There is no doubt that the best gear for bird photography is shockingly expensive. For example, the latest generation 600mm f/4 comes in at about $13,000 US dollars whether you look at Nikon, Canon, or Sony – and that’s without a camera. More modest setups are not cheap either and are still on the level of used cars.
Of course, this high end equipment does last a long time, and so over time the cost can end up being lower. However, the up front cost is prohibitive for many bird and wildlife shooters. So, can you shoot birds with really cheap lenses? In this post I hope to convince you that the answer is yes, using a variety of shots with lenses that start at just $50!
Table of Contents
Why Shoot with Such Cheap Lenses?
I believe anyone can enjoy bird photography. With the right approach, even the cheapest lenses can produce solid results, which means that more typical lenses are more than enough to take good photos.
Bird photography culture also glorifies expensive gear. People gather around the latest gear and upvote or like anything produced with it. I have even heard some people say they are discouraged with wildlife photography because they aren’t going to buy the latest high-end lens. So, I also hope to encourage those individuals not to give up.
Cheap lenses can also be a good way to test the waters of wildlife photography before you decide to fully commit. Even if you eventually end up with a massive hunk of glass, more basic lenses will give you an idea of whether wildlife photography is right for you. The only danger is that cheap lenses are a bit of a gateway drug to the top-end glass, so consider yourself forewarned!
Some Examples of Cheap Lenses for Bird Photography
Although there are endless cheap lenses you could get for bird photography, here are examples of such lenses at various price points:
| Mount | Lens | New Price | Estimated Used Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micro Four Thirds | Olympus ED 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II | $450 | $280 |
| Canon RF | Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM | $350 | $250 |
| Nikon Z (DX) | Nikon DX 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR | $380 | $250 |
| Sony E | Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 | $300 | $160 |
These are just some examples. With cheap or used lenses, it’s impossible to be comprehensive. For example, for times when I need to be discreet or carry something really compact, I carry around my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX AF-P. It focuses very fast on my Nikon D500 or my Nikon Z6 in DX mode and cost just $200.
If autofocus is not a priority for you, then older manual-focus lenses can also get great results, especially if you have plenty of light and stop down a little.
Limitations of Cheap Lenses for Bird Photography
The Focal Length Limitation
When I started out with photography, I was a graduate student and my typical lens budget was about $80. So, what could be better than the fully manual Pentax-A 70-210 f/4? What was even better is that I found this lens used in my local camera shop, and it probably deserved to be rated “Bargain” considering how much paint was missing. I considered it a good deal for $50.
This lens brings me to my first limitation: focal length. If you decide to get a shorter lens like the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III or the Nikon Z 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 for Z DX cameras, you’ll have to contend with a shorter focal length.
Wildlife photography is certainly possible without a supertelephoto lens (as we’ve covered in detail here), but you may need to approach it a bit differently. With wildlife, this could mean shooting tamer animals in parks or larger animals. It could also mean being a bit more patient and waiting in a spot until the wildlife comes to you. Even in wild areas, I am frequently surprised at how close birds will come to me if I stay still for an hour or two. I still use this technique today even with more capable gear.
My other recommendation for getting around the focal length limitation is to compose environmental shots. In the bird world, detailed portraits dominate, so a well-composed environmental shot will be something a little different and just as pretty.
My only warning here is be respectful of animals, and don’t get so close to an animal so that you cause it distress.
The Sharpness Limitation
Animals have a lot of fine detail like fur and feathers, so a failure to resolve such detail clearly manifests as a lack of sharpness. Cheaper lenses, especially zooms at the long end, are not particularly sharp. One solution to this problem is getting closer. If the fine details like individual hairs can still be seen, then a photo can appear sharp even if the lens is not a top performer. Furthermore, you can likely use careful sharpening techniques in your raw processor to give the appearance of greater sharpness and detail.
Another solution for zooms is to try and use even shorter focal lengths and be happy with a looser framing. That sounds a bit paradoxical, but when I shot the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens, I would often try and get some shots at 400mm instead of 600mm since the lens performed better there. You can check out any of Photography Life’s Imatest results in our lens reviews to see that this is often the case with zooms.
The Autofocus Limitation
Some of the inexpensive wildlife lenses I’ve used don’t even have autofocus, and others are as slow as a sloth. I once owned the Pentax 300mm FA* f/4.5 lens, which I bought used for about $600. Although it had reasonable sharpness, I found that focusing manually was actually faster than its autofocus! So for about two years I shot birds on nothing but manual focus.
Although I would not recommend anyone try my bizarre setup, there is a lesson to be learned because often cheaper lenses do not have the fastest autofocus, even though they’d probably be blazing compared to what I had. Two things helped me shoot with this lens. The first was to be happy without getting any bird-in-flight shots. And the second was to pay attention to the behaviour of birds.
