I did look at the 400 prime, and it is superb, but lacks IS and limits me to tripod only. Am I missing something?
In really good light you can use (should use) a very high shutter speed rather than IS. A tripod based setup will always be more stable than IS in reduced light. IS is for those times when nothing else will work.
HarryB is awesome with bird photography and when he says, "You will need a fast shutter speed to capture a moving subject such as a hummer. If your hands aren't steady then a tripod would be much more effective than VR or IS.", you can take that to the bank.
Maybe you should ask yourself the following questions:
1) Is it worth spending 1200$ on the 300mm/4.0L IS if you can use your 70-200 with a 1.4x Extender for only 300$ ?
You gain 1 stop, IS and a little better quailty for 900$.
2) Is it worth spending 1500$ for the 300mm + 1.4x Extender over the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS for 1400$?
You loose versality, gain 1 stop and a little better quality at 300mm for 100$
more. But at 400mm these lenses are about equal.
3) Is the extra 100$ and quality at 300mm worth carrying the extra weight
of the 70-200 and the 300mm around and the fact that you need to change
lenses as soon as you want to go from 200 to 300 or 400mm and vice versa?
There is a good reason why the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS is so popular
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
If your going to go with the 100-400 you may want to get one well in advance. My experience with that lens has been less than stellar, I could never seem to get one of the good ones. Although if you do get a good one you should be quite pleased with it. Just make sure to give yourself enough time to swap it out in case you get a wonky copy.
Maybe you should ask yourself the following questions:
1) Is it worth spending 1200$ on the 300mm/4.0L IS if you can use your 70-200 with a 1.4x Extender for only 300$ ?
You gain 1 stop, IS and a little better quailty for 900$.
2) Is it worth spending 1500$ for the 300mm + 1.4x Extender over the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS for 1400$?
You loose versality, gain 1 stop and a little better quality at 300mm for 100$
more. But at 400mm these lenses are about equal.
3) Is the extra 100$ and quality at 300mm worth carrying the extra weight
of the 70-200 and the 300mm around and the fact that you need to change
lenses as soon as you want to go from 200 to 300 or 400mm and vice versa?
There is a good reason why the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS is so popular
Appreciate you sticking with me Manfred. Are you suggesting I sell my 70-200 and buy the 100-400? What do you think I might be able to get for the 200-400?
If your going to go with the 100-400 you may want to get one well in advance. My experience with that lens has been less than stellar, I could never seem to get one of the good ones. Although if you do get a good one you should be quite pleased with it. Just make sure to give yourself enough time to swap it out in case you get a wonky copy.
Have others noticed that it is difficult getting a 100-400 that works properly? How would you test it's specifications? Sorry I am so naive about this stuff.
Have others noticed that it is difficult getting a 100-400 that works properly? How would you test it's specifications? Sorry I am so naive about this stuff.
If you are not shure if you got a good sample the following can give you
a hint: You can recognize a good sample by testing how much the lens
improves when stopping down. If there is a little difference to the
performace wide open you're probably holding a very good sample. Another
hint that you got a good copy is the manufacturing date. Early samples of the
lens sometimes had mediocre reviews whereas current versions seem to be
much better (for whatever reason). Here's how you can find out how old a lens is: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx
I wouldn't sell the 70-200. Both lenses are great and each one has its
purpose even if you don't carry them both with you at the same time.
Selling or not really depends on your preferences. There is no easy
answer.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Have others noticed that it is difficult getting a 100-400 that works properly? How would you test it's specifications? Sorry I am so naive about this stuff.
I know there were quality problems on early copies of the lens. However, I haven't heard of anybody having any problems in recent years. It's a very easy lens to shoot with. Make sure the IS is turned on, and snap some pictures. In my experience, even very low shutter speeds of 1/100s and less will generally yield excellent results. Just shoot some pictures, and see how they look. If you don't love them, we can help figure out if you've gotten a bad copy. But I think that bad copies of this lens purchased recently are rare.
Here are a couple of shots I took with my 70-200 today (there is no date code on this lens, nor my other lens for that matter...whatever that means). Tell me what you think. Both are cropped.
In really good light you can use (should use) a very high shutter speed rather than IS. A tripod based setup will always be more stable than IS in reduced light. IS is for those times when nothing else will work.
