jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

What do most of you use for birding -- a zoom or prime lens? What do you find to be the "best" focal length for a lens used primarily for wildlife, esp. birding?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It depends ... What birds, what location, what camera, what budget?

Certainly, there is no universal 'best', only 'more' is always better and 'better' starts at 400mm for all sensor sizes.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

You rarely hear a bird photographer say that he[she] has too much reach.

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

What camera are you using?

I use a full frame camera and use a 150-600 Sigma Sport, but prior to this, my go to lens was a Nikkor 600mmF4. I got the Sigma for three reasons - light enough to hand-hold, stabilized well enough to not need a tripod and no difference in image quality at 600mm.

I am certain that if I had an 800mm F5.6, it would most definitely be "too much reach" for about 25% of the birds I shoot. There, now you've heard it - a bird photographer saying he has "too much reach" with a long prime lens.

However, many years ago I had in my possession for a short while a Sigma 300-800 F5.6 zoom, and it was pretty amazing. Too much reach? Just zoom to a shorter focal length.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Look at some of Chg_Canon's topics for ultra-high-quality bird photos.

At almost the opposite end of the spectrum for gear, the photo below was shot with a $375 Canon SX50 at the "equivalent" focal length of 1200 mm.

I'm sure you are more interested in the upper end, but I always like to remind folks that there are alternatives to expensive and heavy that don't totally suck, at least for personal enjoyment.

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For a long time it was a Canon 100-400, untill it failed after a lot of use.
After that is was a Sigma 150-500 which my sister gave to me on an indefinite loan.

jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

I'm shooting a full-frame Nikon and can go either handheld or tripod mounted. Certainly for longer focal lengths, I'd lean toward using a tripod.

CaptainBobBrown

It really depends on your standards and budget. Your standards of acceptability will change...your budget? Many start with the longest they can afford at the lowest price because when they look at the longest prime lens from the major lens manufacturers (Canon or Nikon typically) the say "This is after all a hobby and spending $10,000+ to get 600 or 800 mm prime is out of range." I suspect my journey has been typical in that I've tried a number of different zoom lenses but after a little use found I just wasn't satisfied with sharpness, etc. and found that the primes starting at 300 mm got me the image quality I wanted but with a bit more reach I'd be happier. Most recently I've found that the Nikon 500 mm 5.6 PF prime is my go to lens for birds, in particular birds in flight because it is light enough for decent hand holding, can be carried all day on a monopod comfortably and delivers sharpness and detail, color rendition across the frame and has superb vibration reduction which is vital for handheld use. I do find that trying to take pictures of wildlife at a distance is problematic in any case due to atmospherics so going much further than 500mm is less useful. Not to say one can't get good images with lots of lesser lenses but for me a Nikon 300 to 500 prime lens is the lens of choice for birds and wildlife.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Two lenses mention regularly on this forum are the Nikon 200-500mm and the Tamron 150-600mm G2. These fall in the affordable category. Nikon is now releasing, in limited supply, a prime 500mm lens that is selling for $3600. Prime lenses, such as the 400mm f2.8, will cause some, to get another job to pay for it.

Rashid Abdu Loc: Ohio

I have Nikon 400mm f2.8, a superb lens, but a bit too heavy. I am considering selling it. I have been using Sony Rx10 Mark 4 camera with a Zeiss 24-600mm lens with good results.

jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

Thanks for the detailed, helpful response here.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I have been searching for good answers to your questions for a few years now. My current setup is a Nikon D500 with the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, Nikon 600mm f4G, along with a 1.4x teleconverter. The camera body was picked for it’s AF capability and continuous shutter speed, the glass was picked for IQ and reach. I take the majority of my shots with the 200-500mm lens, especially BIF, but you can see a significant improvement in IQ with the 600mm prime.

I have been seeing a lot of really good reviews for the new Sony 200-600mm lens (and Sony glass in general), and might just change my system when Sony’s AF system catches up to Nikon’s AF system.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It depends on what you're shooting, but overall, anything is too short. I myself use a 400/5.6 a lot (again, too short), because that can hang around my neck all day long without me knowing its even there. Its has absolutely no weight, so one can hand hold it for eternity!

ggab Loc: ?

For what it's worth:

I currently use a 100-400 IS L USM II with a 7D MK II hand held and either a 150-600 G2 or 300 f/2.8, 1.4 and/or 2x extender with 5D MK II on a gimbal mount.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I have seen the Canon L version of the 400mm f2.8. Yes, it is hefty in weight. A $9500 lens.