The Best Lenses for Birds in Flight

If there is one thing for certain when it comes to the wildlife photography community, it’s that a whole lot of people obsess over what equipment is best for photographing birds in flight.

I’ve spent most of the morning packing bags. Gearing up to head out for my Epic Eagles workshop, I find myself surrounded by the inevitable chaos of stuff I need to pack. Boats and open water are a big component of this trip. So, proper attire for photographing in the Alaskan winter while on the water factors heavily into all considerations. Helly Hansen rain jacket so loved by commercial fisher-people all over the state? Check. Kuiu slip on waterproof pants? Check.  

But one thing that I don’t have to think about is the right gear for the job.

For many, bird in flight photography is the eye of the needle all gear must pass through to be considered worth the price.

Personally, I give little thought to this in general simply because I have my own litmus tests for gear. However, It makes sense that this is how so many judge equipment. For most wildlife photographers, keeping up with and capturing images of birds in flight is about the most difficult thing they will ever do with their equipment. More people photograph birds than mammals, snakes, insects, or any other class of animals. If we did a survey, it would likely show that better than 50% of photographers got into wildlife photography because of birds. So, it stands to reason that bird photography, in some form or another, is going to set a benchmark. 

When it comes to the right gear for the job, there are a lot of opinions out there. Every wildlife photographer whose name you recognize likely has their own take on this, of course. That’s important to understand. Because all of this really is nothing more than opinion when it comes to the best gear for whatever task.

Over the years, there’s been quite a few trends when it came to opinions on bird in flight lenses. When digital first hit the scene, I remember the 300mm f/4 being all the rage for this and Cotton Carriers got pretty popular for that reason. A 300mm f/4 lens is small and light, nothing like it’s bigger, sharper, faster f/2.8 brother. Photographers were able to strap one of these things to their chests and carrying big glass over their shoulders on tripods. If a bird flew in, they could grab the second camera and 300 f/4 off the Cotton Carrier and shoot quickly.

One of the reasons that the 300 f/4 was so popular for birds in flight at the time was because of the lack of alternatives. Zoom lenses had not really become what they are today for so many wildlife photographers. Canon released their 100-400mm lens, which the first iteration seemed to designed as a dust pump, one of those strange zoom lenses where you push or pull the fucus ring instead of turning it. The glass was “OK” at best. But it was at least a step in the right direction.

With a lack of quality glass in this arena, people looked toward primes. Prime lenses had always been sharper than zooms. This wasn’t unique to digital photography. As a rule of thumb, professionals tended to avoid zooms that had a greater range than double the smallest focal length. So, a smaller aperture 300mm hit that sweet spot of being lightweight enough for hand holding, long enough for reaching out to capture birds in flight, and sharp enough to make it past the discriminating eye of photo editors and art directors – to a point.

When digital technology finally hit 12mp, it reached the same resolution and image quality that the world expected from high end film. Once cameras began pushing past this, digital photography began to leave 35mm film photography behind.

But this came at the cost of image quality with our lenses. All that glass we were carrying around had been engineered to meet quality standards based on the resolution of film. As we surpassed film, however, we began to see a degradation in our images created with all but the most expensive lenses.

The 300mm f/4 lenses no longer cut it. The 100-400 fell to the wayside for most Canon photographers. And I’m pretty sure I could have painted the bird faster than a Nikon 80-400 could focus on it.

For me, this meant big expensive glass was the only way to go. As a result, I have used about every telephoto you can think of that attaches to a Nikon camera for birds in flight. Massive 800mm prime lenses, 600mm f/4 lenses that required dedicated weight training to be able to handhold, 500 primes, 400 primes, a 120-300mm f/2.8, and what became my favorite bird in flight lens, the 200-400mm. The quality of the glass and resulting images are unsurpassed. You have good background control and the autofocus is fast enough to actually keep pace with both bird and camera capabilities.

But all these lenses pack a lot of weight, which means muscle fatigue is a real limitation to how long you can keep working. Sure, you can lock down on a tripod. But only in certain situations is this feasible given that you must dance around behind the tripod as you swing your lens about. You aren’t doing this with skittish subjects. You aren’t doing this in a blind. And you aren’t doing this on a boat.

