RSPB big garden birdwatch

[jimmy156]

So it was the RSPB big garden birdwatch this weekend, did anyone get any good shots of our feathered friends?

I set my tripod up with my sigma 120-400 pointing between the curtain and out the french doors towards my feeder with some "trees" planted either side. Stayed warm and got some shots i was happy with . Did have to shoot at ISO1600 for most of it though, so they are a bit grainy!

Blue Tit

IMG_5494 by jimmyb156, on Flickr




IMG_5486 by jimmyb156, on Flickr



Great Tit

IMG_5522 by jimmyb156, on Flickr



Chaffinch

IMG_5571 by jimmyb156, on Flickr



Coal Tit

IMG_5507 by jimmyb156, on Flickr



Nuthatch

IMG_5564 by jimmyb156, on Flickr



IMG_5557 by jimmyb156, on Flickr

[Simpo Two]

They look very good.



(strange effects on the grass behind the chaffinch)

[jimmy156]

Simpo Two said:

They look very good.



(strange effects on the grass behind the chaffinch)

Thanks Simpo Two,

I have seen that before with this lens, i think its just how the out of focus area, or Bokeh (i hate that word for some reason), looks when its a few inches behind/infront of the focus point. The perched birds which have around 5-10 feet or so behind them have a much more please look to them.

[Killwilly]

Those are lovely shots James, were they cropped much? The Sigma 120-400 is a lens that isn't referred to much in bird photography. I'm currently looking for a birding lens and the Sigma 150-500 or Canon 100-400 keeps cropping up during my searches. I would prefer the Canon, but sadly I don't think I could justify the extra cost. I have read quite a lot about both lenses over the past month and it does appear to be hit and miss to whether you get a good copy of the Sigma. Any observation you have would be very much appreciated.

Alan

[jimmy156]

Killwilly said:

Those are lovely shots James, were they cropped much? The Sigma 120-400 is a lens that isn't referred to much in bird photography. I'm currently looking for a birding lens and the Sigma 150-500 or Canon 100-400 keeps cropping up during my searches. I would prefer the Canon, but sadly I don't think I could justify the extra cost. I have read quite a lot about both lenses over the past month and it does appear to be hit and miss to whether you get a good copy of the Sigma. Any observation you have would be very much appreciated.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks, they are all cropped to some degree but the only ones with heavy crops are the blue tits, the size difference between them and a great tit makes an astonishing difference to how large they appear in the frame.

If i thought i could have afforded it at the time i would have bought the Canon too, but at almost double the price it wasn't really an option. I was considering the 150-500 too but i went for the 120-400 due to it being £100 or so cheaper, reviews seeming to favor it optically (only just at the long ends, but the 150-500 makes more of a compromise over the rest of the zoom range). Weight also came into it but i don't know how much of a difference there would be in the real world as the 120-400 is quite a heavy bugger anyway.

I would say though that 400mm isn't really long enough for bird photography in many situations, especially when dealing with small birds which, lets face it, most are!

Its a toss up really between affordability and quality, as with everything i guess. i'm pretty happy overall, stop it down to f/8.0 and its pretty sharp, AF works well and the image stabilization does a good job. That's not to say i wouldn't chop it in for a Canon 500mm f/4 if i had the money!

ETA: Have you considered a second hand sigma 50-500? gets a good rep in birding circles and the latest version has stabilization (although may not be many around on the second hand market yet)

Edited by jimmy156 on Tuesday 1st February 12:09

[Simpo Two]

jimmy156 said:

or Bokeh (i hate that word for some reason)

I do too. Possibly because it's impossible even to attempt to say it without sounding like a 'gangsta'...

[jimmy156]

Simpo Two said:

I do too. Possibly because it's impossible even to attempt to say it without sounding like a 'gangsta'...

i used to say it as "bouquet" but was told that was wrong.

[Killwilly]

Hi James and thanks for you prompt reply. Do you think a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter would work on your lens and give the same quality results? I had also thought about the Canon 70-200L and a converter, but that still wouldn't give sufficient reach, plus the cost would be almost as much as a used 100-400, which at the moment are achieving £800+ on that well known auction site.

Life is never easy.

Alan

[jimmy156]

Killwilly said:

Hi James and thanks for you prompt reply. Do you think a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter would work on your lens and give the same quality results? I had also thought about the Canon 70-200L and a converter, but that still wouldn't give sufficient reach, plus the cost would be almost as much as a used 100-400, which at the moment are achieving £800+ on that well known auction site.

Life is never easy.

Alan

Hi Alan, its a quiet day at work

I wouldn't use one with this lens. Alongside a loss in quality and light (a 1.4 converter means a loss of 1 stop, and 2x would be 2 stops) the main issue for me would be loss of autofocus which i don't think i could live with.

How about the 400 5.6 prime? Very good birding lens apparently, but no IS

[Hunky Dory]

Really good - wish I could get shots like that!
I particularly like the first Nuthatch one

[paul911]

Great set of pics James

[Simpo Two]

jimmy156 said:

i used to say it as "bouquet" but was told that was wrong.

'Out of focus bits' to you and I, or 'Soft background throws emphasis on the focal plane' if you're trying impress someone... My god, I'll be designing dresses next; GokSimpo.

[GetCarter]

Nice pics Jimmy

Those that read this might be interested in the sea eagle pics I just posted here: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...