abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I have the Sigma 150-600 C on a Canon 80D and it focuses very, very quickly. When shooting birds, the issue becomes whether you use a spot or fully automatic focusing method. With the former, the camera will hunt unless you are, excuse the paronomasia, spot on. One might thing focusing is slow or inaccurate but the problem is the user. Try a fuller focusing pattern.

wetreed

Good point

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I have read all the posts and here is my recommendation for OP. Replace that 40D. I have compared its pictures to those from my 80D and the difference is stunning. That alone should be enough to merit upgrading but also the 80D has more and better features that most photographers do, in fact, use.

Before I bought my Sigma 150-600 C, I owned about 5 other lenses with which I tried to do birds. The bottom line is that contrary to what the other respected photographers have posted, I do not know how you can use anything shorter than 600 for pictures in the wild. If you cannot afford a new current Sigma or Tamron model, then look for a used one or for a new or used 600 prime. And for best results, use a tripod. Any of these lenses is heavy so get a tripod that will take the weight.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Thank you. I have spent so much money on lenses that I hoped would do the job and were "good deals" only to learn that bargains are indeed few and far in between. I now decide what is the appropriate lens for the job and then bite the bullet dollar-wise. No more regrets and reselling my white elephants. Just a lot of satisfaction with the results.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hope you plan to send some funds to go with this expert recommendation ...

The OP's 40D body may be long in the tooth, limited in the number of AF points and megapixels, but this advanced EOS body is plenty capable for BIF photography while the OP is currently limited to 250mm on a lens. The lens issue is the first to address as it applies to any body mounted behind the lens. Should the OP find opportunities continue to exist for AF performance and / or burst speed and / or lower light after employing a longer lens and good technique with AI servo on the 40D, then a detailed analysis of available bodies would be the next logical step.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

In many locations a 600 is TOO long. For instance, Wakodahatchee wetlands birds are many times too close for a 600. I have seen guys take their 600's back to their cars in favor of lessor primes and zooms. And in many locations birds in flight are sometimes to close for a 600. Besides being very difficult to shoot (because of the weight) you will also have to lug around a tripod, which limits your ability to shoot birds in flight and make it very difficult to carry around. Besides, in many locations you only have a board walk, setting up a tripod can infringe upon others, especially wheel chairs and baby carriers.
I have personally found a zoom to be much better, as you recommend a 150-600.

agillot

Small birds with a somewhat low MP camera , require a large lens .i find that a 800 with 12 MP is almost adequate .a 125 /600 tamron or sigma would be a good start .

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...I have developed a liking for birding. Was at a wildlife refuge in Delray Beach, Fl recently and shot a few with a Canon 40D and 55-250 EFSll. I need more range..." Really? royden some the finest professional photographs of Aves have been taken with far less focal length... These professionals know their subject and get closer i.e. shoot from baited blinds... This is likely one of the absolute best ways of obtaining "commercial quality" captures of Aves...

Below for your perusal are images of Archilochus colubris (female & male) taken at approximately 3.8 feet with a $200 white box Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED Lens on a Nikon D7100. This entire kit is currently selling (used, in good condition) for less than your budget for a lens... Yes these birds were baited and shot from a blind... Personally I hold that only fools chase after birds like a dog after it's prey... ever watch a cat hunt? they get close... really close... lessons learned...

That said there seems to be an overwhelming "Alpha Male" hunter mindset amongst "birders" (driven by camera marketers?) who seem compelled to arm themselves with outrageously long and heavy optics (phallic symbols?)... What are they thinking?

royden if you are truly interested in commercial quality GET CLOSE! shoot from a blind and bait your subjects into range.
Learn from poachers who ubiquitously do this... I lived on a farm where the owner would shoot pheasants from their roost in trees at dusk with bolt action rifle and a single .22 caliber short... he got close... real close and rarely missed bagging his dinner... enough said...

btw, I would suggest you consider disregarding any advice from those who don't post images to support their inferences...
There seems to be a lot of "posturing" on forums i.e. regurgitation of hearsay...

And a very happy and successful year ahead...
All the best on your journey royden...

Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED

(Download)

Focal Length: 300mm; Aperture: F6.3; Shutter Speed: 1/1000 second

(Download)

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

I will be in Delray Beach on Jan 20 visiting my sister. I have been to that wildlife preserve. I am not sure which morning I am going there bu8t would be happy to meet with you there an share info and experience. Message me privately and we can communicate. Happy New Year.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I too am from the Windy City and will gladly match what you pony up with. But seriously, I understand what you say about the 40D. I shot an event with my 80D with the Sigma 28-70, f/2.8, and a "professional" used his 40D with a kit lens. Either he did not know what he was doing or the 40D lacked the color quality by far. His pictures were less sharp which I attribute to the lens. I owned the 60D and know that in comparing it to the 80D, the newer body does produce better pictures. As for your other points, I agree. You do not need a lot of bells and whistles to shoot birds. Thanks for calling me on that.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Disregarding a perceived need for a zoom for shorter focused shots, if you do due diligence in your research on the ef400 f/5.6L and believe those popular researchers who have compared it to the other choices listed, the ef400 f/5.6L will be at the top of your list, not simply "back in the mix." See https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-570116-1.html and https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-570347-1.html

EDIT: A pre-owned ef400 f/5.6L can be had on ebay for under $700

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I use a Canon 500mm f/4 IS for birding and I only say this to establish a frame of reference in that I know quality glass. I recently purchased a used 400mm f/5.6 for my son for Christmas for under $700 and was amazed by its image quality. It is a lens that you should definitely consider, it does not have IS but for BIF IS is not really important, I think that you can learn to use the lens for different situations and get more than satisfactory results. I also own a 100-400 Mk II and think that the older prime lens is probably sharper.

Selene03

I have found this to be true on many occasions. This is good advice!

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I shoot with the Canon 100_400LII and Tamron 18-400mm on my 7D2 the Canon is sharper when birding but also heavier to hike around with . I am not sure if you can micro adjust your focus on your camera but that did improve the preformance on both lenses minimal on the Canon and noticably on the Tamron . I know the Canon 100_400LII is over budget but version 1 was an excellent lens and used should be close to your target

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

My wife (with D7100) and I (with D500) both use the Sigma 100-400 - tack sharp even at 400mm; all we used on a recent birding trip to Costa Rica.

I used to be a Nikon purist not really interested in 3rd party lenses but when I found this one I was blown away and rightly so.

BTW - A friend use a Tamron 18-400 on the same trip and he was not very happy with the results - some were sharp a lot were not, especially on the 400mm end.

IMHO - 18-400 is just stretching it a bit too much...

John