Canon wildlife lens?

[Daniel Browning]

what's wrong with a telescope?

MFD is a big issue as you mentioned. The weight I don't mind. In fact, telescopes tend to be much lighter for the same iris diameter, thanks to far fewer number of elements, so weight is one of their advantages. But size is where they lose. Many are not "telephoto" at all: their length is not shorter than their focal length.


Another big issue is image stabilization. A four stop I.S. would let me shoot a managable 1/125 instead of an impossible 1/2000 that would be needed with a refractor.


Another issue is cost/performance for daytime (close focus) photography. Even the best refractors have a hard time competing with the lowly Canon 400mm f/5.6. It blows away almost any similar-aperture refractor with a wide converter/field-flattener, especially on full frame, even compared to those that cost twice as much. The 500mm f/4, similarly, stomps any refractor of a similar price. I think it comes down to economies of scale.


I'm hoping that there are enough people out there, like me, that want massive focal lengths, quality (and bokeh) as good as the 500mm f/4, don't need autofocus or f/4, but can only afford $2,500. Then perhaps Canon will see a way to put out an 800 or 1000mm lens with a very slow f-number, and good I.S. I doubt it will happen, but I'll keep dreaming.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

For bird only, get the 400 f/5.6L ($1200)


For Macro, get the new 100 f/2.8L IS ($1100)


and that's about $2300


Nate,

[nickds7]

For bird only, get the 400 f/5.6L ($1200)


For Macro, get the new 100 f/2.8L IS ($1100)


and that's about $2300


Nate,

+1 for that, as long as 100mm gets you close enough for what you are doing...sounds like it though.

[Brendan7]

I've heard that the 2-stop IS of the 4/300 is first-generation and outdated and so not a factor when comparing it with the 5.6/400.


Thoughts??

[Daniel Browning]

I've heard that the 2-stop IS of the 4/300 is first-generation and outdated and so not a factor when comparing it with the 5.6/400.

Yes, the I.S. on the 300mm f/4 is marketed as "only" 2 stops, but that does not mean it is not a factor. For example:

• 300mm f/4 + 1.4X TC ISO 1600 1/125
• 400mm f/5.6 ISO 6400 1/500

There's a huge difference in noise between ISO 6400 and ISO 1600, even though it's "only" two stops.

[Mickw]

Ive got a 400 f5.6 and use it on my 1DS MK3. Wildlife moves so speed is the most inportant factor as is getting close. Dnt have an APS-C. This lens is a total joy in good light. You dont need IS as you shoot as fast as you can so handheld its light, great for panning, birds in flight its top for. Its tough, optically perfect and one of the most undersung lens's in Canons line up. It whups the 100-400 for image quality. That said you will miss some shots as its not a zoom. You work harder with primes as you need to move around a lot, its not weather sealed either.


But when the lights good and you get the shot its excellent. Im selling mine. Why? Because i got drunk, had acess to EBAY, a credit card and some fool sold me a 1 year old 500 f4 is L. And thats in a whole different league. Its so good id sell my wife to the devil if needed. Ok, maybe not but a kidney or two.


Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

Sorry for hijacking the thread. Hope no one minds...

Another issue is cost/performance for daytime (close focus) photography. Even the best refractors have a hard time competing with the lowly Canon 400mm f/5.6. It blows away almost any similar-aperture refractor with a wide converter/field-flattener, especially on full frame, even compared to those that cost twice as much. The 500mm f/4, similarly, stomps any refractor of a similar price.

Okay, Daniel. I find that interesting. Are you saying telescopes do worse close up because they are optimized to image at infinity, or that they'll do worse even when taking pictures of far away stuff?


For far away stuff , it is hard to imagine the 400mm f/5.6 doing better across a 36mm field than, say, a takahashi fsq or "baby q". Am I wrong? (Not that I suggest an fsq as a cheap slow lens, it is neither... but you said twice the price of a 400mm f/5.6) If so I should run out and get a 400


Similarly, I would be surprised if a 500 f/4 does better across a 36mm frame than, say, a 6" astrophysics with field flattner, assuming we compare angular resolution (if you just take a picture with each and compare, the shorter focal length lens has an advantage). I expect the astrophysics to be diffraction limited (on axis, anyway... I guess I really have no idea what it is like in the corners, but people do take 6cm film pics with the things, don't they?), so it should out resolve a 500mm f/4 even if the 500 is diffraction limited (which I tend to doubt... people use it on cameras with DLAs of 7+ and up, so why be diffraction limited at f/4?).


Have you done or do you know of someone who has done these comparisons? (I recall seeing one once and the guy gave a slight edge to the canon lens, but it was not scientifically done (no adjustment was made for different image scales IIRC) and was supposedly a minor difference anyway. Plus he compared for astrophotography, not daytime)

[Bill W]

bburns;


I shoot similar bird subjects; Hummingbirds to Bald Eagles w/the 100-400 on a 40D.


The cons, to me, for this lens are; poor bokeh, a little slow for the lighting (cloudy and overcast) during our New England winter days, and every birders' mantra whine....not enough reach. The 1.4x extender is not an option.


But what I really enjoy about this lens is it's flexibility in shooting scenarios, i.e. landscapes, daylight sports; baseball, F1 racing, and surfing, as well as birding.


And I'm quite satisfied w/the IQ when I've used the lens correctly....after a year and a half, I'm still learning the do's and don'ts....guess I'm a little slow.


Here's an example of an HB; hand held, f9, 1/640, ISO 500 at 380mm approximately 20' from the feeder. The very nice bokeh was furnished by an Adobe wall....ignore the bright spot in the lower left, it's cropped out in my final version.





Another example taken approximately 50' from the Cooper's hawk; f/8, 1/800, ISO 200 at 400mm w/only clarity and sharpening in PS.





Same picture enlarged 100% and cropped.





Concerning the 70-200 IS 2.8 lens; I think you would become quickly frustrated w/it's lack of reach (it's only shortcoming) shooting wildlife, unless you're shooting in a zoo or in a wildlife workshop. There is an example of this lens in "Post your best bird shot" gallery....Kestrel.


Finally, IMO, your choice should be between the 100-400 and a prime.


Good luck and enjoy whatever decision you make


Bill

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Very well put Bill, I agree with you!


Nate,

[Alan]

If you are opposed to buying used, then I suggest you consider third party lenses from Sigma and Tamron. Unlike Canon, they do have some birding lenses between $1200 and $2500.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Daniel, any suggestions for either the Sigma and Tamron? Like you've said, I wish Canon would fill the gap. A 500/5.6 might be the ticket?