HarryB is awesome with bird photography and when he says, "You will need a fast shutter speed to capture a moving subject such as a hummer. If your hands aren't steady then a tripod would be much more effective than VR or IS.", you can take that to the bank.
Thank you Ziggy. Yes, I have seen some of Harry's work (amazing).
Appreciate you sticking with me Manfred. Are you suggesting I sell my 70-200 and buy the 100-400? What do you think I might be able to get for the 200-400?
I would suggest keeping the 70-200 and get the 300 f4 with a 1.4 converter. I think you will find you will shoot at full length for most of your pictures anyway. With the 300 f.4, you get a reasonably fast and sharp lens for low light, and with the converter, you get a 420 mm reach.
The 300 is lightweight and is a great lens for walking around.
Like others have said, It depends on your goals. The 100-400 will give you more versatility. If you want one lens, that's the one you want.
To throw a monkey in the wrench, Sigma is coming out with a 150-500 mm with OS, their version of IS. May want to wait to see the reviews for this lens.
In my wildlife photography I haven't found VR to be a major issue. You will need a fast shutter speed to capture a moving subject such as a hummer. If your hands aren't steady then a tripod would be much more effective than VR or IS.
I would consider the 300mm f/4, the 100-400mm, or the 400mm. In Nikonland I've been very happy with Nikon's 300mm f/4 with TCs. The 300mm is also a faster lens (w/o a TC) than the other options. I used to use the Nikon 80-400mm VR frequently until I realized that 90% of my captures were at 400mm so I rarely used the zoom all that much. Since then I've been using the 300mm f/4 over the 80-400.
Thank you Harry. I value your insight. As you can see from this thread, opinions vary, but it appears I can not go wrong with any of these choices.
Thank you Harry. I value your insight. As you can see from this thread, opinions vary, but it appears I can not go wrong with any of these choices.
If I was to have only one lens which gave 400mm (ish) it would be the 400 prime, here's why.
1) It's a bit sharper I think. Sharpness is always goodbut when you want feather detail (and you do) plus you are cropping the image (and you will) you need all the sharpness per pixel that you can get.
2) It take a 1.4x quite well. This will take you to f8 and you shoul loose auto focus, but, if you use a non-reporting 1.4x or tape the pins the body thinks it's still f5.6 and will AF if you have enough ligh. This is on non 1 series bodies. 1 series will AF at f8. Trust me you will want need more than 400mm for birds.
3) The focus speed is vital for a high success with fast flying birds.
4) You will usually want a high SS to stop subject movement. I have too many shots where the head moved and they had to be binned.
5) a tripod or monpod can be a good substitute for IS
This wast a wellconducted test, not best of 5, mirror lock up etc but I think it is relative of the results I get http://www.pbase.com/howards/at_400
Edit: you need to look at the "original" sizes of each image
How about 500 mm prime
I started interest in taking some bird photo and currently using the 70-200 F2.8 IS withe 2X TC. Understanding that it is not the ideal solution for long run, I am considering the big jump to get the 500 F4 IS with a 1.4X TC for the 5D.
After reading this thread for a while, seems the 400 mm is something worth to consider. But there are 2 400 mm the 2.8IS with cost 6.6K and the 40 DO F4 cost 5.4K.
the 400 DO is cheapest among the 3, it is also the lightest (11.5 lbs) and smallest (9.2" X 5"), the 400 F2.8 is the heaviest (5.4Kg) and the widest (13.7 X 6.4").
I am still looking at the 500 F4 with IS which is longest (15.2 X 5.8") while the weight is more manageable (8.5 lbs). Shared with my friend's lens in during the recent trip I really fell in love with it. There is some review on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/168/cat/10, most of guys recommend it.
Can anyone have experience of these 3 lenses and compare it?
I started interest in taking some bird photo and currently using the 70-200 F2.8 IS withe 2X TC. Understanding that it is not the ideal solution for long run, I am considering the big jump to get the 500 F4 IS with a 1.4X TC for the 5D.
After reading this thread for a while, seems the 400 mm is something worth to consider. But there are 2 400 mm the 2.8IS with cost 6.6K and the 40 DO F4 cost 5.4K.
the 400 DO is cheapest among the 3, it is also the lightest (11.5 lbs) and smallest (9.2" X 5"), the 400 F2.8 is the heaviest (5.4Kg) and the widest (13.7 X 6.4").