Nikon’s 200-400 was the closest thing came to being an ideal bird in flight lens for me. Really, this became a go-to for everything from big mammals to birds in flight. Truth be told, it’s probably where my love affair with the 400mm focal length first began. The lens was versatile. I liked to think of it as my story telling lens since I could easily zoom out to 200mm for wider environmental compositions. Best of all, it was a constant f/4 through the entire zoom range.

But there was one big downside for photographing birds in flight. The Nikon 200-400 and its successor, the 180-400 TC, were heavy. The 200-400 was over 7lbs. The 180-400 was nearly 8lbs (all still seem lightweight compared to my old 600 that weighed in at something like 12lbs). This was just something we all dealt with. Professional football players (American or otherwise) all lift weights to keep in shape for their profession. Why shouldn’t professional wildlife photographers?

When it comes to lenses for photographing birds in flight, things are different today.

Yes, I still own and carry big prime lenses in the field. However, the quality of lightweight zoom lenses has finally reached a point where it simply doesn’t make sense not to own one as a wildlife photographer. My 400, 600, and 800 are still the workhorses in my life. But smaller and lighter zooms absolutely have their place these days.

While there has been so much ink spilled over everyone’s love affair with the Nikon 180-600 and Sony 200-600 (as well as the Sigma and Tamron equivalents), my go to zoom lens for birds in flight is something shorter.

I think the current iterations of the 100-400 lenses are the best thing going for birds in flight now.

For Nikon, it’s the 100-400 4.5-5.6 S lens.

For Sony, it’s the 100-400 4.5-5.6 G Master lens.

For Canon, it’s the 100-500 4.5-7.1 L lens.

For Olympus, things are a little different. Due to the doubling effect you experience with the micro 4/3rds sensor, the absolutely fabulous 150-400 w/ built in teleconverter is actually a 300-800mm equivalent. While this would still be a great lens for birds in flight, being limited to 300mm is, well, limiting. So, the 100-400 f/5 lens would likely be my choice in the Olympus lineup even though that still puts things at 200-800mm.

Opting for these shorter lenses may come as a surprise to many photographers.

Today, the hype in wildlife photography is longer = better. Everyone wants to reach 600mm somehow.

I take a different approach. While I routinely use longer lenses like 600 and 800mm, these are specialty lenses for me. They are designed for working with either highly elusive, very small, or very sensitive species. Relying on the longest focal length possible, or worse, relying on focal length + a big 45mp sensor to do the job, is not my cup of tea. So much is lost in doing so when it comes to controlling the look and feel of the image through depth of field and composition. This is important to me. I’m not just trying to create a record of the fact I saw an animal. Instead, I prefer to work my way into where I need to be to create the type of images I am looking for out of the situation. Think of this as the difference between being reactive versus proactive in approach.

So, for me, the 100-400 range tends to give me the greatest versatility for photographing birds in flight.

Take the eagles I am packing bags for. These raptors have wing spans that can reach 8-feet in length. Eight feet! Personally, I’m not all that interested in just another photo of an eagle flapping by my lens. I am quite partial to the amazing displays of agility and acrobatics these birds are capable of where they dive, bank, flip upside down, and really put those great wings to the test. Now add to this the fact that it’s all happening against the backdrop of Alaska, and I want that in there too.

A 600mm lens isn’t going to get this job done for me. In fact, most often I find myself between 100 and 300mm when photographing these birds here. 

I guess this does mean that Canon’s new 100-300 f/2.8 or my beloved Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 lens would be perfect for birds in flight (I have done my fair share of birds in flight with the Nikon 120-300). However, Canon’s version of this comes in at 5.8lbs and Nikon’s at a bicep crushing 7.2lbs (much like the 200-400). While these zoom lenses are truly one of my all-time favorites (maybe even more so than the 400 f/2.8, maybe), the weight of this glass is still a lot to hand hold all day long. Remember, in addition to the weight of the lens, you also have to add the weight of the camera body and any L-brackets or lens plates you have attached as well.

Bird in flight opportunities happen two ways.

Either you plan for a day of it and set yourself up in a situation where you can predictably photograph birds in flight, or they happen as a random one-off occurrence while you were out photographing something else.  

Setting up to photograph birds in flight means you plan on committing to this. You are putting yourself in the best of all possible scenarios where you will likely end up with up many thousands of photographs in a good morning.

