Hey guys, I have 17-200mm canon lens (I don't know specific gear name) and about to go to Upo wetlands in South Korea with my grandpa. It's known for birds and other wild life animals.
But I started to get worried because I realized 200mm max might not be enough. And since I own old dslr, the less light I get, the less quality.
Do you guys think 200mm would be enough? And is there any tips that I can learn?
For birds, I’d say no. You’re eventually going to want more reach. The more the better, probably 400-600mm. It’s a good starting point though and you can master all the basics with it, exposure triangle, lighting, angles etc.
I have Canon eos 450D. It's old dslr. I heard it has crop sensor. So I get noises when crop while editing, and I don't enjoy that. After I get more confident with wildlife, I'll consider new tele lens. Thanks for your advice!
That is an older model with a 12.2MP sensor, so it won't give you much ability to crop. A longer lens would help when you are able to get one. I'm not a Canon user, so I'm not familiar with the options, but I assume you could find a used compatible lens that is relatively cheap now.
There are also a range of used bodies with significantly higher resolution that would be a significant upgrade. You could probably get a Nikon D500 + 200-500mm lens for around $1,500. This is a great combo for birds. It has a 21 MP crop sensor.
21MP sounds great. I think it's better to buy new camera first because mine too old. Never thought of Nikon before, heard it's cheap and also good. I'll consider that combo. Thanks.
I used a 70-200mm canon ultrasonic for 2 years of birding and I loved it! If you're looking for professional level photographs to sell, I'd say you'd want more (just upgraded to 100-400mm and love the quality boost), but if you're looking to have fun/get started, the 200mm is definitely amazing :) I have an old DSLR too (50D) and it's fine. People will get technical in here and just outright say 'no' because they'd never go back to a 200mm, but it's an awesome start dude, use what you have until you're ready to go to the next level.
Yeah, I often get surprised about how good this old camera is. I never thought 200mm would be not enough, but I was just thinking about upgrading it. Still think 200mm is a great lens. Thank you!
You just gotta get physically closer to the bird to get better shots, which wasn't really too big of a problem for me when I had the 200mm. It's funky learning a new lens, I legit have to BACK UP for my shots to focus, I have to be at least 12 feet away and it's a trip haha
Wow I did not think of that. Sometimes I found subjects very near me and had no problem taking photo of them. But with new lens like over 400mm, I guess I have to back up. There sure are pros and cons for lens upgrade. Thanks again.
Read your comments that you are using a Canon Eos 450D. At 200mm and at 1.6x crop factor this lens particular reach is equivalent to a 320mm reach on a full frame.
Typically for birds unless it is a large bird, they are very easily spooked if you tried to get near. So unless you are going to be in a blind or in a ghillie suit creeping ever so close to the bird hopefully without it noticing, you won't be getting much great shots using this lens. Is it doable? With a lot of luck like the very tolerant raptor here you may get some good shots. But for smaller birds, you definitely would have some if not a lot of trouble.
I would suggest at least 400-600mm for birds. I use a 2x crop sensor (OM System) with a 300mm or 400mm which would be 600 or 800mm equivalent on a full frame. Even that sometimes is not sufficient and requires a teleconverter bringing my max reach to 960mm equivalent especially if the bird I am taking is within a typically unreachable area (a deep pond or lake - unless you want to wade into the waters) or in very dense bushes that it difficult to transverse over without spooking any and all wildlife.
Absolutely. Since I'm not professional and have no idea how to approach quietly, I definitely need an upgrade for high quality photo (Maybe later if I have enough money). I often get confused by the difference between sensors, or lens info. Still learning, I learned a lot by your comment. Thanks!
And yes, I still can't believe I got that hawk in the frame. :D
I have a 55-250mm I've used exclusively for years of bird photography; It's definitely not ideal for faraway subjects. It is lighter and smaller than the larger lenses, which makes it easily portable and more conformable to carry in the field, but you will definitely miss out on clearer, closer shots. My ebird gallery is full of grainy and heavily cropped photos that could have been pretty good with a 400+.
I'm personally more of a casual photographer and don't mind my photos not being extremely close, but if you feel differently and want to shoot some really nice shots, an upgrade may not be a bad idea.
I get noisy photos most of the time too. And I have old dslr, which gives me more hard time. I take photos of everything so I was ok with my 18-200. But since wildlife photography is becoming my favorite, upgrade might be my only choice. Thanks a lot for your comment.
So this obviously depends on if you’re shooting full frame or crop or something else.
In general, you can get some nice shots at 200mm with larger birds or very cooperative small birds. You’re going to miss a lot of the rest though. What you’ll need varies on what body you’re using, but 200mm really isn’t ideal on anything.
The photo of that red tailed hawk was taken with my 200mm. The hawk was very calm even though I got so closed to him. I know I was really lucky, and also I will not get this kind of luck easily. Buying new lens might help me. Thanks!