I am still looking at the 500 F4 with IS which is longest (15.2 X 5.8") while the weight is more manageable (8.5 lbs). Shared with my friend's lens in during the recent trip I really fell in love with it. There is some review on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/168/cat/10, most of guys recommend it.
Can anyone have experience of these 3 lenses and compare it?
Hi Neighbour my only experience is with the 500/4 and it's become my main birding lens, with the others only really seeing use on days where birds are not the main focus. Or in places like parks where the 500 is probably a bit over the top. I use it most often with a 1.4x so I get a 700/5.6 with IS and retain focus on the 20D.
Not the lightest of lenses, and most of the time now it's on a monopod with gimbal head. I started with the gimbal on a tripod but prefer the mobility of the monopod unless I expect to stay in one place. I don't think I've ever heard a negative comment about the 500/4, except price and weight, but optically it's just outstanding. We have certainly moved someway up the price scale here though.
I started interest in taking some bird photo and currently using the 70-200 F2.8 IS withe 2X TC. Understanding that it is not the ideal solution for long run, I am considering the big jump to get the 500 F4 IS with a 1.4X TC for the 5D.
After reading this thread for a while, seems the 400 mm is something worth to consider. But there are 2 400 mm the 2.8IS with cost 6.6K and the 40 DO F4 cost 5.4K.
the 400 DO is cheapest among the 3, it is also the lightest (11.5 lbs) and smallest (9.2" X 5"), the 400 F2.8 is the heaviest (5.4Kg) and the widest (13.7 X 6.4").
I am still looking at the 500 F4 with IS which is longest (15.2 X 5.8") while the weight is more manageable (8.5 lbs). Shared with my friend's lens in during the recent trip I really fell in love with it. There is some review on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/168/cat/10, most of guys recommend it.
Can anyone have experience of these 3 lenses and compare it?
Howard, what about the 400mm 5.6 which sells for about $1K? You mention the 2.8 and the 400DO, but what about the 400mm f/5.6? Do you think that it would serve me better than the 300 f/4 or the 100-400 f/4?
Howard, what about the 400mm 5.6 which sells for about $1K? You mention the 2.8 and the 400DO, but what about the 400mm f/5.6? Do you think that it would serve me better than the 300 f/4 or the 100-400 f/4?
Hi you've replied to Photoskipper who mentioned the other two 400's but I put my vote for the 400 f5.6 as I said earlier and it's a small fraction of the price.
Unserstanding that I don't have any of these lenses (yet), I think I could surmise from this thread that the Canon EF 300mm, f/4.0L IS USM is a superb lens, that the 1.4x teleconverter does not degrade the quality too much, and that combination is hard to beat, unless you need the range versatility of the Canon EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
I would not discount even a Canon EF 400mm, f/5.6L USM on a Wimberly mount or somesuch.
Rental would allow you to quickly determine if a particular combination is right for your usage.
Howard has me considering the 400 f/5.6. It seems quite a bit sharper than the 300mm 1.4x combo. I just hate to give up IS even though you guys have made me realize that I will rarely ever use it. What is more important is fast shutter speed or a tripod.
Decision Time
Today I visited the San Pedro River Riparian Sanctuary in Arizona to practice. Here are a few shots with my 70-200 f/4. I am now convinced that I will buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS which as you all know is way more than I ever intended to spend.
Please let me know what you think about this decision.
I appreciate the support I have received from all of you.
Practiced again this morning with my 70-200. Stills are fine (I think), but very difficult to get a sharp flying bird.
J: Some nice shooting Dan. You have some VERY photogenic subjects in your neighborhood.
H: I too think that for your purposes (esp given the upcoming safari), the 100-400 is a no-brainer.
J: If you are satisfied with the IQ from the 70-200 w/tele, then you should have no problem with the big 1-4.
H: I know, I know, the warnings of "get a good copy" scare the h#ll out of me too, and as yet I've also ignored everyone's advice and have NOT bought this lens yet.
J: But I'm out several times a week with my good shooting buddy Bob who owns one (and lets me use it whenever I want), so I do know its virtues. (several others in our photo club also own the lens, and I can attest to its quality).
