That's just the wackiest thing I've ever heard. You don't mention the single most important thing in bird photography - reach. You spend all this time saying how great having having 2.8 aperture is. You might want to check what the world's leading bird photographers actually do . And it sure as he'll ain't shooting at 2.8 and 200mm. I fully realise in the right situation it will work well but to say it's the best lens choice? Holy crap. I am genuinely gob smacked.
Thanks for the feedback Mark. I think you missed a few things in the video. Specifically, "In my experience the larger lenses are limited in overall practical use in the field. Don’t get me wrong they’re great lenses but certainly not the first one you should buy" Reach is all relative. If the goal is to take a photo of a bird with good sharpness and clarity for a beginner then you might want to start with a quality sharp lens and not a mediocre one simply for reach. If your first lens as a bird photographer is a $15,000 prime then go for it, this video isn't for you. The real comparison here is between a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 150-600 f/4.5 aftermarket lenses. The difference in quality is not even close between these lenses. Professional bird photographers usually have the top of the line body and primes and that combo is $20-$30K just for one setup. Not really budget friendly for a beginner bird photographer. I've seen too many photographers struggle with image quality because they've started out with thinking reach is the number one thing. They purchase a cheap 3rd party lens slap it on an entry level body and wonder why the shots are never in focus or crisp. They're immediately disappointed in the purchase they've made and don't have the money to change gear. But hey they can say they have 600mm reach and on a crop 900mm. But the images are mostly useless. Better to grab a 100-400 and 1.4X convertor to get the reach and better image quality. But again this is about what ‘first lens’ you should buy. The point I was making in this video is that "If you’re looking to buy your first birding photography lens in 2021 buy a 70-200mm lens with an aperture of f/2.8". Regardless of the body you have this lens will not disappoint you. After that the next best lens to buy is the 100-400. The last point I’ll make from the video is try using a 150-600mm lens in less than brightly lit environments. Do some trail walking and see if you can capture a bird in the shade with this lens strapped to an entry level body. What am I saying try it on a Canon 1 DX even. You’ll need to push the ISO so high that again the image is basically useless.
@@DavidReidPhotography Just don't agree. First lens should be a 100-400. I agree that the 3rd party superzooms have marginal image quality. So I wouldn't recommend them. But reach is still the first priority. Being a couple of stops slower is not a major disadvantage with the noise performance of modern cameras. Deliberately stopping down to increase sharpness and make sure the whole subject is sharp is a very common technique. But I can't emphasise enough the fact that I wouldn't even get to put my finger on the shutter button if I only had 200 mm. Its just not a focal length that you can give a generalistic recommendation with.
It's good for backyard birding and portraits bug the reach of this lens is insufficient for wild life photography. Minimum of 400mm os needed for bird photography regardless of the aperture.
Thanks for the comment. I wouldn't say it's insufficient. All the photos and video in this video are taken with a 70-200mm lens. As a first lens it's idea to start with wildlife or bird photography. Especially before you spend $15K on a 400mm lens. Check this video out for more *comparisons of wildlife lenses* . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hiS2qXtjzfI.html
I have Sony 70-200 F2.8 and the 200-600. The 70-200 is definitely glass that every photographer should have, but for bird photography I exclusively use the 200-600. Rarely would 200 give me enough reach to get a decent size image with birds. The higher aperture is not a deal breaker with modern camera, that can still produce good images with high ISO
Thanks for your comment. Now would you say that a beginner bird photographer should purchase that large lens first? Or the 70-200 first learn more and then if you're still interested in birding purchase a larger lens?
@@DavidReidPhotography this is the video I was looking for. I need to get my first birding lens and I am leaning towards the 70-200mm f/2.8 for all the reasons you mentioned: size, weight, speed. Yeah I have to be closer, but I’ll be more likely to actually use this smaller lens.
@@vivlund I think it's a great first option. You can use it for so many other things too that it's an all round perfect lens. If birding becomes more and more important to you the SONY 100-400mm lens might be a great 2nd lens :) Enjoy!
