Printable View
Hi all,
I'm a newbie, and I've been doing bird photography for a little bit now..and I really want to upgrade my 70-300 tamron lens to something that can give me more reach, and better IQ. Really need some opinions on this...and I only got CDN 1.5k to spend as I'm still a highschool student.
Many thanks,
Franco
http://francongphotography.wordpress.com/
Welcome Franco
My first birding lens was the Canon 100-400 IS, but if I knew yesterday what I know today....I'd of originally purchased the Canon 400 f5.6.
My reasoning; the 100-400 was on 400mm 90% of the time for my shooting and I really didn't need its flexibility, although at times, I also used it for landscapes and panos.
The 400 will give you good hand hold ability/carrying size, IQ and it fits your budget. It also fits in w/your 70-300 zoom which will allow you to keep your mm flexibility.
Don't misunderstand my not suggesting 100-400, its a great lens, but over laps your 70-300mm too much.
Good luck
Bill
You only have two choices in that price range to get a longer reach.
I am going to go opposite of Bill on this one, go with the 100-400mm L
The only reason is that the 400mm f5.6 doesn't have IS. If your going to be on tripod all the time then or just birds in flight then I would consider the 400mm f5.6.
I'll second Rick on this one (sorry, Bill!). You mentioned wanting both longer and better IQ than the Tamron, and the 100-400mm will give you that throughout the range.
Also, unless you're only shooting birds in flight, the IS will be a big help, and allow you to use lower ISO at f/5.6 (even so, I'm often at ISO 800 or higher for birds in shade).
Thank you all for replying!
I've done some research on both lenses..and I've found some happy owners with the 100-400...however some of them didn't like the push-pull zoom...as it's said to be easier to get dust in the lens. So is it true, or not?
Also, the 400 f/5.6 is said to be a good lens for BIF because it has really fast focusing, is it really faster than the 100-400?
My heart tells me to go with the 400 f/5.6 because of its higher IQ than the 100-400..and its fast focusing..but it's that lack of IS that's driving me crazy...does IS make that much of a difference?
Is there perhaps a happy owner of both lenses to answer my questions?
Many thanks!
I bought the 100-400mm almost three years ago. I used it until I bought my 500mm F4L, my brother has the 100-400mm now. In all this time we have never had a problem with dust getting in the barrel. Maybe it is an old wives tale because of lens of this design in the past, but I haven't ever seen anyone complaining they actually have dust in there lens because of this. Maybe we will now that you asked.
Whether IS matters or not is going to depend on how you shoot. If you do most of your shots hand held then it most definitely will. On bright sunny days it might matter less when you can get fast shutter speeds, like 1/1000 or better. Late in the evening and early in the morning when light is falling, it will get tougher.
The reason IS doesn't matter with birds in flight is that when you have a lens in motion your movement tends to smooth the shake of the lens down. This is a lesson I learned long ago with rifles and shotguns, when you are trying to hone in on a sitting object you shake. When you are tracking a running or moving object your motion is smoother. Whether it focus faster or not, the better IQ would probably make the 400mm F/5.6 a better lens for BIF.
Personally I need the IS, I shake to much and a big portion of my style of shooting is hand held. Some people are very solid. Some people do all their shooting on tripods. You know your style of shooting and how your going to use the lens and are in the best position to judge how much you would need it.
Good Luck
Issue #1 - dust. Not any more of an issue with the 100-400mm than other zoom lenses - less than some, actually. Although it's not a 'weather-sealed' lens, the only thing it lacks is the gasket at the lens mount. The switches and zoom extension are sealed just like other sealed L-series lenses (not common knowledge on the Internet, but true according to Chuck Westfall, Canon's technical Q&A guru. Like Rick, I've had no dust in the lens. It might help that I keep a UV filter on the lens.
Issue #2 - AF speed. Yes, the 400mm f/5.6L focuses slightly faster than the 100-400mm. In practice, I have found the 100-400mm to be plenty fast, BIF are no problem.
Issue #3 - IQ. On test charts, the 400mm f/5.6 prime has a slight advantage. If you look at the numbers on photozone.de, they are equally sharp in the center (where the bird will probably be!), and the 400mm prime is slightly sharper away from the center. In the real world, you'd likely not notice the difference between the two (as opposed to the 400mm f/2.8L IS, which would be noticeably sharper in real-world use).
