[andyv1968]

I have been thinking of getting a 450mm zoom to take pictures of birds, I'm currently using a 300mm zoom and it is only really effective up to 200 meters. Will a 450mm make a significant difference?

[pepperberry farm]

depends upon which zoom...

[boriscleto]

The D FA 150-450 is a big upgrade from a 300mm zoom. But keep in mind it is also major upgrade in size & weight.

[wadge22]

If you're talking about DFA 150-450, that's a lens that most users are very happy with. The main (only?) complaints I sometimes see are size/weight and price. I don't have the lens myself.
What I can say from experience, as someone who's put a 1.5x TC on my 300mm lens, is that yes the step up from 300 to 450 makes a fairly significant difference for wildlife/birds.
600 is even better, but then again longer than that is likely even better still. One has to draw the line somewhere, and usually budget and/or image quality help make that decision. I think 400mm is probably as good a low cutoff as any (of course some can get good bird shots with 300 or even 200 lenses).

[kypfer]

I have been thinking of getting a 450mm zoom to take pictures of birds, I'm currently using a 300mm zoom and it is only really effective up to 200 meters. Will a 450mm make a significant difference?

All depends on the size of the birds
At 200m they must be fairly big species!
In my experience, much past 100m can start to be affected by heat haze etc. especially over water, so I wouldn't expect any significant gains out past 200m except under exceptional circumstances.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have been thinking of getting a 450mm zoom to take pictures of birds, I'm currently using a 300mm zoom and it is only really effective up to 200 meters. Will a 450mm make a significant difference?

Keep in mind

Image size = subject size x focal length / distance.

At 200 m a 1.0 meter bird (pretty big bird) with 300 mm lens is 1.5 mm high, and with a 450mm lens it will be 2.25 mm high. Neither is significantly large considering an APS-C sensor is 16 x 24 mm

Save the $2k and move closer.

If you are chasing water foul, which might be 30cm long to fill 1/4 of your sensor area (1/2 length x 1/2 width) in the long direction, you need to be 3 meters away and with a 450 mm lens you need to be 4.5 meters away,

As a result if you consider other than a record shot, you really want to use something like 1/4 to 1/10 of an APSC sensor, and need to work at something between 3 and 9 meters with a 300 mm lens and 1.5 times this with a 450 mm lens.

Consider this before spending a lot of money. We won’t discuss warblers and humming birds which are 1/10 the size of water foul

[Paul the Sunman]

Save the $2k and move closer.

That often requires a jet pack, which is much more expensive, and in any case scares the birds away.

The DFA 150-450 is stellar for birding. I use it on both APS-C and my K1. If you need the longer reach, it is 675mm equivalent, with is usually sufficient.

[luftfluss]

I don't know the math like Lowell does, but this photo is uncropped and shot from no more than 40 meters away (confirmed with Google Earth Pro)



Uncropped image at ~ 40 meters, 560mm (400mm + 1.4x TC) and APS-C.

If the OP really needs to shoot birds at 200 meters, I'd recommend this, with its 3000mm "equivalent" lens:



(Nikon P1000, for those who don't recognize it)

[Lowell Goudge]

That often requires a jet pack, which is much more expensive, and in any case scares the birds away.

The DFA 150-450 is stellar for birding. I use it on both APS-C and my K1. If you need the longer reach, it is 675mm equivalent, with is usually sufficient.

Ok I will admit I own
- a DA560,
- a sigma 70-200/2.8 and sigma 2X TC,
- A K300/4 coupled to the SMC 1.7 x af converter,
- a tamron 200-500/5.6, and,
- a celestron C90 1000mm F11 scope with a K mount attachment

So I have pretty much tried it all when it comes to length.

If and when I go to replace my 20year old sigma zoom and TC it will likely be with the DFA 150-450,

BUT I felt that the OP needed to understand the reality of shooting out to 200 meters. At that distance outside a record shot my 1 meter subject is only 5 mm high in the frame.anything smaller than a great blue heron, great egret, or crane will be not worth keeping.

Getting close is the only reality.

[UncleVanya]

Birds are hard unless you stalk them or use a hide.

Even big game is hard at 100 yards. See this article. Scroll down to the table showing the distance to a bear and how much of the frame is covered. Those are for full frame so a lens 600mm / 1.5 = 400mm this gives you an idea how close people have to be without cropping too much. This is where a 600mm plus 2x on a full frame actually gets some use given the fact that you can’t be closer than 25 yards from any animals and 100 yards from a bear or wolf!

[hcc]

You already received some good advice. I would like to suggest another option to the OP.

Get a 300 mm prime lens (eg FA*300mm f4.5 or DA*300mm f4) +the Pentax HD-TC1.4x.

The Pentax HD TC 1.4x is a great converter, which is recognised by the camera.I have used it with several prime lenses. The IQ is excellent and it is well worth the investment IMHO.

Nowadays, I always take my Pentax HD-DA TC1.4x with me when I shoot with a prime incl. my FA*300mm f4.5. This give me to focal lengths: 300mm and 420 mm. A great reach (+) and superb IQ in both cases.
(+) Note the 1200mm of Uncle Vanya, but 420mm is already pretty good on APS-C camera body.

My 5 cents hoping that it may help

[UncleVanya]

You already received some good advice. I would like to suggest another option to the OP.

Get a 300 mm prime lens (eg FA*300mm f4.5 or DA*300mm f4) +the Pentax HD-TC1.4x.

The Pentax HD TC 1.4x is a great converter, which is recognised by the camera.I have used it with several prime lenses. The IQ is excellent and it is well worth the investment IMHO.

Nowadays, I always take my Pentax HD-DA TC1.4x with me when I shoot with a prime incl. my FA*300mm f4.5. This give me to focal lengths: 300mm and 420 mm. A great reach (+) and superb IQ in both cases.
(+) Note the 1200mm of Uncle Vanya, but 420mm is already pretty good on APS-C camera body.

My 5 cents hoping that it may help

Lol. I’m not suggesting anyone consider 1200mm unless they have aspirations of National Geographic covers. I’m pointing out that there are reasons to be more pragmatic. It can get silly quickly.

The hd da is a good option on the da 300. I’m unclear if that’s the lens in question.

[Des]

If the bird is 200m away, even with a really long lens (a lot more than 450mm on APS-C), atmospheric conditions would often prevent you from getting a clear shot.

My longest lens is 300mm + 1.4 TC, ie 420mm. With birds that far away, the most I would hope for would be either an environmental shot or some kind of record of the sighting.

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't know the math like Lowell does, but this photo is uncropped and shot from no more than 40 meters away (confirmed with Google Earth Pro)



Uncropped image at ~ 40 meters, 560mm (400mm + 1.4x TC) and APS-C.

If the OP really needs to shoot birds at 200 meters, I'd recommend this, with its 3000mm "equivalent" lens:



(Nikon P1000, for those who don't recognize it)

For me it’s a Q with a 200-300mm lens. Although I keep thinking about it I still have to put the 1000mm scope on the Q. With the 5.5 crop factor that’s a 5500mm F11 equivalent. But I’ll need a 1000 pound tripod to keep it solid.

[luftfluss]

If the bird is 200m away, even with a really long lens (a lot more than 450mm on APS-C), atmospheric conditions would often prevent you from getting a clear shot.

Especially if you are shooting over a body of water on a warm day.

The farthest distance I've shot for a living subject - that I can recall, anyway - was around 100m. No crop, 800mm (400mm lens + 2x TC)