@@DavidReidPhotography I mean a beginner will not chose a $3000 lens to begin with. (More like a vintage manual lens, just got a meyer optik orestegor 200mm f4 mint for 30 eur with shipping) for an extra $3000 would get an a7r (#) 🤣 Thanks for the tips 🍻
@@emixbase thank you. Interesting choice a manual lens for bird photography. I would interested in hearing more about your results this year. Thinking manual lenses might be a hidden gem 🙂
I’ve recently moved to Sony and was looking at picking up my first birding lens. I genuinely don’t get this argument at all. As an entry level option to bird/wildlife photography you are suggesting the 70-200 F2.8. This firstly has half the reach of what is recommended by almost all wildlife photographers but not only that this lens isn’t a budget option! In the UK this lens is about £1800-2000 new. You can pick up the Sony 200-600 for at least £200 less and the Sigma 150-600 for under £1200! I’m completely baffled how you can recommend this. Also, if this is for newcomers they will not have a high resolution camera body to crop these images with. On my old Olympus EM1 I was pretty much shooting exclusively over 250mm (500mm equivalent on full frame). For a similar price to the Sigma 150-600 you would actually be looking at the Sony 70-200 F4. I don’t see how your recommendation is a “budget” option unless you already own it.
Sam certainly not a recommendation you'll find everywhere else. My reasoning has a couple main themes. First I’m not recommending a budget lens at all. Budget lenses often give you budget quality. It’s a hard cold fact in the camera world and especially for a subject like a bird. The Sigma 150-600 or even the SONY 200-600 are budget lenses and need ideal conditions to work well. Ideal in that you need LOTS of light, slow moving birds and closer than you think subjects. Now if all you’re looking for are photos of birds then yes by all means get a long lens and you’ll capture that. If’ you’re wanting very good to great images of birds you seriously need to consider the conditions you’re shooting in most often. Walking in woodlands wanting to take a photo of a small bird darting from tree branch to tree branch with those lenses will fail more often than succeed if they ever succeed. Been there and sold the SIGMA, still on the fence with the SONY 200-600. This is the first main reason a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is ideal. Sure you won’t be shooting a bird at a far off distance but those that are closer will be tack sharp and much easier to capture. The ones taken with a Sigma 150-600 in a wooded area will most likely be grainy blurry and really not usable. The SONY 200-600 won’t be much better. The second reason I recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for a beginner as your first bird photography lens is its versatility. Let’s face it we’re not all out taking pictures of birds all the time. This lens is perfect for so much more and will help to improve your overall photography skills that can then be used in your bird photography. Again, it’s a FIRST lens. Most bird photographers have several lenses and the 70-200mm is by no means the first and final lens but it is often an over looked lens. Reach is only important if the photo is of good quality. Hope that helps to clarify my perspective on this. I suggest you check out my Instagram account (@drphotosca) where you’ll see some of the photos taken with a SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 and a host of other lenses. instagram.com/drphotosca/
It depends how close you can get to your subject if your going for small birds you will be very disappointed ! I don't even own the 70 - 200 for my wildlife photography !🤔
Very true being close matters as much as having enough light. I feel the same can be said for low quality long zooms such as the 150-600 that's in the market today. Most photographers I know who use these lenses (myself included until I sold it) feel they can reach closer and still achieve a high quality image. But the glass is simply not good enough. The end result is disappointing photos. So, for a first lens I feel the 70-200 is a great start. The output of these lenses almost guarantees you a good photo and with that success you work your way up to more expensive quality lenses.
I've only just started trying some bird photography & using the canon EF 135mm f/2L lens on my R6m2. And the clarity has blown me away. Its great for when you can get in close, but i was looking at the EF 400mm f/5.6L or RF 100-400mm for more distance. The 70-200mm might not offer me more than my 135mm.
Thanks for your comment. You're most likely correct that the 70-200mmm f/2.8 might not offer more than the 125mm prime. Other than the ability to zoom out. Not often do you snap birds at 70mm but it does happen. The 100-400mm is a go to lens on both my Canon and Sony cameras. In both cases it's the brand lens. If you're looking to add another lens the 100-400 is ideal.
It's a toss up between 70-200 and 100-400. The advantage with the 70-200 is it's flexibility in less than ideal locations. It's the stepping stone to bird photography and a 100-400.
I am baffled. I don't even touch my 70-200mm anymore, mind you I never bought it for birds. My advice is if you are just starting out in bird photography, remember reach is king. Get a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm or something equivalent pending on the brand of your camera. 200mm is way too short for birds.