Issue #4 - do you need IS? Depends entirely on what/when/how you shoot. Flying birds require high shutter speeds - I usually start at 1/1600 s and only go down if I must. Shutter speeds that fast mean no direct benefit from IS (indirectly, it can help with framing and also presents a stable subject to the AF system, making focus lock easier). But you often find birds in trees, bushes, etc., where the light is not as good. By the numbers, since you are using an APS-C body (at least, according to your Flickr page), with a 400mm lens you'd ideally want 1/640 s to have a good keeper rate handheld. Looking at my stats with the 100-400mm on my 7D, about 45% of my 400mm keepers are at 1/500 s or less - shutter speeds where IS helps.
Hope that helps!
I don't know much about sharpness or focusing speed difference between the two lenses, because I only own the 400 f/5.6L, but one thing I know is that you never have enough focal length when shooting birds and if you shoot at 400mm most of the time I see the 400 f/5.6L is a better choice and it's also cheaper than the 100-400. No the 400 f/5.6L does not have IS but I never miss IS on that baby, I shoot with IS off about 90% on my 500 f/4L IS.
I vote for 400mm5.6, IS is not a big deal when shooting birds, birds almost never keep still even perching on the trees.you know the most fun part of birding is to capturing the action, that doesn't need IS, only fast shutter speed.
when the lighting is not bright enough to get faster speed, just stop shooting. all lens has it's limitation, so is the 100-400mm zoom.
i like the 400mm 5.6 because it's smaller, lighter, faster, better IQ and cheaper, also it can force you to use tripod when there is situation you need it, remember, this is your starting bird lens, later on you must need a tripod when you get your big white lenses, you should practise with the 400mm now.just my 2 cents.
Smaller than the *extended* 100-400mm, yes. But actually, one of the things I really like about the 100-400mm is the much smaller retracted size. The 400/5.6 doesn't get any shorter, and the nearly 3" less length makes the 100-400mm much easier to store and/or fit in a bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
John, I didn't know the 100-400mm is about 3" shorter, but it must be bulkier that's why I think the 400mm 5.6 is still smaller even it's a little longer, you actually reminded me that the 400mm 5.6 has another good thing is the built-in lens hood, very cool.
Welcome back Nate (Sinh Nhut Nguyen)....its been a long time. You still hand holding the 500?
Franco, when I was writing my opinion, Nate's bird photos w/his 400 f5.6 were a big influence on how I would modify/complete my lens quiver.
His pix, both static and BIF are excellent and put to rest any concerns I had about a lens w/out IS.
First let me say, I also agree w/HDN & Neuro's opinions (boy, I hate saying I agree w/Neuro:p), but unlike HDN's concern for his shaking, I believe my technique for hand holding a camera/lens is solid and allows me to drop to some lower shutter speeds w/out assistance of IS.
So, as the IS issue has been discussed by both sides of the fence....it comes down to a personal preference. Myself....I don't believe I'll need IS w/a 400 f5.6 and yes, I've used the 400 f5.6.
100-400 Dust issue....I agree w/HDN and Neuro...like Rick, I've had the 100-400 for 3+ years (on camera 90% of the time before 500) and I believe the dust issue is an "old wives' tale", but unlike Neuro, mine hasn't had a UV filter on it. So, as to Neuro's point about dust....it probably adds protection from dust, positively from scratches, but is it necessary for dust protection....???
Push/pull; again another personal preference. Myself, I really enjoy it...its quick and easy. Yes, I still have the 100-400, but it doesn't get much use now that I have the 500. It will be going up for sale soon to purchase a 70-200 IS 2.8 and the 400 f5.6 to complete (?) my lens quiver.
Suggestion Franco; do you have a camera shop in the area that rents lenses (or maybe on-line LensRentals)? Try them for a wkend and form your own opinion.
Good luck and have fun making your decision.
Bill
I am just glad I didn't decide to go in to the medical field and become a surgeon. It isn't technique that shakes it is me....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill W
@ fracon... There is more than one way to shoot a bird. Every person is different some always off tripod, some with monopod and some hand held. Like JJ said he is going for the action, some people go for the pose. Some take hikes through the woods to get shots. Some take shots out the windows of their vehicles at the local park. Like Nate said, his style of shooting the IS is off 90% of the time. You have to ask yourself what percentage of the time you would need it.
Either lens will serve you well, I think the thread has defined the limitations of both very well.
Unfortunately the lenses you are considering are just a stepping stone if you are really serious. Many of those giving you a response have moved up to a 500mm F4L.