By getting to know the different bird species and how they behaved, I got a feeling for when certain species would be still. And I can say that even with my current faster equipment, paying attention to animal behaviour has been tremendously helpful. For example, at a certain time of year I know that the White-breasted Nuthatches where I live like to spend a bit of extra time perched near the bases of trees, and that has allowed me to get plenty of nice, eye-level shots of them.
Use the Advantages You Have
Years ago, during one of my cravings for longer focal lengths, I bought a mirror lens, the Tamron 500mm 55BB f/8. This lens was introduced two years before I was born, and it cost about $150 on eBay. Despite this, I once brought this lens out last year alongside my 500mm PF f/5.6 lens. Could this lens have anything to offer over an ultrasharp prime like the 500mm PF? Actually, yes.
First, the Tamron 500mm mirror lens is actually very light at 595g (21 oz), so it didn’t add too much weight to what I was carrying. But also, it has a curiously high magnification at 0.33x, which is almost twice the magnification of the 500mm PF lens at 0.18x. So in the park with some curious geese, I took an interesting shot that would not have been easy with the 500mm PF due to the 500mm PF’s longer minimum focus distance:
I also own an Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 R. It could be one of the cheapest lenses you can buy new today, because it regularly goes on sale for $100. Limited zoom? Check. Corner performance from the 1930s? Check. Yet its center performance is surprising and it’s so light that it can be taken anywhere.
As a bonus, this little lens can accept extension tubes, which transforms it into a last resort macro.
Do You Need Expensive Lenses?
There is no doubt that you can do some pretty amazing things with cheap lenses, and I would say they can still have a place even when you do have a high-end setup.
However, I cannot deny that the cheaper gear I’ve shot with only works in a limited range of situations. Although I suppose that’s true of every lens in a sense, with a better lens, I rarely feel limited by my equipment. As a Nikon shooter, that’s currently the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF for me, which still is nowhere near as expensive as a 500mm f/4.
If I look back at all my photography adventures, there are definitely shots I missed that I wouldn’t have if I had the 500mm PF. As someone for whom bird and wildlife photography has become a nearly full-time hobby, I find such a high-end lens to be indispensable. I feel like if I were stuck on a deserted island full of animals with just my D500 and 500mm PF, I’d be happy – as long as I had some way to charge the batteries.
That being said, we are living in a golden age of good but reasonably priced telephoto optics for almost every brand. I have been very impressed by the Sony 200-600mm lens that a lot of my fellow bird photographers are shooting. There is simply no way that level of performance would have been accessible ten years ago without a much more expensive supertelephoto prime. Canon also has 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses that recently came out, which are both under a thousand dollars and produce pretty nice images in bright light.
Conclusion
I have been photographing birds and wildlife for about five years, and the one thing I have concluded is that with enough patience and ingenuity, you can produce fine images with any lens, The types of images possible may vary from lens to lens, but with all the wildlife out there, you are sure to find some way to show off the beauty of our planet’s biodiversity.
That’s why I encourage you to try bird photography, regardless of which lens you own. You might just take a shot you never thought possible.
Pls. Give your opinion for 80-400 “G” ED VR….I know the “D” version had autofocus issues. I am using a D750 and I will be using this for bear photography on BC’s West coast in August
It’s certainly a capable lens. The most direct comparison is the 200-500. The 200-500 is a bit sharper at 400 but it’s heavier. For bears, hopefully you won’t need to crop too much and if so the weaker long end won’t give you too many problems. I would also note that this lens has a pretty significant drop in resolving power towards the full-frame edge which could be a problem in some compositions…just something to watch out for. Don’t let that discourage you though. Every lens has its weaknesses and overall you should be able to get excellent shots with that lens.
If you shoot at >200mm equivalent only rarely – and are not aiming to nail pictures of birds in flight, then can I also suggest you look at finding a “bridge” design camera.
Although the sensor size is small, getting 400-600mm equivalent zoom ranges are not uncommon and many of these cameras sell for <$100 on eBay within 5-6 years of coming out.
For this you get image stabilisation, AF, shooting speeds of 1-3 frames a second at full resolution and more if you accept 4-5MP. All will be lower spec than a new Nikon or Canon – but can get pictures that manual lenses may miss and weight just a fraction of my big lenses.
Be sue to add a lens hood and the results can be good – certainly on a value for money and value for weight basis this makes a great addittion to a rucksack when head out for a day in the country.
I will also second the comments about the M4/3 100-300 and 100-400mm zooms; these offer fantastic value for money and good image quality compared with the full-frame alternatives. Currently the Lumix 100-300mm (200-600mm) mark 1 versiuons are selling on eBay for £300/$400, and if you trade up, will resell for much the same.
Good points. A bridge camera like the Nikon P950 or a micro four thirds camera with a 100-400 are pretty good options that can provide good I.Q. in many circumstances.