Thanks for your feedback. Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Image quality is king. If you live in a part of the world where it's always bright and sunny you can use slower lenses like the Sigma 150-600 and get "good enough" photos. However, if you live or shoot bird photos where there is lower light these long entry level lenses struggle. You may be able zoom in close but the image quality is poor at best and focus is slow and inaccurate. Not ideal for your first birding lens. I've owned and tested a number of these lenses and sold my Sigma 150-600 for a SONY 200-600. The Sigma was used on a *Canon 1DX* , *Canon 7DMKII* *Canon EOS R* and all produced softer images and the lens was slow to acquire focus. Almost all of these photos were taken on bright sunny days and the *Sigma* was almost useless on overcast days. As a first birding lens the *70-200 f/2.8* will give you very high quality images and that will be a great first step to enjoying bird photography and a path to purchasing longer quality lenses.
My only issue is how close do you have to be to fill the frame of smaller birds like the ones you took? I’m wanting to upgrade from my canon ef 70-300mm f/4-5.6 iii on a APS sensor, and honestly I need more reach when I take photos of birds in trees a good distance away, even as close as 10ft zoomed all the way in on small birds like chickadees are small, the lens is also kind of crappy so cropping is a no go and has way to much Chromatic Aberation
Thank you for your question. With a 70-200mm lens the birds will certainly be closer than if you had a 100-400mm lens. I would say the birds in these photos are anywhere from 10-30 feet away from me. My recommendation for beginner bird photographers is to have a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as your first lens. You'll have more success in a range of weather conditions and lighting conditions (ie darker forested areas) which will give you greater success overall. Once you're ready to move to the next level the 100-400mm lens is always a good option.
70-200 is not a birding lens 400mm is concidered the minimum focal length for birding yes you can use tele converters but then you might aswell of just used a zoom in the first place.
Thanks for the comment. The 70-200mm lens is an under rated lens for bird and wildlife photography. Like I said in the video I suggest it as your first lens grab this one then if you stick with birding certainly move up to larger primes or the 100-400m.
I would recommend that after you purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8 you look at the 100-400mm. Both SONY and Canon have great 100-400mm lenses. If you're a SONY shooter I'd get this lens before buying the 200-600mm lens. That's a good lens but not as sharp as the 100-400mm.
I owned the Canon 70-200 lens back in the day and it was not very useful for most of birding photography outings. Many birds are small in frame and/or small subjects. I used the lens more for landscapes. The 100-400 has more reach and more flexible. I owned the Canon 300 f/2.8, heavy beast and f/5.6 was the biggest aperture I would use to make sure the bird was all in focus. The Sigma 150-600mm C was a great workhorse lens got used quite a bit.
I must have gotten a bad copy. I ordered one from Canon directly. Bought it for my 90d. Was used to taKing great pics with my 100-400 ii. Was looking forward to “tack sharp” images and i was very disappointed. I wound up selling the 70-200 to KEH. Luckily id bought the 70-200 for a good price on sale and refurbed from Canon and did not get hurt that bad. If youre a canon birder, id go for the 100-400 ii first.
I have the 70’200 and the 400 28 ‘ I just bought the 100’400 and I find it a really versatile lense ‘ it is lightweight and very sharp ‘ the canon 70’ 200 is a little short ‘ the big 400’ 28 is a savage of a lense ‘ but very big and heavy ‘ the 100 ‘ 400 for me is just about right ‘ has good distance ‘ is lightweight ‘ very sharp ‘ and well worth the 2300 euro ‘ it will be staying on my 7d mk2 for the foreseeable future ‘ I love it
Yea the 100-400mm lenses are a great lens too and one I have on my camera often. Depending on the available sunlight I still find the 70-200mm perfect for just about anything other than far off birds... both are great lenses :)
That's a very good question. I use the Fuji X-T30 for street photography but not for birding. If I had to pick I'd look at the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm or Fujifilm XF 55-200mm. If you shoot more places with more shadows or poor lighting the 55-200mm may be the best choice.
What utter rubbish , 70 -200 for birds and most wildlife is just not long enough, even 600mm can often not be enough. more of an advert than anything useful.
Well Pete are you saying that the best lens to buy is a 600mm prime at $13,000 versus the 70-200 at $2,800 because the 600mm is more versatile and that a beginner bird photographer should buy this lens first? FYI not an advert just an honest unbiased POV.