H: Myself, I own the 400/f5.6, and it's one incredible lens IMO. Though as you've figured out, it is limited in its versatility being without zoom or IS.
J: The 400/5.6 is widely regarded as THE BIF lens though. And I generally get at least twice as many keepers with the 400/5.6 (and my 30D), as Bob with his 1-4 (and 1D MkIII).
H: But again, where verstility is needed (usually the up-close stuff), I'm stuck. And Bob gets the shot.
J: Not that I don't like close crops (which I actually Looove), but I figure that likely YMMV. (I even love the 400 at zoos, and only miss the IS in the monkey house).
H: As a note, I like the 85/1.8 for 90% of my indoor kids shooting. Again, tight crops.
J: Soooo. It looks to remain a tough choice. Play with the big zoom, see if you like the push/pull. It's OK with a Tele in a pinch (stopped down).
H: Good luck. Hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
J&H
ps. These Eagles and most of the Ospreys were taken with the 400/5.6...
Thanks J&H. Your photos are incredible! I really love the silhouettes.
What do you think of the 300mm f/2.8? I never intended to spend that much, but I'm thinking about how many lenses people buy before they graduate to the one they love. Why not just skip all the in between stuff and buy the best?
Today I visited the San Pedro River Riparian Sanctuary in Arizona to practice. Here are a few shots with my 70-200 f/4. I am now convinced that I will buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS which as you all know is way more than I ever intended to spend.
Please let me know what you think about this decision.
I appreciate the support I have received from all of you.
I started getting heavily into bird photography last year using the 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x extender. Needed a little more reach for osprey and eagles so recently purchased the 100-400 L (also aiir shows were a prime consideration for lens use). I think you'll find that no matter what lens you end up buying, you'll always find you want just a leeetle more reach So I suggest not over spending on the lens as it is only one of the various alternatives to getting closer to the birds. Fieldcraft (sneaking up on them or ambushing them) is just as important and you may find you can use the extra dollars that you saved by not going all out on the lens will let you buy a canoe or duck boat and you may be able to get close enough to make the 70-200 L an effective lens. I've been using a hunting blind in the back yard and get good results with both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I've even beena ble to use a 50 f/1.8 mounted on a tripod with a cable remote from my blind for good shots
I just noticed that you are shooting with a Canon XSi. If you plan to do much BIF photography you may have another investment to consider.
The Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII are really the preferred platform for the demands of BIF. The autofocus section of the above cameras is much more advanced than the XSi. Speed and accuracy are considerably improved.
The Canon 40D would be the next step up from the XSi and it also has a more advanced autofocus. All of the sensors are cross type and the center sensor is also sensitive to f2.8 lenses and should provide better accuracy and speed.
The reason I mention this is because the Canon EF 300mm, f2.8L IS is an awesome lens but it may not work to its limits on an XSi body.
No reason to rush into the decision, and you will get some good shots with an XSi and the 300mm, f2.8L. Just don't get too frustrated if it takes a "lot" of exposures to get a few keepers. It's all part of the challenges of bird photography.
Auto Focus
The Canon XSi uses a 9-point autofocus system, equal to the number of AF sites on the earlier XTi. The difference is that the XSi upgrades to cross-type AF sensors, which is like a double-check on image recognition. The cross-type AF sensors, as opposed to single-axis AF sensors, quickly and more accurately detect subjects, thereby improving the overall autofocus system. The cross-type autofocus is effective with EF and EF-S lenses with an aperture of f/2.8 or faster.
I just noticed that you are shooting with a Canon XSi. If you plan to do much BIF photography you may have another investment to consider.
The Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII are really the preferred platform for the demands of BIF. The autofocus section of the above cameras is much more advanced than the XSi. Speed and accuracy are considerably improved.
The Canon 40D would be the next step up from the XSi and it is also has a more advanced autofocus. All of the sensors are cross type and the center sensor is also sensitive to f2.8 lenses and should provide better accuracy and speed.
The reason I mention this is because the Canon EF 300mm, f2.8L IS is an awesome lens but it may not work to its limits on an XSi body.
No reason to rush into the decision, and you will get some good shots with an XSi and the 300mm, f2.8L. Just don't get too frustrated if it takes a "lot" of exposures to get a few keepers. It's all part of the challenges of bird photography.