Just hop over to Micro Four Thirds and you can get a high-quality 200-600mm equivalent lens for less than $500 :)
I have an old Sigma 70-300 that I reckon is as good optically as a Nikon 70-300G – it just doesn’t have VR. Which, for wildlife – and for aircraft, which is what I often used it for – is irrelevant. In fact my then combo with a D50 (still working when I gave it away last year) would probably fetch less than £100 on eBay.
Eventually I upgraded to a Nikon 300/f4D, which is a very decent lens. I think it costs about £400, used. That really made the difference. It’s probably the biggest step-up in quality.
The problem then is the gap to the next level. £2,500 for a Sigma 120-300/f2.8 or £3,500 for a 500PF or £6,300 for a 300/f2.8.
The next level isn’t really the 500PF, but something like a Nikon 200-500. The 200-500 will still give you significantly more pixels on your subject than a 300. It’s about a 1.5-1.66 crop factor (the 200-500 isn’t exactly 500 at close range but close enough). You might also keep an eye out for the Nikon Z 200-600 that is coming out. Paired with a Z50 it should be quite nice, and the 200-600 + Z50 combo should still be less than a 500PF. Though the Z50 is not the quickest for action, it can handle many situations well.
In fairness, I failed to mention that I use the 300mm with a 1.4TC. I have just (literally!) bought the 200-500, but haven’t had chance to use it yet. The reason I think of them in a similar bracket is because the 300+TC cost me £1,100 used (in 2014) and the 200-500 cost £950 used. I have a D7500 for action shooting, which I’m very fond of.
Based on the £2,700 price for the 100-400 Z mount, I’m not expecting the 200-600 to be affordable, nor do I expect Nikon to bring out a quality Z mount aps-c camera. That’s why I’ve just gone for the 200-500. It might just see me out.
Well written article and I agree….I have been toying with the idea of a longer lens to compliment my Nikon D750 but have not pulled the trigger yet….my inexpensive lens is a 55-300 4.5-5.6 DX (crop) lens which I have to say, and have been told, takes really good closeups. I consistently use a good stable tripod and use “live zoom” at 200% and fine tune the detail. Oh and also the camera is set completely manual with a 2 sec. shutter delay + a 2 second mirror up delay. I think I payed about $100 CDN a couple years ago. This is not to say that a lens with better glass isn’t much superior, but if the budget doesn’t allow for pulling that trigger, there are, as you say, options!
Thanks, Tim. If you do decide to eventually get a longer lens, now is a pretty good time to get one used. Tons of people are selling their F-mount zooms for lower prices than I’ve ever seen before, especially now that Nikon just released their 100-400S lens for Z cameras. I even saw a Tamron 150-600 G2, which is a pretty decent long lens (though much heavier than your 55-300) for $600US, which is definitely the lowest price I’ve ever seen. A lot of Nikon 200-500s and others are being sold too.
I started with a Nikon 300 MM f/4, it has no vibration reduction and I had no tripod. I bought it used at about $ 450 and till today I serves me well. Nowadays I use it with a converter on a Nikon Z6 ii and still gives great photos.
Perhaps one should prioritise “mid-price” lenses such as the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 (which I have) or the Tamron 150-600mm (or sigma sport equivalent) as a compromise between “cheap” (price and quality) and “unaffordable” (for many) such as the various primes (inc PF) lenses.
Definitely true. I didn’t mean one should buy the cheapest possible. Saving up for a mid-price, quality lens if you can is definitely better than getting a cheap one right away. I just wanted to illustrate the points with lenses cheaper than average to show a bit of a worst-case scenario :) Happy shooting!
Yes, good points.
People can benefit from asking what makes an engaging image. It isn’t plumage detail.
It does seem to be a pre-condition for many bird photographers in a similar way that bokeh is for others..
Really Cheap Lenses, by which I take it you mean lenses of lesser quality, because there are many inexpensive lenses out there that are of very good quality, are a waste of money. Beginning photographers get better as they go along. They will eventually want better glass, and so will end up spending more, not less, money than they would have if they went for better lenses in the first place. Experienced photographers know this already, often because they made that mistake when they were beginners. Experienced photographers will tell you that when money is an issue, it is better to buy a lesser camera body and put that saved money towards better lenses. High quality lenses are the basis for high quality photographs. There is no getting around it. And GAS is not the issue here. It is that in photography, good enough is seldom good enough. Think about it. The same money you can spend on cheap lenses can also go for better quality used lenses.
I absolutely agree, Elaine. Bird photography with so much feather detail puts a lot of strain on a system so getting the best quality lens makes a huge difference. For what it’s worth, lenses don’t depreciate as fast as camera bodies and I was able to sell some of the “mistakes” I’ve made in the past for almost the same price as I bought them.
Maybe more than you’re considering, but a used Tamron 150-600 G1 can be had very reasonably.
That’s another good option. Before I switched to the 500PF, I actually used to shoot with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and it’s a pretty decent lens. I still use the Tamron for video in fact and it’s hard to beat its range for the price.