I started with a Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4, much cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8. But I agree that to begin with, it not as versatile as the 70-200, and on APS-C, it is a 450mm equivalent so it makes pointing the bird a little more difficult... Though the images are really nice !
I have the 200-600 and 70-200 f2.8 from Sony and wouldn't even consider the 70-200 for birding to be honest, at leaset not in my country (Austria). 200-600 is half the price, triple the focal length and even with the 600mm I need to be very close (around 10m) to shoot portraits of small birds which probably most fotographers want to when starting out. Yes the lens is heavy but actually not even that heavy and I am usually at around iso 500 (which is the second native iso on my a7iv) and a shutter of 1/500s to 1/4000s on a cloudy day out in the open or with few trees and in a forest iso goes up to 3200 to 6400 with 1/500s I would say. I could go much lower with the iso or faster with the shutter with f2.8 but its waaaaay harder to get the focus right on such a small target and the amount I would need to crop in would make image quality way worse than f6.3 with my 200-600. The only way I can see the 70-200 for birding is when you can get really really close, if you want to photograph bigger birds in a zoo or if you want to take environmental pictures where the bird is pretty small in the scene. With the GM II and a 2x teleconverter I would say you can start birding pretty good but if you want to get the close up shots you probably very soon want the 200-600 as well. So the 70-200 is a great lens for many reasons and its a lens that most people should have and would appreciate very much I think but for birding... The only way I take it out for birding is when I go on a hike with my GF and I mainly want to hike and take landscape pictures and then if I see an interesting bird I take out the 70-200 GM II with the 2x TC and pray that I can get a little closer. Or if I want to go out when its really dark but that is a very special case I would say and most beginners wouldn't do very often. Maybe in other parts of the world you can get way closer without disturbing the birds and then the 70-200 could come in handy but only in cases where its fairly dark.
Thanks for your reply. It all depends on where you live and what you're shooting. As I mentioned in the video the 70-200mm lens is the first not the only lens. Why the first? If you're not 100% sure about your love for bird photography the 70-200 lens is one you can use for almost any photography. Can't really say that about any other lens really. Birds can and do come close enough to be captured with a 70-200mm lens and if you're using a full frame camera like the SONY A7RIV you can punch in to an APS-C crop and get yourself close enough to the 100-400mm lens. Again it's a first lens highly versatile and not one to be overlooked. Many of the larger lens are ok most of the time with now and then great photos. But the hit rate and very limited use for me makes them not ideal as a first lens for bird photography.
@@markwalker8374 good question. You could certainly practice with it. I'm a fan of getting out and using whatever lens you have for bird photography. No need to wait to have the "perfect lens". I've used 50mm and 85mm to capture some great shots of birds. So yes if you have that lens take it out and give it a go. If you don't have that lens I wouldn't recommend buying it for birding. Manual focus lenses although useable are not ideal for a beginner. It's hard enough with full autofocus to capture a good in focus bird photo and trying to that old school with a manual lens is difficult. Hope that helps.
I photograph mostly on open hiking trails thus I cannot get close to most birds. I need the reach of at least 500mm. The cost of a Canon RF 70-200 and 100-500 are similar. I can barely afford one of them, so I choose the 100-500. This lens is a work horse for bird photography. I plan to go to Australia in a few years and I think this lens will work well in that environment too.
Thanks for your feedback. That lens certainly has reach and sounds like a great option. Do you think the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is of any value for a bird photographer? 🤔
Hi David, would you be able to share some pictures taken on your Instagram with the 70-200 f2.8, all I see there are either from the 400f2.8 or the 200-600f5.6-6.3 or the 100-400 lens, am I missing something?
Thanks for the comment and ask. Yes many photos are taken with the 100-400mm lens BUT for your first lens I recommend the 70-200mm. This lens is so versatile for birding and so many other things it's truly a workhorse lens. I found some photos using the 70-200mm and even the 85mm. 70-200mm instagram.com/p/CEmyseVnLSa/ instagram.com/p/BrK9aCejXDN/ instagram.com/p/CCj4d-6IYkH/ instagram.com/p/CA_lerPjKoX/ instagram.com/p/CAbUoT6oQtM/ instagram.com/p/B_nxS23gG6J/ instagram.com/p/B_BN8AbD1ap/ 85mm instagram.com/p/CCcOrIkH0S8/
Great to see you aptly relying to every query! Kudos!! Which Canon camera would be an entry level fit for the 70-200 f.28 lens mentioned here? (I'm an entry level birder with a limited budget)
Thanks I try to respond as soon as I can :) Well Canon is transitioning over to mirrorless cameras with the R Series. In general mirrorless cameras struggle with fast moving objects like birds or cars unless you buy the top of the line cameras. This is true for Canon or Sony. So if you have the money and are starting out new I would look at the Canon R6 or R5. If you are just entering in to bird photography I would consider a DSLR, they're still worth it. I personally use the Canon 1DX and Canon 7D Mark II. Buying used can also be cost effective option if you're starting out. You can also check out my Instagram channel where I list the camera gear I used for each shot. *instagram.com/drphotosca/* Hope that helps if not let me know.