As they said on M.A.S.H. Horsehockey!
The XSi is just fine for birds, and BIF's.
Most people only use the center focus point for BIF's, so why would the cross sensors of turned off focus points be important?
I use a Canon 300 F2.8 with a Canon 2 X tc on my XSi with no problems at all.
I also have the 400L F5.6.
It is a great lens for BIF's. It's light weight, focuses fast, has a built in hood, and fits into a camera bag easily.
The 300L F2.8 is a very large lens. I can hand hold it, but there are a lot of people that can't.
Trying to line up the BIF's is tougher because you can't look down the edge of the lens (like you can with the 400 F5.6)
to find your target.
I've chosen the 300 f2.8 to be my wildlife/birding lens. I have no regrets.
I haven't had the chance to get any real beauties from this combo yet, but a have a few grounded birds for show.
These have the 2X converter on the 300 f2.8.
Note the backgrounds on the second and third shots. That's another thing the F2.8 will get you.
I just now discovered the immense weight of the f/2.8 vs. the f/4 and although the IQ of the 2.8 is better, it is not enough for me to lug around a 15 lb. lens. I think I will stick with the 300mm f/4 which weighs 2 lbs.
The XSi is just fine for birds, and BIF's.
Most people only use the center focus point for BIF's, so why would the cross sensors of turned off focus points be important?
I use a Canon 300 F2.8 with a Canon 2 X tc on my XSi with no problems at all.
I also have the 400L F5.6.
It is a great lens for BIF's. It's light weight, focuses fast, has a built in hood, and fits into a camera bag easily.
The 300L F2.8 is a very large lens. I can hand hold it, but there are a lot of people that can't.
Trying to line up the BIF's is tougher because you can't look down the edge of the lens (like you can with the 400 F5.6)
to find your target.
I've chosen the 300 f2.8 to be my wildlife/birding lens. I have no regrets.
I haven't had the chance to get any real beauties from this combo yet, but a have a few grounded birds for show.
These have the 2X converter on the 300 f2.8.
Note the backgrounds on the second and third shots. That's another thing the F2.8 will get you.
I opted for the f/4 over the f2.8 for the same reason. I figured that with the 500mm f/4 I didn't need any more heavy weights. The lens is a good start for you however there's more to do.
When I was leaving the Alligator Farm today I met this other photographer who was also heading out. He had a D300, a 200-400 lens, a gitzo tripod with a Wimberly head, and a better beamer. A real nice set-up costing around $8K. He said to me "I can't get a decent shot of those white birds. I keep blowing out the highlights". We chatted a bit and it quickly became apparant that he had no idea of how to expose properly.
There's a number of ways to get the knowledge to use your equipment properly. You can do some reading. Arthur Morris' book, The Art of Bird Photography, is an outstanding read with lots of good info.
I would also recommend doing a workshop. The workshops I've taken have had more to do with my photography improving than all the gear I have accumulated.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I opted for the f/4 over the f2.8 for the same reason. I figured that with the 500mm f/4 I didn't need any more heavy weights. The lens is a good start for you however there's more to do.
When I was leaving the Alligator Farm today I met this other photographer who was also heading out. He had a D300, a 200-400 lens, a gitzo tripod with a Wimberly head, and a better beamer. A real nice set-up costing around $8K. He said to me "I can't get a decent shot of those white birds. I keep blowing out the highlights". We chatted a bit and it quickly became apparant that he had no idea of how to expose properly.
There's a number of ways to get the knowledge to use your equipment properly. You can do some reading. Arthur Morris' book, The Art of Bird Photography, is an outstanding read with lots of good info.
I would also recommend doing a workshop. The workshops I've taken have had more to do with my photography improving than all the gear I have accumulated.
You could do it Harry's way, read books, attend a workshop or two.
Or, do it my way, send about 2 years, take thousands of shots, and eventually figure out what you're doing.
The one advantage that the 300 f2.8 has over the 300 f4 is the fact that it will keep auto focus with a 2X converter.
I know were I live, more reach is always a plus.
I opted for the f/4 over the f2.8 for the same reason. I figured that with the 500mm f/4 I didn't need any more heavy weights. The lens is a good start for you however there's more to do.
