on is a problem of the same degree with manual focus?
My manufacturer suggest that I turn IS off when using a tripod, and I understand why, but I also know they base almost everything on the idea that the vast majority of people shoot everything with auto-focus. I rarely use AF for wildlife photography, especially in wooded areas.

[Canon_Bob]

Interesting. Do you think "focus chatter" with IS on is a problem of the same degree with manual focus?
My manufacturer suggest that I turn IS off when using a tripod, and I understand why, but I also know they base almost everything on the idea that the vast majority of people shoot everything with auto-focus. I rarely use AF for wildlife photography, especially in wooded areas.

No. It wouldn't be a problem at all with manual focus. While I recognize and respect that many folks are very good with manual focus, I think that these days auto focus (used correctly) will beat manual 99 percent of the time. I'm old school "all manual" as well, and I can say with absolute certainty that I can't out-focus the AF mode on my cameras. No way I can even come close. You just have to know how to quickly use those focusing points, and when to switch to "pattern" modes. If I were trying to work in the manual focus world, I'd miss WAY too many wildlife shots.

[Ron Kruger]

Maybe it is a problem with the focusing mechanism on my camera, but I can't trust the AF, because my main subject rarely is the only thing sticking up in the foreground, and the AF doesn't distinguish between a twig and a deer or turkey or whatever. I tried using it when I started using this camera and got a lot of sharp shots of branches, blades of grass and so forth.
It's a little different than shooting birds on the water, where the main subject is obvious against a flat, or even, background and foreground, and the contrast is difinite.
It could, however, be a problem with my camera, because about a month ago AF stopped working at all, and I guess I'm going to have to send it back.

[Canon_Bob]

Another "secret" value out there are the NON-IS versions of the 500 and 600. These can be had for half the price of a used IS model. They are VERY good glass, and are and excellent value. If you're shooting the big glass off a tripod, IS really isn't necessary. As I mentioned above, I turn mine off regularly.