Which lens will fit my needs the best.

[steve_m]

I am going to an area that has lots of Bald Eagles. They are usually way high up in the trees, hills and more than 100 yards away if they are flying over the Mississippi river.


The only tripod I have is a Bogen 3021 and a 486 Manfrotto ball head.


I want to be able to take pictures hand held to catch them in-flight. So, I'm thinking I'll need IS.


What lens would work the best for this situation? I don't have experience shooting with large lenses.


I am planning on renting a lens so price isn't much of a consideration.

[Sean Setters]

What camera will you be using? One with a full frame or a crop sensor? A crop sensor will give you quite a bit more reach with whatever you choose.


I think the 500mm f/4 L IS would be perfect, but to rent that one for a week will run you about $300.


A 300mm f/2.8 L IS combined with a 1.4x Extender will run you about $235 for the same week, and do very much the same thing. Of course, you could add the 1.4x extender to the 500mm lens, but you'd have to bump up the ISO).


If you were to put either one of these on a 1.6 crop sensor, you'd have quite a bit of reach.....bird photographers will tell you they never regretted having more reach, but for a vacation, what's it worth?


Check out Bryan's "Wildlife Lens Recommendations" to help make your decision.

[Sayantan20023]

Hi Steve,


The Canon 70-200mm f4L IS, is a good lens for your needs (shooting hand-held). It is considered a "light" lens and has good tele range.


Regards,


Sayantan Mukherjee

[Sean Setters]

With all due respect Sayantan, I don't think 200mm is going to give him enough reach to do what he wants. He said the eagles will be about 100 yards away. I would only use a 70-200 lens if that was the only thing I could get my hands on (and I have a crop sensor body). You simply need as much reach as you can get your hands on when photographing birds at any real distance.

[steve_m]

Thanks for the comments. Both of you.


I have been to this place before and I know 200mm is not enough reach. Last time I was there I had a EF 75-300mm. The image quality was terrible at long distance and believe it or not, 300mm was still not enough reach.


I have a 24-105 L and it works great for lots of shots but just doesn't have what I need for this trip.


I'm using a 1.6 crop body (XTi).

[Madison]

IS is useful for longer exposure of static subjects and will NOT freeze action. Small shutter speeds do that.


So you are mistaken if you think IS will make capturing in-flight moments more stable. It will not.





I'd say you need longer tele. Which is expensive. So my advice is: rent a few and try them. Then make your decision.


You're spending a lot of money you see. Renting can be quite affordable and you have first hand experience with them before you make a decision. These lenses tend to be expensive so renting is a good way of making damn sure you get what you need.

[Bill M.]

How about the 100-400 as a possible contender? I don't do that much bird shooting, other than in my own back yard but the 100-400 works well for me in good light. With the Xti you will get a 640mm 5.6 lens with pretty good optics, better than the 75-300 that you used in the past.


I would agree with Sean to use the 500 f4 to give you nice reach and better IQ, but if your thinking of using the lens hand-held at all, the 100-400 is much easier to deal with for any length of time. Also the flexibility of having a zoom will allow you to track the birds in flight a little easier, unless you are just shooting them while they are perched somewhere.


Good luck!

[Madison]

Is the 100-400 fast enough to capture things like in-flight?

[Bill M.]

It's not bad if you have good light but sometimes you have to bump up your ISO anyway to get a fast enough shutter speed--then again, I don't tend to capture too many in-flight pictures anyway--I like it much better when they are nice and perched :)

[Sean Setters]

In order to adequately capture birds in flight (even with IS) with a large zoom, you might want to invest in a monopod with a decent ballhead on top. That might give you enough stability and ease of movement while not being cumbersome. Just something to keep in mind...

[L33t]

First of all, how much cash do you have? If you use tripod there's no need for IS. Because when you turn IS on tripod it thinks you handheld it and shaking a lot it will try to correct and perhaps make your photo worse!