When I was leaving the Alligator Farm today I met this other photographer who was also heading out. He had a D300, a 200-400 lens, a gitzo tripod with a Wimberly head, and a better beamer. A real nice set-up costing around $8K. He said to me "I can't get a decent shot of those white birds. I keep blowing out the highlights". We chatted a bit and it quickly became apparant that he had no idea of how to expose properly.
There's a number of ways to get the knowledge to use your equipment properly. You can do some reading. Arthur Morris' book, The Art of Bird Photography, is an outstanding read with lots of good info.
I would also recommend doing a workshop. The workshops I've taken have had more to do with my photography improving than all the gear I have accumulated.
Thank you Harry. That is good advice indeed. I will get the book as you suggest.
How was the Alligator Farm? I don't suppose you made it to the Golf Hall of Fame (lol).
Comments
In really good light you can use (should use) a very high shutter speed rather than IS. A tripod based setup will always be more stable than IS in reduced light. IS is for those times when nothing else will work.
HarryB is awesome with bird photography and when he says, "You will need a fast shutter speed to capture a moving subject such as a hummer. If your hands aren't steady then a tripod would be much more effective than VR or IS.", you can take that to the bank.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
1) Is it worth spending 1200$ on the 300mm/4.0L IS if you can use your 70-200 with a 1.4x Extender for only 300$ ?
You gain 1 stop, IS and a little better quailty for 900$.
2) Is it worth spending 1500$ for the 300mm + 1.4x Extender over the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS for 1400$?
You loose versality, gain 1 stop and a little better quality at 300mm for 100$
more. But at 400mm these lenses are about equal.
3) Is the extra 100$ and quality at 300mm worth carrying the extra weight
of the 70-200 and the 300mm around and the fact that you need to change
lenses as soon as you want to go from 200 to 300 or 400mm and vice versa?
There is a good reason why the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS is so popular
― Edward Weston
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
Appreciate you sticking with me Manfred. Are you suggesting I sell my 70-200 and buy the 100-400? What do you think I might be able to get for the 200-400?
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Have others noticed that it is difficult getting a 100-400 that works properly? How would you test it's specifications? Sorry I am so naive about this stuff.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
If you are not shure if you got a good sample the following can give you
a hint: You can recognize a good sample by testing how much the lens
improves when stopping down. If there is a little difference to the
performace wide open you're probably holding a very good sample. Another
hint that you got a good copy is the manufacturing date. Early samples of the
lens sometimes had mediocre reviews whereas current versions seem to be
much better (for whatever reason). Here's how you can find out how old a lens is:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx
I wouldn't sell the 70-200. Both lenses are great and each one has its
purpose even if you don't carry them both with you at the same time.
Selling or not really depends on your preferences. There is no easy
answer.
― Edward Weston
I know there were quality problems on early copies of the lens. However, I haven't heard of anybody having any problems in recent years. It's a very easy lens to shoot with. Make sure the IS is turned on, and snap some pictures. In my experience, even very low shutter speeds of 1/100s and less will generally yield excellent results. Just shoot some pictures, and see how they look. If you don't love them, we can help figure out if you've gotten a bad copy. But I think that bad copies of this lens purchased recently are rare.
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
F5.3 1/250 ISO 200
f/4.0 1/400
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
I would suggest keeping the 70-200 and get the 300 f4 with a 1.4 converter. I think you will find you will shoot at full length for most of your pictures anyway. With the 300 f.4, you get a reasonably fast and sharp lens for low light, and with the converter, you get a 420 mm reach.
The 300 is lightweight and is a great lens for walking around.
Like others have said, It depends on your goals. The 100-400 will give you more versatility. If you want one lens, that's the one you want.
To throw a monkey in the wrench, Sigma is coming out with a 150-500 mm with OS, their version of IS. May want to wait to see the reviews for this lens.
Thank you Harry. I value your insight. As you can see from this thread, opinions vary, but it appears I can not go wrong with any of these choices.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
If I was to have only one lens which gave 400mm (ish) it would be the 400 prime, here's why.
1) It's a bit sharper I think. Sharpness is always goodbut when you want feather detail (and you do) plus you are cropping the image (and you will) you need all the sharpness per pixel that you can get.
