Any Birders Here?

[RattyMouse]

Any folks shooting Nikon manual focus lenses here regularly photograph birds? In my new environment, there will be a huge number of birds in the area and I'm thinking about maybe picking up a large telephoto lens for my Nikon camera. The AIS lenses are not that expensive and it seems like an interesting angle to move towards with my photography. No more endless Asian street photos to shoot!

Question is: Is shooting birds with manual focus glass so difficult that it isnt any fun? Obviously in-flight shots are supremely difficult so that's not going to be my focus. With a 500mm lens, in-flight shots won't be so necessary as I can shoot the birds from a decent distance away without them being aware of me.

Good? Bad idea?

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[darkosaric]

I was using cheap 2x teleconverter with 200mm non AI lens. It was not a problem for birds (they were not disturbed with shutter sound), and focusing was ok. What was not ok was bad quality of teleconverter (you should get a good one if you plan to do so) - and you need 1/1000s (or minimum 1/500), and often there is not enough light (do you like Ilford delta 3200 ? ).

 

[RattyMouse]

I was using cheap 2x teleconverter with 200mm non AI lens. It was not a problem for birds (they were not disturbed with shutter sound), and focusing was ok. What was not ok was bad quality of teleconverter (you should get a good one if you plan to do so) - and you need 1/1000s (or minimum 1/500), and often there is not enough light (do you like Ilford delta 3200 ? ).

I want maximum IQ so a teleconverter is not interesting to me. The Nikon 400mm and 500mm lenses fit my price range so reach should be OK. I'm not sure I would shoot Delta 3200 but maybe after trying lower speed films I would go higher.

 

[cuthbert]

Any folks shooting Nikon manual focus lenses here regularly photograph birds? In my new environment, there will be a huge number of birds in the area and I'm thinking about maybe picking up a large telephoto lens for my Nikon camera. The AIS lenses are not that expensive and it seems like an interesting angle to move towards with my photography. No more endless Asian street photos to shoot!

Question is: Is shooting birds with manual focus glass so difficult that it isnt any fun? Obviously in-flight shots are supremely difficult so that's not going to be my focus. With a 500mm lens, in-flight shots won't be so necessary as I can shoot the birds from a decent distance away without them being aware of me.

Good? Bad idea?

Thanks for the feedback!

I do them...but are you talking about birds in flight or on the ground? Of course the former is harder but not impossible:

I prefer to shoot at hyperfocal range with relatively short lenses (200-300) if there is enough light USUALLY I get them.

For this one I used a F2AS with the standard 50mm as I didn't know there would have been a falconry show.

This one had the same problem but I was capable to pre-focus and the DOF was enough.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I don't consider my self a birder I do shoot wildlife including birds with MF and AF lens. For the most part I shoot with either a 300 or 400 MF or 100 to 300 AF zoom on a Pentax PZ1. Shooting with MF in the wild I am usually at infinity, AF makes no difference , but shooting on my patio I use the 100 to 300 AF zoom as the birds are very close. If I use the 400mm 5.6 I need an short extension tube as the birds are too close for that lens, or need to shoot with my Sigma SA9 with the Sigma 70 to 300 with Macro.

If you are a Nikon shooter then you may to consider a N90 and a good AF long zoom.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I was a very serious and avid birdwatcher from age 14 to my late-20's or so, and a smattering of such since (once a birder always a birder). I'm 52 now. Used to lead Xmas bird count groups, took birding trips to SE Arizona in my search for coppery-tailed trogons, various Mexican hummingbirds and the like in the Chiracahua, Huachuca, and Santa Rita mountains, Salton Sea for rare lost seabirds, and very often out to Point Reyes in the spring and fall looking for eastern bird vagrants and such, etc. Chased "lifers" all the time. My life list got into the high 500's at least.

My first serious SLR camera was bought in 1977 with photographing birds in mind. Unfortunately my fairly meager Bar Mitzvah loot did not get me too much, a Pentax K1000 and a Vivitar 200/4 lens and 2x converter was all I could afford for my tele bird work. I lusted to produce photographs like Eliot Porter. Was soon disappointed on how hard it was especially with fairly slow slide films and an f/4 lens let alone with a 2x converter! Since then I've evolved more into a cityscape and landscape photographer, primarily B&W and leave the bird and wildlife work to others. Besides going that route these days I think digital is so much more suited for bird and wildlife work, but that's just my opinion from afar.

Give it a try, your personal incentives and purpose will guide your enthusiasm and work ethic for whatever reward you're after in this line of photography. Perhaps start with a tripod at the seashore near a large mudflat, sit yourself down and stay still and quiet. After a while the birds settle down and forget you're there and some very nice work can be had. Might be easier to get some nice stuff that way to fire up the loins.

 

[Fixcinater]

Just found this looking for birding info. How have you been getting on?

I've got a Tamron 60B (300mm f/2.8) and with the Tamron 2X TC at 600mm, it is hand-holdable and yet long enough for some bird work with 400 speed film. 300mm would require getting very close, something I don't have the patience for at this time.

I also have a Canon FL 1200mm and that is OK but the closest focusing distance on that is so far away that I end up needing extension tubes for birding work, which slows the process even more and restricts subjects further.