Very nice explaination about f 2.8 lense does it give good image with Nikon z 6 or Wich Camara do you use with your photography ( I am biginer ) but very impress with your photography please guide me
Thank you. I mostly use Sony or Canon cameras and have never used Nikon. I believe all 3 are very similar for beginners. If you can go to a local camera store and test them that would be best. The way a camera feels in your hand is very important. It needs to feel right. For me Canon cameras feel better in the hand than SONY but SONY cameras tend to focus better. Partly why I have both brands.
Hi David - Could you please share the link for 70-200mm lens which you have mentioned in the video, i'm confused as there are so many types of same lens and will it be compatible with Cannon M50 Mark II?
Thanks for your comment. The lens I use for Canon is the (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens) and for SONY (FE 70-200 mm F2.8 GM OSS II). Depending on where you're located they can be purchased at a local camera store or directly from Canon and SONY.
I bought my 70-200f 2.8 GM and I never ever used my 150-600 again. Now I do every thing with this awesome glass(wildlife) Stunning vid btw and awesome advices🔥💯👌
Thanks for your feedback. You could use a 24-70 lens especially on a crop sensor. There would certainly be limitations on the type of shots you could get. This lens would be ideal if the birds feed from your hand or land about 10-15 feet away from you. Anything further you'd struggle seeing the bird in the frame. I often use this lens or a 50mm when hand feeding birds.
Thanks for the question. I always go with the brand of the camera. I've tried Sigma and Tamron and never had as much success as with the camera manufacturer's lens. For the 70-200 has to be f/2.8 there is no other option
@@DavidReidPhotography I can’t agree more! My only exception was the Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro paired with a D3. My question is more about the “reach” effect obtained by cropping into photos taken with a 70-200 pro grade and a high res camera.
@@gilleslast3561 That's a tough question to answer as there are many factors that impact the image quality and ability to crop in. First and foremost is the type of bird and the distance it is to you when you take the photo. This is also an issue with larger lenses when birds are further away too. After that movement of the bird and your ability to hold the lens still (even a 70-200) all come in to play with image quality. The last thing to consider is where you're using the final image. If you're printing it you won't be able to crop in as much as you can for social media. The resolution requirements are very different. I would say that for social posts you can generally crop in 50% more or less. Again a number of factors will help to determine this. Here is an example of a small bird shot with a 70-200mm lens and cropped in. instagram.com/p/CIg_RE-It0h/
I struggled with a 70-200mm VR for awhile before getting the 200-500mm. 70-200mm is fantastic for shooting concerts, candids, and even portraits, but frustrating as heck for birds. So glad i got the 200-500mm for the job.
Brand new birder and photographer. I bought a Canon m50 with the 15-45 kit lens. I need a lens but since I'm just starting/learning (with a limited budget) is there any lower priced lens you would recommend?
That's a great question and not an easy one to answer. Depending on your budget and where you live I would look at a prime lens. Prime lenses tend to be cheaper than their zoom equivalent. This will limit you to some extent but for birding you'll get a longer reach at a lower price point. So maybe something like the 85mm or 100mm to start. Another option is used. Used lenses from a reputable dealer is a good way to get more for your money 💲. 🙂
@@DavidReidPhotography Yes I am a bird photographer and I would only have a few photos of the tame birds in my backyard if I was restricted to 200mm. My mate manages a camera store and he commonly sells a crop body with a non 3rd party 100 - 400. He's a bird shooter as well and was just as dismayed as I was when I sent him a link to this video. I've got a lot of gear but my most basic set up is a Canon 90D with the 100-400.