2) It take a 1.4x quite well. This will take you to f8 and you shoul loose auto focus, but, if you use a non-reporting 1.4x or tape the pins the body thinks it's still f5.6 and will AF if you have enough ligh. This is on non 1 series bodies. 1 series will AF at f8. Trust me you will want need more than 400mm for birds.
3) The focus speed is vital for a high success with fast flying birds.
4) You will usually want a high SS to stop subject movement. I have too many shots where the head moved and they had to be binned.
5) a tripod or monpod can be a good substitute for IS
This wast a wellconducted test, not best of 5, mirror lock up etc but I think it is relative of the results I get
http://www.pbase.com/howards/at_400
Edit: you need to look at the "original" sizes of each image
I started interest in taking some bird photo and currently using the 70-200 F2.8 IS withe 2X TC. Understanding that it is not the ideal solution for long run, I am considering the big jump to get the 500 F4 IS with a 1.4X TC for the 5D.
After reading this thread for a while, seems the 400 mm is something worth to consider. But there are 2 400 mm the 2.8IS with cost 6.6K and the 40 DO F4 cost 5.4K.
the 400 DO is cheapest among the 3, it is also the lightest (11.5 lbs) and smallest (9.2" X 5"), the 400 F2.8 is the heaviest (5.4Kg) and the widest (13.7 X 6.4").
I am still looking at the 500 F4 with IS which is longest (15.2 X 5.8") while the weight is more manageable (8.5 lbs). Shared with my friend's lens in during the recent trip I really fell in love with it. There is some review on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/168/cat/10, most of guys recommend it.
Can anyone have experience of these 3 lenses and compare it?
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Hi Neighbour
Not the lightest of lenses, and most of the time now it's on a monopod with gimbal head. I started with the gimbal on a tripod but prefer the mobility of the monopod unless I expect to stay in one place. I don't think I've ever heard a negative comment about the 500/4, except price and weight, but optically it's just outstanding. We have certainly moved someway up the price scale here though.
Howard, what about the 400mm 5.6 which sells for about $1K? You mention the 2.8 and the 400DO, but what about the 400mm f/5.6? Do you think that it would serve me better than the 300 f/4 or the 100-400 f/4?
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Hi you've replied to Photoskipper who mentioned the other two 400's but I put my vote for the 400 f5.6 as I said earlier and it's a small fraction of the price.
Howard has me considering the 400 f/5.6. It seems quite a bit sharper than the 300mm 1.4x combo. I just hate to give up IS even though you guys have made me realize that I will rarely ever use it. What is more important is fast shutter speed or a tripod.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Today I visited the San Pedro River Riparian Sanctuary in Arizona to practice. Here are a few shots with my 70-200 f/4. I am now convinced that I will buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS which as you all know is way more than I ever intended to spend.
Please let me know what you think about this decision.
I appreciate the support I have received from all of you.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
J: Some nice shooting Dan. You have some VERY photogenic subjects in your neighborhood.
H: I too think that for your purposes (esp given the upcoming safari), the 100-400 is a no-brainer.
J: If you are satisfied with the IQ from the 70-200 w/tele, then you should have no problem with the big 1-4.
H: I know, I know, the warnings of "get a good copy" scare the h#ll out of me too, and as yet I've also ignored everyone's advice and have NOT bought this lens yet.
J: But I'm out several times a week with my good shooting buddy Bob who owns one (and lets me use it whenever I want), so I do know its virtues. (several others in our photo club also own the lens, and I can attest to its quality).
H: Myself, I own the 400/f5.6, and it's one incredible lens IMO. Though as you've figured out, it is limited in its versatility being without zoom or IS.
J: The 400/5.6 is widely regarded as THE BIF lens though. And I generally get at least twice as many keepers with the 400/5.6 (and my 30D), as Bob with his 1-4 (and 1D MkIII).
H: But again, where verstility is needed (usually the up-close stuff), I'm stuck. And Bob gets the shot.
J: Not that I don't like close crops (which I actually Looove), but I figure that likely YMMV. (I even love the 400 at zoos, and only miss the IS in the monkey house).
H: As a note, I like the 85/1.8 for 90% of my indoor kids shooting. Again, tight crops.
J: Soooo. It looks to remain a tough choice. Play with the big zoom, see if you like the push/pull. It's OK with a Tele in a pinch (stopped down).
