Islands, washed by the sea from all sides, have long evoked a sense of romanticism in many of us. And what makes islands so special? It is, of course, their isolation. Thanks to this, islands have been the backdrop of many heroic tales, both real and fiction – from Robinson Crusoe to Charles Darwin. In this article, I’ll show you two truly remarkable birds of the islands of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. And since this is a photography website, I’ll also share my experience photographing these birds with two supertelephoto lenses of different pedigrees: the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3, and the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S.
The Stars of the Show
Although I enjoyed my time shooting with both lenses, the real stars of the show are the birds I’m about to introduce to you today. I use the word “star” because, like the stars in the sky, the Serendib Scops-Owl (Otus thilohoffmanni) and the Sri Lankan Bay-Owl (Phodilus assimilis) are only active at night. They spend the day motionless in a dense thicket, and when night falls on the landscape, they spread their wings and silently go in search of food.
With their perfect hearing and eyes that cut through darkness, they search for small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and insects. Did you know that owls have asymmetrically placed ears on their heads? They have one ear lower and one ear higher! This biological adaptation makes it easier for them to more accurately determine the distance of prey in the vertical plane. It’s like when we stand under a tree and tilt our head to the side to find out at what height a bird hidden somewhere in the canopy is singing.
Both species of owls have honed their camouflaging skills to near perfection. During the day, their motionless bodies look like dry leaves in the tangled vegetation. Especially the smaller of the two, the 16.5 cm long Serendib Scops-Owl, manages to blend into its surroundings so perfectly that I had a difficult time keeping track of it. I would simply look away for a moment, or walk a few paces to the side, and my eyes would have to search again for quite a while to find which leaf was actually the owl.
No wonder it was the Serendib Scops-Owl, which escaped the attention of ornithologists until 2001. It was in that year that Sri Lankan ornithologist Deepal Warakagoda first spotted it, after six years of searching for the source of the unknown voice. A few years later, it was officially recognized as a new species for science and for Sri Lanka. Interestingly, for 133 years it seemed that all the bird species of the island had been discovered. As you can see, new species can still be discovered today.
Photographing the Owls
Without the knowledge of my local guide, my chances of seeing and photographing both species of owls would have been zero. To this day, I can’t figure out how anyone could have discovered the daytime hiding place of these owls, because their camouflage is truly perfect. Take a look at the photo below and measure how long it takes you to find the owl:
To make it easier for you, I sharpened the owl and also lightened the shadows a bit. It was very dark in the bushes where the owl was hiding… and that’s probably the best description of the typical lighting conditions in the rainforest: very dark!
One look at the EXIF data of the photo below will reveal how dim the light was under the canopy of branches and leaves. I don’t remember the last time I used a shutter speed of 3 seconds when photographing birds. Fortunately, the owl was really still, even though a pesky mosquito was sucking blood from its right eye. Without a tripod, my $1700 Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 simply would have been too dark.
Thanks to my friend Richard, I had the opportunity to photograph the Serendib Scops-Owl with a lens that was made for the darkness of the tropical forest. The $14,000 Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 with built-in teleconverter is without a doubt the best lens for these conditions, being the longest f/2.8 lens currently made for the Nikon Z system.
That said, I had the camera on a tripod, and the owl was stationary, so I ended up indulging in the luxury of an f/5.6 aperture. For comparison, I shot the same scene with my 180-600mm lens.
Maybe the Serendib Scops-Owl is secretly a photographer, because the 400mm f/2.8 attracted its attention, while it wasn’t interested in the 180-600mm! Aside from that, I’d say that the 180-600mm photo didn’t end up any worse. Of course, there is a difference in sharpness at 100% magnification, but if you’re not shooting wide open at f/2.8 (or using the built-in teleconverter), you can safely save $12,000.
I also had the opportunity to shoot the Sri Lanka Bay-Owl with both lenses. Setting up a tripod on a muddy and slippery slope required a lot of patience. At times, we both slid down the slope, so the tripod sometimes supported not only the camera but also the photographer!.
You may remember my recent Nikon telephoto lenses comparison. Back then, I used an artificial owl as a test subject. This time, I got to compare the performance of both lenses in a real scene with a live owl. Aside from the difference in bokeh, caused in part by the difference in aperture between f/4 and f/6.3, notice how dramatic an effect can be achieved with a small change in shooting position. The difference between the first and second image didn’t even require me to move my camera a meter.
In this case, it was clear to me why the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S was so expensive – namely, you feel guilty if you don’t get world-class photos with it, so you end up putting more effort into your camera position! Only joking. While the sharpness is definitely better, the real benefit here was the ability to use an aperture of f/4 instead of f/6.3, allowing me to shoot at a faster shutter speed (1/25 second rather than 1/5 second). Even though the owl was staying still, this definitely made a difference in how large I can print the photo and how much I can crop.
By the way, when I finally stopped defying the slippery slope and walked away from the owl, I had a close encounter with another of Sri Lanka’s amazing endemics, the Humped Snout Lizard (Lyriocephalus scutatus). I’ll tell you about this interesting lizard and the close-focus capabilities of the Nikon 180-600mm lens another time.
Conclusion
I enjoyed my time testing these two lenses side-by-side, but more than that, I enjoyed photographing these two owl species! Unfortunately, neither one of the owls mentioned in this article is abundant. The Sri Lanka Bay-Owl is a subspecies of the Oriental Bay-Owl, which is not globally threatened, but is considered rare wherever it occurs. The Serendib Scops Owl population is in considerably more serious condition. Its numbers were estimated at only 80 individuals in 2006. That’s so low that it was listed as critically endangered as soon as it was discovered.