@@markrigg6623 we can agree to disagree. For me the first lens for a beginner is the 70-200. The versatility for birding and more is unmatched by the 100-400. From there a convertor (1.4X) usually (giving the reach) then a 100-400. Maybe we can agree the 150-600 3rd party lenses are generally a waste.
@@lotierm I was in a park in the center of Bangkok trying out my brand new A9 with the 200-600 and took a few good squirrel photos. Then I noticed a guy in his 20's trying to take portrait shots of his 3 friends. I took a sneak shot just to see what it looked like and they waived me over and asked that I take a few photos. I found the 200-600 did quite a good job of head and shoulder shots and the girls all loved the photos and I made sure they all got copies of them
Hi David, I agree this lens is a must for all keen photographers but you need to be so close to the birds to fill the screen I take it a lot or most of your photos are cropped.
True enough you have to be closer but the overall quality is easier to achieve than say with an entry-level 150-600 or 200-600. Especially if you have a lower cost camera body. Better glass + cheaper camera produces higher quality than a better camera and low quality glass. I see it as a first step to quality glass and once you've mastered it agree to moving up.
I have the canon eos t5i rebel. I live in North Carolina and I was wondering which lens I should look at. The one you show looks good, but how close are you having to be to get these photos? Most of the birds I shoot are high up in trees or far away. That's my main question is the distance away from the birds when capturing the image?
Thanks for the comment. This is the million dollar question for birding. I always recommend getting a high quality lens that you can afford and not just the longest. Many low cost longer lenses are ok under good conditions but not great every day. The other thing to consider is buying a lens that's a lot better than the camera. Unless you're going to buy a new body soon you should consider a balanced coat for the lens. My reco would be 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4 extender Or 100-400mm you could also get the extender too. These two Canon lenses are great and will last for many years. If too costly check out some used lenses from a reputable dealer. Hope that helps.
@@bcross9876 I sold my Sigma for a SONY 200-600. Couple years ago sold all my Sigma lenses. I'd stick with the manufacturer lens and the best quality you can afford. There are some older versions that are still solid lenses and cheaper.
A 150-600 can be had for less than half the money, and that, I believe, is a good place to start. I have to agree with “m b” that 400 mm is minimum, and 600 certainly isn’t too much. I recommend the Sigma Contemporary. If that’s still to pricey, look below. A stabilised 70-200 F2.8 might be a must-have for professionals - and a good idea for rich people. But for the rest of us it’s not really an option. I could probably afford a 70-200 F4 non-IS. But I can’t really defend the investment. Because I already own the Canon EF-S 55-250 F4-5.6 IS STM. That lens is definitely a must-have if you’re a Canon APS-C user! With a 1.6 crop factor it’s the equivalent of an 88-400 mm. (And it even works okay with a Kenko 1.4 extender taking you to 560 mm equivalent - just make sure you get one of the latest models like the HD Teleplus).
Thanks for your comment. I think this is the classic battle for bird photographers. Reach, price and quality. I had the SIGMA 150-600mm Sport and used on Canon 1DX, Canon 5DMKIV, Canon 7DMK2 and the EOS R. In every case the images were just too soft and never acceptable. Not to mention it was a slow lens. Yes you'll have reach with a 150-600 lens but if the quality is sub-par you just end up with what I feel is a cellphone photo. It shows the bird but that's about it. I ended up selling my SIGMA 150-600S for a SONY 200-600 G lens. Not as good as the 600mm prime but better than the SIGMA. In the end the 70-200 of any camera manufacture offers high quality and fast response. If you're new to bird photography I feel this is the best first lens to own. Yes you won't get birds off in the distance but the ones you do get will be great images and a perfect place to start. After that if you stick with birding move up to a 100-400mm lens and if you stop taking photos of birds you'll have an amazing lens for just about anything else.
@@DavidReidPhotography there are 4 different 150-600 lenses on the market, and I believe the Tamron G1 to be the worst and softest of the bunch. Yet I've seen fantastic pictures taken with that lens! So I think if you can't get amazing pictures with either of these lenses, it's not the lens that needs to be upgraded.
@@skakdosmer the joys of bird photography :) This reel on Instagram shows some of what can be captured on a 70-200mm lens. instagram.com/reel/CWnjnNIlJcx/?
@@DavidReidPhotography I’m not on instagram, but I’m sure the pictures are fine; I would expect no less from a very expensive lens like that. If you can get close enough.