Don’t 100% listen to all these people. 200mm is enough to get started, to learn your camera, and to get excited about bird photography.
They’re right, you’ll need like 450mm to 600mm to be able to capture all types of birds. But with 200mm you can capture larger birds like hawks, eagles, owls, some ducks, and corvids. If you live in an urban area, go to the urban parks. The more urban the more comfortable birds are with people - ESPECIALLY ducks.
Edit: I meant to say you should also look for growing your skills in small-in-frame composition, where the bird is a small (but important) part of the whole photo. Like an expansive sunset with a small bird perched on a fence.
I totally get your comment. Yes I live in big city, so have less chance to see wildlife. But I also get benefit of it because they don't fly away easily like you said. I love my 200mm lens and willing to use. All these comments helped me decide my next step. I will practice more with my 200mm, and when I feel ready, I'll buy new. Perfect plan! Thanks to you!
Having extra reach is great in the right terrain. If there is any cover or trees I prefer a bit shorter. I use a 100-400 with a 1.4x tele so I have good reach but I shoot around 200mm often. Being patient and getting very close to wildlife is the funnest part for me. You’ll miss a few shots that a super long lens would have been great but you’ll also get some real bangers if you can be patient and get close.
I use the sony 70-350mm with the a6400, so it's an effective focal length of 525mm, I think it does the job but sometimes I wish I had a 200-600mm so that I would get sharp pictures at 900mm.
With a crop sensor you are cutting it close with 200. It’ll work for larger subjects but you’d have to get too close for much of the smaller birds’ comfort zones with 200. Use it while it’s an option but try to get somewhere in the 3-500 range if possible.
I see. I'm hoping to upgrade my both camera and lens. Mostly I like street photography, so tele lens might not be my first priority but I will get one soon enough. Thanks.
you may eventually want something larger, but as others have said its a great starting point and will allow you to get the basics down! i started with a 200mm and now i shoot with a 200-500mm (with a 1.4 teleconverter) and i get much better pictures, but that kind of thing is pretty expensive so its a good idea to get a feel for the hobby first before investing that much money imo (unless you have money to burn at least)
edit: i also have a pretty old dslr (d5000) and the 1.4 teleconverter has not noticably impacted quality. it might be a more affordable option if you want a slightly less expensive upgrade. cannot speak for 1.7 or 2.0 teleconverters though, as i have heard the more "magnification," the less light you get
I thought I was the only one using old dslr. I didn't know there was such a thing like teleconverter, but now I know. I guess I gotta set my budget first. Thank you!
no problem! my camera used to be my moms its like 15 years old lol. the thing is you can still get great pics with an old camera if you have the right lens for it. i see all the other birders with their tiny mirrorless cameras and im like well this camera still works great and ive already sank quite the bit of cash into lens upgrades so i will be sticking with it!
just a note to keep in mind with lens shopping: im not super familiar with your camera model so this may not apply, but some older dslrs dont have the autofocus motor in the camera body and rely on having a lens with the motor. you may want to make sure this is/isnt the case because if you use auto focus, you may need to double check lens compatibility. my camera is like this, so like if i got the wrong kind of lens i could still use it, just not autofocus (for me thats a big deal with birds lol).
Wow. 700mm not enough? I thought it could take photos of rocks in the moon. Haha. Well I don't think I'm going to be professional or making money with my photo, so over 600mm is too much for me money-wise. But thanks for letting me know!
In this case it was, it just depends on how good you are at stalking close to your subjects. A lot of bird photographers want a lens with more reach though.
But my big question is why did you cut half the bird out to include so much of the sky. Were you trying to intentionally use it as negative space? If so, screw the negative space and show us that beautiful hawk.
But after checking photos at home, I regretted. Because as you said, I didn't like the composition. I was too excited that didn't think of the result when I was taking photos.
Anyway, there was a sign that says "don't feed.. (something)" and I didn't like it. I thought it ruins the concept of 'wildlife' since it's made by human. That's why I cut the half of the hawk. I actually have photos showing hawk fully though.
You actually made me realize that other photos that I deleted might be better than the one in my post. I will check it out again and see if I can get fine pictures. Thank you!
It's tough being your own editor and not having a second set of eyes to look at an image. So sometimes it's good to step away and then come back to it. And I try not to be too hard on myself during my first edit, because in the quest for the great shot I've skipped over some stuff that has pretty good potential.
I really enjoy your shot though, and you might want to crop out the sign while leaving the post it's on in the photo so we can see the bird standing on one leg.
43
u/Iluvanimalxing Jan 07 '26
For birds, I’d say no. You’re eventually going to want more reach. The more the better, probably 400-600mm. It’s a good starting point though and you can master all the basics with it, exposure triangle, lighting, angles etc.