Bird newbie asking about affordable lens for such (Page 3): I used the Nikon 55-300 in Antarctica and got beautiful pix of penguins and seals. It worked well in the harsh weather...

skipwv Loc: West Virginia

I used the Nikon 55-300 in Antarctica and got beautiful pix of penguins and seals. It worked well in the harsh weather conditions and stayed on my D5300 for the whole trip. I also had a D5000 with the 18-55 on it for land- and seascapes. I now have a D7200 with the Sigma 18-300 but still have the other two and use them occasionally. I think they actually are a bit better than the Sigma, except for the difference in zoom range. Good luck birding!

haren

kpmac wrote:

Once you start birding you won't be happy with 300mm or less, Joe. Save up for the lens you want. I have an older Sigma 150-500 that I am thinking of selling. PM me if you think you might be interested. It would fit your budget but I'm not sure about selling it yet.

If he dosen't want it I am sure interested ..thanks

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

RWR wrote:

If you’re a good photoshopper either of your lenses ought to suffice.

Photoshop is great, but it won't turn a lens that is not it's best at maximum focal length into one that is. That kind of tech magic hasn't arrived yet.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

uhaas2009 wrote:

I bought some use, some out the pawn shop and yes I had a learning curb too. The best advice I have is to read the reviews in eBay and Ken Rockwell give some good advice too. I got the 70-300 VR5.6 where the focus engine broke, I fixed this lens for about $190 but they used a new model engine ( Nikon had to many old engines what wasn’t the right one for this lens...

Better, more reliable sources for lens reviews are:

https://photographylife.com/
https://www.opticallimits.com/
https://www.fredmiranda.com/
https://www.dxomark.com/category/lens-reviews/

The last place I'd go to would be customer reviews from Amazon or eBay, and Ken Rockwell.

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

Gene51 wrote:

$500 is going to be tough. Unless you plan to hand... (show quote)

Excellent bird pics. Good gear counts, but It's always how well you use it more than camera brands and luring fads. PP technique helps a lot too. Your pics really deliver.

Amator21 Loc: California

CO wrote:

You'll want at least a 400mm lens. I would recommend the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD lens for $799. It's a little more than the $500 you want to spend but it's worth it. I was using one on my Nikon D7500 last summer at an airshow. I was very impressed with it. It's fully weather sealed and has vibration compensation. Here's a photo I took with it on my D7500.

Speaks well for the lens!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

joer wrote:

I prefer a 400mm in bright light for birds but many of the shots I have posted are with a 135mm...of course I'm cropping heavily with a high MP camera. Don't be limited by conventional thinking.

Here is an example.

You must be quite close with 135mm, no?

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Gene51 wrote:

Better, more reliable sources for lens reviews are:

https://photographylife.com/
https://www.opticallimits.com/
https://www.fredmiranda.com/
https://www.dxomark.com/category/lens-reviews/

The last place I'd go to would be customer reviews from Amazon or eBay, and Ken Rockwell.

Thank you, Gene!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

skipwv wrote:

I used the Nikon 55-300 in Antarctica and got beautiful pix of penguins and seals. It worked well in the harsh weather conditions and stayed on my D5300 for the whole trip. I also had a D5000 with the 18-55 on it for land- and seascapes. I now have a D7200 with the Sigma 18-300 but still have the other two and use them occasionally. I think they actually are a bit better than the Sigma, except for the difference in zoom range. Good luck birding!

Thank you, Skip!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

DanielB wrote:

I agree - for birding you want at least a 400mm. If your just birding from the back yard then maybe 200-300mm is okay. I shoot Canon R & R5 with either my 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L II for close in birds or my new RF 800mm f11 IS prime to reach out.

Thank you, Dan!

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

joecichjr wrote:

I have seen so many magnificent bird photos here, ... (show quote)

I had a 150 500 sigma for awhile. I bought it CHEAP because the autofocus was bad. I sent it to sigma and told them what I was shooting it on. 126.00 dollars later it came back and worked GREAT AND WAS SHARP AS A TACK. Maybe an option. They can be had cheap.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

haren wrote:

If he dosen't want it I am sure interested ..thanks

Do it. I know it's going to take me a good while!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

ggttc wrote:

I had this lens and it will serve you well. You might look at a tamron 150 600 G I there is a newer model but I havent had any complaints with mine.

Thanks GG!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

joecichjr wrote:

I have seen so many magnificent bird photos here, ... (show quote)

I am sure is will be in a total different direction than other suggestions. Go to Keh Camera or the used section of Adorama and B&H Photo. Look for an older Olympus body, preferably 20mp, and look for an older zoom lens that the upper end is 150mm to 300mm (300mm to 600mm in 35mm angle of view). You should be able to find a body and lens than will meet your $500 limit and will save a lot of weight. That way, for your longer shots, they will be done using the secondary system which you can have at the ready all the time.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Gene51 wrote:

Photoshop is great, but it won't turn a lens that is not it's best at maximum focal length into one that is. That kind of tech magic hasn't arrived yet.

Even so, some before and after examples using the latest software look pretty darn impressive to me!