Less cash


Canon EF 300/4,0 L IS USM
Canon EF 400/5,6 L USM



More cash


Canon EF 400/2,8 L IS USM, with extender this gives you like 5,6 should give you like 1/1000 or more in shutter speed and you could use higher ISO 800+


Use 1.4 instead for 2, it gives better images quality. Should be able to get nice shots! Probably your dream shots


But this setup probably gonna break your wallet if you don't have much cash to spare

[Sean Setters]

He's renting the equipment, not buying it. While there is certainly a price difference in renting different lenses, none will likely break him. However, price is still a consideration, I imagine...

[steve_m]

I will have about $125 dollars to spend on a rental. I do realize that IS will not stop action. I will need it when hand holding shooting them in the trees. I might be able to get away with using my tripod setup (see my first post for info.) to catch them in the trees.


I will also have to pan along with the Eagles in flight. I will not be able to follow them my tripod setup.


While panning, will IS help? Or, should I just turn it off and shoot bursts?


Anyway, for $125 what can I rent that will best fit?


By-the-way, please check this picture out. I am impressed! It's the first picture on the top (first place winner). This was taken where I'm going (not by me).


http://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/photoContest.htm

[Sean Setters]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............well, I was wrong. His budget *is* a major factor in his choice of lenses. Based on your budget, I'd suggest this:


Renting either the


Canon 400mm f/5.6L for $52 insured + shipping


or the


Canon 300mm f/4L IS with the 1.4x Extender for $78 insured total + shipping


Prices quoted are from lensrentals.com and are for a 7 day period. I'd highly suggest using the "RENT" links in the lens reviews here on the-digital-picture. Personally, I'd go with the 300mm lens with the 1.4x extender so that you'd have IS and have the option of using the lens at 300mm or 420mm. I'd strongly recommend taking a monopod if you have one, but turn the IS off when using the monopod as the IS isn't tripod sensing.

[L33t]

:D rent 800 lol!!!

[Dallasphotog]

I think Sean's plan will work. The EF300MM f/4plus 1.4X extender fits the budget and gives pretty good reach. A stretch of the buget to the EF300MM f/2.8 plus extender would be outstanding.


I have a day rental place here in town that rents theEF300MM F/2.8 for $45/day. It's the next best thing to owning it.

[devsalvi]

Hi Steve,


I recently went to Orlando wetlands where I clicked bald eagles, ospreys,terns, etc. to mention a few. I used the 100-400 F4 L lens and the results were stunning. This is the first time I used this lens and I see BIG difference from my kit lens. I was on a budget and this is the lens i then afford. I caught few birds in flight and the pictures have come out good. I feel disgusted to go back to my kit lens :P But from my experience I would suggest the 100-400 F4 L lens.


Cheers!


Dev

[Colin]

the 100-400 is really versatile. You mighta little betterquality with either the 300 f/4 IS , or the 400 f/5.6. But, although the300 f/4 is a little faster, you get a little more reach with the 100-400, if you need it, which is nice. If you put a teleconverter on the 300 f/4 to make it a 420mm f/5.6, I don't know that you've got a quality advantage anymore, and the length advantage isn't significant. The 400 f/5.6 will give you reach, but doesn't have image stabilization, and image stabilization is nice too.


Plus, the 100-400 can ZOOM. I've actually had the experience, on rare occasion, where I was creeping up on a seal or bird, and accidentally got TOO close to use the full length. With a 100-400, you just pull it back. I wouldn't want to be futzing with a teleconverter on wet rocks and running water...

[steve_m]

Thanks for all the responses. They have helped me narrow down my choices for my $125 rental budget.


Now, lets say I don't have a rental budget.


What is the lens that is stillPRACTICALto shoot HAND HELD with the best image quality and longest reach? I may be able to spend a more money if it means I come home with the shots that I am expecting.


Again, thanks for all your comments. They may make the difference of my success. I just want the best lens for the job and let the rest fall on my shoulders.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I may sound crazy to all of you :) but to me, the lens that is still PRACTICAL to shoot HANDHELD with the best image quality and longest reach is no other than the 500 f/4L IS. Is the price practical, that depends on you.

[devsalvi]

:) true. the price is a BIG factor.





Cheers!


Dev