Nikon 80-400, Sigma 150-600s, Nikon 200-500, which is better to shoot birds?

As a person who doesn't specialize in bird photography, Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400 are the most worthwhile telephoto lenses to buy. Unfortunately, many people have to believe it.

Nikon 80-400mm, this is a very practical lens, much more practical than 70-200 mm

Let me be specific:

First, if you specialize in shooting birds, the entry-level lens should be 340 or 456. Unfortunately, few people value these two shots.

340 is 300mmF4.0

456 is 400mmF5.6

In fact, they all made a good start, but now the sales volume is really average.

Because many people think that buying a zoom lens is much more practical than this.

Second, if you really have a fever and specialize in bird shooting, then choose a professional gun of 400mm, 600mm or even 800 mm.

Actually, it's not too expensive. You can invest once and benefit for life. You can resell it if you don't play.

Thirdly, if you are a photography enthusiast and take care of bird shooting, I really only recommend Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400.

Unfortunately, many people have to buy cheap lenses like 150-500 or 150-600. After buying it, I found that it was actually boring and I didn't want to take pictures of scenery and flowers.

Yes, 150-600, the use is too narrow, only suitable for shooting birds, but really shooting birds is all kinds of unpleasantness.

Besides, isn't the second-hand depreciation of lens 150-600 too severe?

Well, in fact, Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400 are used the most, and an 85mmF 1.8 is perfect. (For the majority of photographers, 70-200mmF2.8 is actually not recommended. )

A few months ago, the four of us went to shoot the bee tiger, namely Sigma 150/600sx2, Nikon 200~500 and Canon 100/400. Finally, we used Canon 100/400 to see nothing. The focal length is really short. We have experienced it ourselves.

Hunting birds is bound to be related to physical strength, economic ability and health!

Nikon 80/400 and Canon 100/400 really don't have a large aperture, and the focal length is only 400mm, which is barely enough to shoot big birds, but small and fast birds really don't have an advantage.

Besides aperture, the biggest advantage of these lenses is Nikon 200/500. These lenses have a well-balanced aperture and focal length, and high color saturation.

Sima is indeed partial, but it is the best in the same level of image quality, with the price close to the people, the longest focal length and the best comprehensive performance. Some people will say the weight of Sima, and ask about the caliber of 105mm, and the longest focal length is 600 mm If there is no solid packaging, aren't you worried about taking out this field lens? I also brought Nikon 856. Finally, because of the terrain limitation, it is rarely used, and Sima 6544 is the most used.

Bird hunting is expensive and laborious, including equipment manufacturers are solving this problem. If you want to reach a certain height, the equipment can't be bypassed, and the cost of going out is not low. But what if you are really not in the mood to take out the camera? Sometimes it is not arranged according to our own wishes.

The Weaver Girl was shot by Nikon 856. I'd like to see how to shoot 100/400 and 80/400. At that time, the people we photographed together also took 100/400 and had to watch it. Shrike, harrier and peacock were all taken by Sima 156, which is more practical.

Parrots abroad are not afraid of people. I can shoot birds with Nikon 105mmf 1.4 to see the depth you want. If you want to die, go to the professional level 640,850. If you have fun and ensure the picture quality, it's for you. If you don't have physical strength, you really don't need to shoot. Find a bird-watching mirror and enjoy nature.

The last one was taken by Sima 14mmf 1.8. It seems to be money and physical strength again. There are thousands of reasons anyway, so why worry?

These shots are for the poor, so you must choose them.

Nikon 200-500mmF5.6 weighs 2090g, but it can't beat Sigma S version 150-600mmF5-6.3 weight 1830g.