The respect that Sri Lankans have for all living things, and the strict protection of the area in which it lives, gives me hope that this beautiful bird is not on an imminent path to extinction. Wildlife photographers visiting these places are also a powerful source of income and interest that contribute to protecting endangered species further!
I hope you found this article interesting, and until next time, I wish you good light.
I’m not really interested in the lenses, but the owls are so cool! Great pictures, thank you for that!
I’m so glad, Berlandina, that you found your own thing in the article. Although it’s freezing here in temperate Europe at the moment, the owl season will start soon. So, besides the photos, it will be possible to enjoy not only the observation of live owls, but also their interesting vocalizations. Have a nice day.
Nice images….Thanks for sharing
It’s been a pleasure, Sanjida. Thank you for watching and reading.
Wow, thanks for this one !
Beside the truly interesting approach t to comparing these two lenses, IMHO this article is foremost a plea for the probably most important thing behind nature photography: Yes, of course you need to have photographic know-how, but what really makes the difference is the knowledge about the creatures around us, their habits and habitats – and of course to respect them and set priority to protection rather than instagramophile nature paparazzism.
It is great that there are people who are trying to act as a kind of crowd control engineer and protect these beautiful animals and at the same time enable limited access for “qualified” curious humans to generate money for funding tht protection measures. Let’s hope they can keep it under control.
Thank you very much for your comment, Thomas. I am really pleased with the approach of Sri Lanka and its people to conservation. Although, even here, not much was missing and the Sinharaja forest could have been just another big tea plantation, of which there are plenty. Fortunately this didn’t happen. Ecotourism and now photographers have also played a role. Personally, I think that photographers should participate in conservation in some way. First of all, by spending some money in the area. That way, preserving natural habitats will not only make moral but also economic sense for the local people. Personally, I also try to share my experiences and photos. Many people don’t even know what treasures nature holds. With knowledge comes protection.
Libor, thank you for what I think is the most sensible discussion I’ve seen yet, discussing these two lenses.
There are of course two other considerations.
One – pros (for example, shooting for National Geographic) might feel they have no choice, but to go for that extra fraction of sharpness.
Two – if the bird moves, or for some other reason 400mm just won’t work – the zoom gives huge flexibility to set or change the focal length. At a minor cost, in terms of sharpness.
Three – if you rely on primes, you might need several – one zoom should be enough, if weight or bulk is an issue. (At my age, it is!)
Four – some users have reported a drop on sharpness with the zoom, beyond 500 – maybe – I am inclined to doubt it, but I did strike a severe back focus issue witb a different brand of zoom (had to adjust it to -19, and the max possible adjustment was only + or – 20!), so while I’ve opted for the 180-600, I”m keeping an open mind about this one.
(That was 4, not 2, wasn’t it? Sorry)
Thank you for your kind comment, Richard. Unfortunately, the 180-600mm is not a miracle lens. I guess no one expected that for the money. Its resolution at 600mm is about a third less than the 600mm f/6.3, BUT. Yes, there’s that classic BUT that shuffles the cards a bit. In addition to price, versatility, weight and size all come into play. And when we compare this zoom to beasts like the 400mm f/2.8 or even the 600mm f/4, it doesn’t fare badly at all. In the darkness of the Sri Lankan forest, however, I came up with an “educational” joke (be warned, it’s not very funny unless you’re in the field and have a shutter speed of 1/80s due to the high ISO): “You know what the advantage of f/2.8 is? That it can be adjusted”.
Thanks, Libor, for the wonderful photos and interesting story. 3-second exposure during daytime?! Wow!
Thank you, Robert. As for the three-second exposure, I admit I was a little scared too, but I took it as a challenge. Fortunately, the owl supported me with it’s kind stillness.
This is a great article and wonderful shots of two beautiful birds. Great article and thank you Libor ! I think it’s outstanding spotting the Owls if you see how well they are hiding. I have to say I enjoy shooting the 180-600 next to a prime as well. It is still very compact and very versatile in particular in case you did not put the cash on the table to buy a 400 mm 2.8 with build in Tc (which kind of gives you versatility and prime quality) – I typically combine the 180-600 with either a 300 mm 2.8 VRII (which I bought used) or the Sigma 500 F/4.
Thank you for your comment, Michael. They really are beautiful owls. I wonder if there are any owls that aren’t beautiful? Their rarity is certainly the icing on the cake.
As for the lens, I’m glad I bought it. Especially now that DxO has quickly released a module for the 180-600mm. I can’t wait to edit some more photos.
Your lenses are great for low light or subject separation. I had the 300mm f/2.8 once in Ecuador for hummingbird photography and it is super sharp and very fast. However, I haven’t had a chance to try the Sigma 500mm f/4 yet. How do you like this lens?
The Sigma is really sharp and works relatively well with the 1.4 and 2.0 Tc. It is heavy but I can handle it well even handheld (3.4 kg + FTZ + … + Z9). I think it is sharper than the 500 pf and suffers less from diffraction compared to that lens. It is weaker in VR compensation by 1.5 stops but still fine for video. You can check my video on this lens if you like,
www.youtube.com/watch…vlZdB7nOSs
However, my favorite video lens is the 180-600. (which is less sharp, but lighter, can zoom and has better VR for videos)
Very nice pictures and interesting to see this comparison. In my book (wallet) there’s nothing “basic” about a 2000 € lens though ;-)
The next closest is the $2700 Z 100-400mm, so it still counts in my book. ;)
Strange. The image shows the 180-600 in use but the caption lists the wrong lens.
I see how that was confusing – looks like Libor was using the 180-600mm, but someone used a different lens to take that photo of him. I deleted that part of the caption to be clearer.
Amazing shots!
Thank you, Jason.