What focal length lens for Bharatpur?
- Thread starter NGUHA
- Start date
Robin W
Senior Member
It should be, if you can get close enough to your subject. Of course the closer you are always means more detail.
Clovishound
Senior Member
Most of the members here are from the USA, and likely have never been to this park, and won't know things specific to it.
Having said that, 600mm is generally a good focal length for most bird photography. An 800mm is helpful when either you cannot get close enough to the birds, or they are very small. Most birders are looking for longer focal lengths, but remember there is a price to be paid for a longer lens. Generally they are more expensive, larger and heavier, smaller maximum aperture, and will require higher shutter speeds when handheld. A compromise might be to get a 600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter. When using it you will lose a stop of light and some image quality, but will have an extra 240mm of reach. I currently use a 200-500 with my full frame Z8 and sometimes wish for longer, but it is definitely adequate to the task. I will likely move up to either the 180-600 or the 600 F6.3 at some time in the future. Mostly that is to take advantage of the better quality Z lenses and not have to fool with an F to Z adapter. Getting an extra 100mm of reach is a bonus.
A high resolution sensor helps, as well. At 46 MP, I can substantially crop the image and still have 20+ MP. This is an image I took over the weekend. I was unable to get any closer to the bird without a helicopter. I shot it at 500mm and then cropped it. The first one is the full image, and the second was cropped. I lost approximately half of the image area. This smaller image still has plenty of resolution and is roughly the same as taking the image with a 24 MP sensor without cropping.
One thing that can help is to get to know the area and birds where you are shooting. I know sometimes you don't live close enough to do that, but if you can, it is very helpful. There is a park near where I live. I got an annual membership which not only allows me entry for a single annual fee, but also allows me early morning entry, when the light is nice. I have made many, many trips there in the past several years. I still have much to learn, but I now know where in the park certain birds are likely to be, and what they will be doing. This knowledge not only helps with getting more interesting images, but I also know how to get closer to the birds without scaring them off.
I look forward to seeing the images you get.
Having said that, 600mm is generally a good focal length for most bird photography. An 800mm is helpful when either you cannot get close enough to the birds, or they are very small. Most birders are looking for longer focal lengths, but remember there is a price to be paid for a longer lens. Generally they are more expensive, larger and heavier, smaller maximum aperture, and will require higher shutter speeds when handheld. A compromise might be to get a 600mm and a 1.4x teleconverter. When using it you will lose a stop of light and some image quality, but will have an extra 240mm of reach. I currently use a 200-500 with my full frame Z8 and sometimes wish for longer, but it is definitely adequate to the task. I will likely move up to either the 180-600 or the 600 F6.3 at some time in the future. Mostly that is to take advantage of the better quality Z lenses and not have to fool with an F to Z adapter. Getting an extra 100mm of reach is a bonus.
A high resolution sensor helps, as well. At 46 MP, I can substantially crop the image and still have 20+ MP. This is an image I took over the weekend. I was unable to get any closer to the bird without a helicopter. I shot it at 500mm and then cropped it. The first one is the full image, and the second was cropped. I lost approximately half of the image area. This smaller image still has plenty of resolution and is roughly the same as taking the image with a 24 MP sensor without cropping.
One thing that can help is to get to know the area and birds where you are shooting. I know sometimes you don't live close enough to do that, but if you can, it is very helpful. There is a park near where I live. I got an annual membership which not only allows me entry for a single annual fee, but also allows me early morning entry, when the light is nice. I have made many, many trips there in the past several years. I still have much to learn, but I now know where in the park certain birds are likely to be, and what they will be doing. This knowledge not only helps with getting more interesting images, but I also know how to get closer to the birds without scaring them off.
I look forward to seeing the images you get.
NGUHA
New member
Thank you for your detailed response.I have the D780 which i essentially use for larger wildlife with the Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4tc.For birds i use the Nikon z50ii with the 200-500 and recently bought Tamron 150-500.I have also used the Z50ii with the 300mm pf and 1.4tc which effectively gives a FOV of 630mm.I was just wondering whether this would suffice,the advantage being that it is an absolute lightweight combo good for hand holding for whole day photography at Bharatpur.
Clovishound
Senior Member
You should have everything pretty much covered with what you have. If you need extra reach, you could put the 200-500 on the Z50ii and have 750mm 35mm equivalent. It's a bit heavy, but will do the job. If I'm going to be having to hold the 200-500 for long periods of time, I bring a tripod.
Robin W
Senior Member
Clovishound advice is spot on.
NGUHA
New member
Nowadays i am preferring the Tamron 150-500 over the Nikon 200-500 because of it’s less weight and compact size.Still get to 750mm on the z50ii but at f6.7 instead of f5.6
Clovishound
Senior Member
What's a half a stop among friends?
I've never used, or even held the Tamron. I got the 200-500 because, at the time, there was no affordable long tele for the Z bodies. The 200-500 was considered to be an excellent performer for the money, and was reputed to work well using an FTZ. I've been very pleased with it's sharpness. I am looking to upgrade to a native Z mount lens in the future, and the 600 F6.3 has the advantage of being about a pound lighter, and somewhat shorter than the 200-500 fully extended. I'm not getting any younger and shorter and lighter is sounding better and better.
I've never used, or even held the Tamron. I got the 200-500 because, at the time, there was no affordable long tele for the Z bodies. The 200-500 was considered to be an excellent performer for the money, and was reputed to work well using an FTZ. I've been very pleased with it's sharpness. I am looking to upgrade to a native Z mount lens in the future, and the 600 F6.3 has the advantage of being about a pound lighter, and somewhat shorter than the 200-500 fully extended. I'm not getting any younger and shorter and lighter is sounding better and better.
NGUHA
New member
Exactly my sentiments.I am also not getting any younger so chose the Tamron 150-500 over the Nikon 180-600,though i still retain the 200-500.The Tamron is sharp and faster focusing than the 200-500.The only drawback(if that is considered a drawback) the VR on the 200-500 is better.