That’s how things work where I’m heading for eagles. Days are divided into morning and afternoon shoots. Each time out, I may come back with 10,000 photographs (I delete 99.9%, of course) because bird in flight photography is a numbers game. Now, imagine holding a 6 or 7lbs lens with a 4lb camera attached to it for nearly 3 hours straight, wheeling it about, supporting it out in front of you, keeping up with birds, and making 10,000 images in the process. Now imagine going back out that afternoon to do it again, and then again and again for a week straight.

This is why weight is a priority when it comes to birds in flight.

But there are other factors I am forced to consider as well such as the type of light I will be photographing in, the speed and accuracy of the autofocus capabilities of the lens, and the image quality itself.

I live in Alaska and spend most of my time photographing in places that seem to have similar weather patterns. This means I’m usually working in sub-optimal conditions for light. While photographers chasing after images of great egrets flying in and out of rookeries may find themselves battling an ever-present excess of light, my photography usually takes place in the antithesis. I’m always starved for light it would seem.

For most of my wildlife photography, this is why I prioritize f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. But with birds in flight, I make sacrifices for weight. And with the 100-400 lenses on the market today, these tend to be variable aperture lenses that range from a respectable f/4.5 to f/5.6.

While neither end of these aperture settings is ideal for low light photography, it’s a decent compromise.

If when shooting with a 2.8 lens, the situation called for 2,500 ISO, at f/4 this would be 5,000 ISO, f/5.6 it would be 10,000 ISO, at f/8 it would be 20,000 ISO and so on.

While I feel comfortable shooting at higher ISO settings like this, and routinely find myself working north of 10,000, I really don’t want to if I can help it. Naturally, the lower the better here. While I do love the look of f/2.8 with birds in flight photographs (not a typo), the trade off in weight for a f/4.5-5.6 means I can keep going all day in the field this way.

The other thing about this aperture range is that it’s sort of ideal for most birds in flight. I just mentioned I love 2.8. However, there is nothing easy about shooting birds rocketing by on the wing at f/2.8, with its insanely shallow depth of field. But with 4.5 or 5.6, your larger depth of field is greatly increased which gives you a small safety net in terms of focusing. The issue with bokeh and “background control” in the composition can then be compensated for by setting up so you are not only photographing closer to the birds but also with more distant backgrounds – which is why I said I like to set up based on the look of the photographs I wish to create.

As for the image quality and autofocus accuracy, Nikon, Sony, and Canon all produce versions of the 100-400 lens at their highest standards for glass. Nikon calls these lenses their S lens. Canon designates their top tier glass as L lenses. And Sony calls them G Master.

What does not fall into this category are the Nikon 180-600mm and Sony 200-600 (as well as the Sigma and Tamron equivalents). I’ve shot with all of these. They are great lenses in their right. But image quality and AF performances doesn’t quite reach that of the 100-400 lenses, which is part of the reason why they are not S or G Master lenses. And this is why they come at lower cost points than their 100-400 counterparts.

Birds in flight requires us to push our equipment to the extreme. Autofocus accuracy needs to be top notch. The quality of glass elements needs to be top notch. And autofocus speed / acquisition needs to be top notch. You get all of these with big prime lenses or the 100-300 / 120-300mm zooms. But this comes with significant weight and muscle fatigue, however. So, for birds in flight I prioritize top tier lenses that come with the S, G Master, or L designators on them, understanding that these were produced to deliver the next best thing to the big primes.

For my eagle workshop, you will find just two lenses in my backpack: the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens for portrait work, and the Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S lens for birds in flight.

That’s it.

Simple, functional, and meets the exacting standards I have for the types of images I want to create in the conditions I know will prevail. 

As I mentioned above, camera equipment choices are nothing but opinions. What works for me may not work for you. What works for whatever YouTube, Facebook, of Instagram personality claiming to be the keeper of wildlife photography secrets, may also not work for you. And that’s OK.  

But for me, when I’ve committed myself to photographing birds in flight for a day or a week, it’s a 100-400mm lens (or a 100-500 if I shot Canon), that you will likely find on the end of my camera despite having access to any other piece of glass I could want.

Cheers,

Jared Lloyd

Uncompromising quality. Workshop level education. The Art & Science of wildlife photography at your finger tips.

Already a Subscriber? Member Menu