 

[Arvee]

My wife is an avid birder and uses both a Canon DSLR and, for casual work, a Canon SX50. Here's a couple of retired locals we know that photograph full time in Utah and have extraordinary websites:

http://www.onthewingphotography.com/wings/

http://www.featheredphotography.com/blog/

You can get a pretty good idea from these websites what equipment is needed to achieve these kinds of results.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although not a brider I do shoot wildlife, in manual focus there are few 3rd party lens that stopped down to F8 are sharp enough, Vivtiar 300 5.6 Soligiar 400 6.3. In AF Tonkia 400 5.6 is a good lens stopped down to F 8.

 

[nsurit]

I've done a bit of birding with the Tamron SP 300 mm and 400mm lenses. Big fast lenses are a must if you are working when the light is best. A good tripod is essential. Bill Barber

 

[Nokton48]

Here's my birding rig. Minolta SRM, 400mm f5.6 Apo Rokkor w/ Minolta Apo-2X, Gimbal Head, Zone VI lightweight tripod.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Haven't been birding so much lately, but I've gone through fairly active birding phases. Generally, the idea is to have one piece of big glass in the 500-800mm range for portraits and a handholdable 400mm around f:4-5.6 for flight shots. For portraits, manual focus is more useful usually than autofocus, because the DOF range is so thin wide open or close to wide open, though you can certainly work with autofocus if you don't mind focusing and repositioning as needed.

AF can make flight shots easier, but no matter how you do it, the percentage of keepers in bird photography is small, so you need to shoot a lot of film and make a lot of shots you think are redundant, because when you look at them all on the slide table under a loupe, many of the ones you thought were perfect in the viewfinder won't be (i.e., some will be a little unsharp, have subject movement, bird will turn its head and lose the catchlight, twig disrupts composition, etc.). As a fairly conservative shooter, I might use 6-8 rolls in a morning or afternoon of bird photography, and I suspect that 12 rolls is more the norm, from what I would generally see other bird photographers doing when they were mostly still shooting film.

If you go to my terribly out-of-date photo website and click on the mute swan, you'll get to a bird gallery from when I was doing more birding, and there's a brief technical note linked at the bottom of the left-hand sidebar-- http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo/

 

[John Koehrer]

Considering how many successful bird shooters(!) there were in the manual focus era. I doubt they tried to focus
every shot.
So,should I say it?
What the heck.....prefocus! 50' is about 3 1/2 car lengths, 100' twice that then it's infinity.
Don't forget to pan.

 

[cuthbert]

Here's my birding rig. Minolta SRM, 400mm f5.6 Apo Rokkor w/ Minolta Apo-2X, Gimbal Head, Zone VI lightweight tripod. View attachment 160315

The birds escape scared by that kind of anti-tank weapon!

Considering how many successful bird shooters(!) there were in the manual focus era. I doubt they tried to focus
every shot.
So,should I say it?
What the heck.....prefocus! 50' is about 3 1/2 car lengths, 100' twice that then it's infinity.
Don't forget to pan.

Pre focus or if you don't have a reference shooting at hyperfocal is quite handy especially with fast film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Considering how many successful bird shooters(!) there were in the manual focus era. I doubt they tried to focus
every shot.
So,should I say it?
What the heck.....prefocus! 50' is about 3 1/2 car lengths, 100' twice that then it's infinity.
Don't forget to pan.

Maybe for a flight shot, but still it's prefocus, pan, then when the bird seems to be in the slot, press the shutter.

For a bird portrait, 50' is usually too far to be interesting, so you're often trying to be at around 15', where you're doing what's essentially a macro shot wide open with slow to medium speed film and a moving subject, and you've got to focus.

 

[pentaxuser]

Is that Warwick Castle in the third colour shot, Cuthbert?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This is a zoo shot - actually a smartphone photo of a print.

The Bald Eagle was about 20' away, half shade, half sun. Shot with a Nikon F2 Photomic (not metered - no battery) and a 300mm f/4.5 pre-AI Nikkor. Kodak 200 film, f/5.6 and 1/60, handheld.

It was hard to get this because of the angle - my split prism kept going dark and so focusing was difficult.

 

[cuthbert]

Is that Warwick Castle in the third colour shot, Cuthbert?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes it is. They often have falconry shows, but I wasn't aware and I went there just with a 50mm to shoot some architecture. Number 2 is also at the castle but with another camera (Nikon F2AS).

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is possible. I use a 500mm lens with and without a 2X extender with the Hasselblad. This requires the use of a tripod, prefocusing on an area and being patient, just like taking sports photographs.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

I go out photographing birds at least once a month, with medium format, digital and I am starting with large format. MF and LF require more preparation and less focal length; with 35 mm (until 2009) and digital I use lenses between
300 mm - 600 mm. I still use my Manual Tamron 300 mm/2.8 and a 300 mm on my Pentax 67, both on a tripod, either from a blind or to photograph wildlife at feeding stations.
Since I photograph a lot under closed canopy, manual focus is a must. I spend a lot of time getting to know the bird's behaviour, which translates into shorter lenses and the possibility of manual focus. I work a lot with hummingbirds in flight and that is also manual focus work.