H: Good luck. Hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
J&H
ps. These Eagles and most of the Ospreys were taken with the 400/5.6...
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/loaded_with_talon
What do you think of the 300mm f/2.8? I never intended to spend that much, but I'm thinking about how many lenses people buy before they graduate to the one they love. Why not just skip all the in between stuff and buy the best?
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
I started getting heavily into bird photography last year using the 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x extender. Needed a little more reach for osprey and eagles so recently purchased the 100-400 L (also aiir shows were a prime consideration for lens use). I think you'll find that no matter what lens you end up buying, you'll always find you want just a leeetle more reach
I just noticed that you are shooting with a Canon XSi. If you plan to do much BIF photography you may have another investment to consider.
The Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII are really the preferred platform for the demands of BIF. The autofocus section of the above cameras is much more advanced than the XSi. Speed and accuracy are considerably improved.
The Canon 40D would be the next step up from the XSi and it also has a more advanced autofocus. All of the sensors are cross type and the center sensor is also sensitive to f2.8 lenses and should provide better accuracy and speed.
The reason I mention this is because the Canon EF 300mm, f2.8L IS is an awesome lens but it may not work to its limits on an XSi body.
No reason to rush into the decision, and you will get some good shots with an XSi and the 300mm, f2.8L. Just don't get too frustrated if it takes a "lot" of exposures to get a few keepers. It's all part of the challenges of bird photography.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Auto Focus
The Canon XSi uses a 9-point autofocus system, equal to the number of AF sites on the earlier XTi. The difference is that the XSi upgrades to cross-type AF sensors, which is like a double-check on image recognition. The cross-type AF sensors, as opposed to single-axis AF sensors, quickly and more accurately detect subjects, thereby improving the overall autofocus system. The cross-type autofocus is effective with EF and EF-S lenses with an aperture of f/2.8 or faster.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
As they said on M.A.S.H. Horsehockey!
The XSi is just fine for birds, and BIF's.
Most people only use the center focus point for BIF's, so why would the cross sensors of turned off focus points be important?
I use a Canon 300 F2.8 with a Canon 2 X tc on my XSi with no problems at all.
I also have the 400L F5.6.
It is a great lens for BIF's. It's light weight, focuses fast, has a built in hood, and fits into a camera bag easily.
The 300L F2.8 is a very large lens. I can hand hold it, but there are a lot of people that can't.
Trying to line up the BIF's is tougher because you can't look down the edge of the lens (like you can with the 400 F5.6)
to find your target.
I've chosen the 300 f2.8 to be my wildlife/birding lens. I have no regrets.
I haven't had the chance to get any real beauties from this combo yet, but a have a few grounded birds for show.
These have the 2X converter on the 300 f2.8.
Note the backgrounds on the second and third shots. That's another thing the F2.8 will get you.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I just now discovered the immense weight of the f/2.8 vs. the f/4 and although the IQ of the 2.8 is better, it is not enough for me to lug around a 15 lb. lens. I think I will stick with the 300mm f/4 which weighs 2 lbs.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Whoah. Dave those are awesome examples.
(Not BIFs but awesome just the same.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
When I was leaving the Alligator Farm today I met this other photographer who was also heading out. He had a D300, a 200-400 lens, a gitzo tripod with a Wimberly head, and a better beamer. A real nice set-up costing around $8K. He said to me "I can't get a decent shot of those white birds. I keep blowing out the highlights". We chatted a bit and it quickly became apparant that he had no idea of how to expose properly.
There's a number of ways to get the knowledge to use your equipment properly. You can do some reading. Arthur Morris' book, The Art of Bird Photography, is an outstanding read with lots of good info.
I would also recommend doing a workshop. The workshops I've taken have had more to do with my photography improving than all the gear I have accumulated.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You could do it Harry's way, read books, attend a workshop or two.
Or, do it my way, send about 2 years, take thousands of shots, and eventually figure out what you're doing.
The one advantage that the 300 f2.8 has over the 300 f4 is the fact that it will keep auto focus with a 2X converter.
I know were I live, more reach is always a plus.
Thanks for the comments on the shots guys.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Thank you Harry. That is good advice indeed. I will get the book as you suggest.
How was the Alligator Farm? I don't suppose you made it to the Golf Hall of Fame (lol).
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page