I currently shoot a Canon XS with a 300mm f/4 L IS. I know I am not limited by the lens, but am I limited by my camera when it comes to shooting wildlife? Wildlife action shots? I am mainly referring to when I shoot burst mode. With the Canon XS shooting RAW I can only get 1.3 fps (shooting JPG I can get 3 fps).
I know this kinda stirs the debate between gear and skill, but do I have a valid claim here?
Yes.
If you are trying to capture a rapidly moving object, you are obviously going to have less chance of a great shot when using a camera with a slow fps rate vs. one with a higher rate.
That said, you can still get great shots with the XS, but it seems to me that with a lens of that quality, it would be smart to get a higher frame rate body. But, as always, you have to get what you can afford and what suits at the time. More important is simply to be out there with a camera in hand and wildlife to photograph.
Thanks for you input musickna. I whole heartedly agree with you that the single most important thing is that I just get out there, and I do as often as I can. I get some good shots, in my opinion. I just wish I had a high FPS at times, but all in due time I guess.
I have a question for you, powers_brent. I have been considering a 300 f/4 because of the IQ and IS, but having seen the 400 f/5.6 shots by Nate, I wonder if I'd do better with the extra range. Do you feel that you have enough experience to say that a 300mm has enough reach for most of your shots? I also considered that I could get a 1.4x extender and use it with the 300 f/4, thus having IS at 420mm and f/5.6 when I wanted it, and having more versatility to boot. My gut feeling is that this would not perform as well optically as a native 400, but it would offer IS.
What do you think?
As someone who recently acquired the EF 300/4L IS USM and enjoys it quite a bit, let me tell you my reasoning behind choosing it over the 400/5.6L:
- Image Stabilization. This permits handheld photography as slow as 1/50s, but it also improves shots at faster shutter speeds up to and including 1/300s, at which point many fast-moving subjects are rendered still.
- Improved AF performance with f/4 instead of f/5.6. The viewfinder is a full stop brighter, and AF is more accurate; whereas with a f/5.6 lens, you only have center point AF on most EOS bodies.
- Permits more flexibility with the EF Extender 1.4x II. You sacrifice some image quality @ 420/5.6, but the option is there if you need it.
- Newer optical design. It is more likely Canon will update the 400/5.6L before the 300/4L IS.
- Closest native MFD of all lenses in the super-tele range (300mm+). This enables a maximum magnification of nearly 1:4. Last time I shot photos with it, I was shooting near MFD and a fellow photographer, upon seeing me so close, asked me what my MFD was, apparently because he could not get that close. It is the ONE optical advantage over the EF 300/2.8L IS.
As you can see, I do my homework and research thoroughly when I decide to buy a lens. [] Most people are fixated on image quality, test charts, and the like. Experience has shown me that at the level of performance of the L primes (and especially the super-teles), this is not terribly important. They are ALL extremely sharp. Yes, you can find a way to push them and make their limitations show. But in my view, the aforementioned factors have much more of an impact on the usability of the lens.
@HiFiGuy1: I have only used the 300mm twice,November 24th and 25th. Each time I felt that 300mm was too much and not enough. For larger birds like pelicans (which I posted in the "Post your best nature shot," 300mm was just good enough about 50% of the time. The pelicans were diving around this big pond. So depending on which side of the pond they dove on dictated whether or not I had enough reach.
While walking down a pathway I came upon a great blue heron about 5 feet away. With the 400mm I would not have been able to focus so close. While trying to shoot some small song birds, 300mm was not enough. The IS was a lifesaver at times whenever I had to shoot into shaded areas. It really is a toss up.
Obviously I went with the 300mm. I am happy with it, but I plan to get the 1.4 extender eventually. I like the versatility of having two lenses, granted I have not tried the 300mm with the 1.4 extender yet.
As for the 400mm f/5.6 I have no experience. I considered the exact same issue. Versatility was the largest factor.
I did not see wickerprints post until after my recent post, but I agree whole heartedly.
Thank you both for your responses.
wickerprints,
I, too, am an information gatherer. I try to stop just short of paralysis by analysis, but I feel the only way to decide is to get as much data as possible. Sometimes, as Brent said, it is more important to have real world feel for it, too. Your conclusions are pretty much identical to mine from a theoretical standpoint, and I am also sort of wondering,based on the age of the current 400mm f/5.6,if Canon will be releasing a 400mm f/5.6 IS which may or may not also have a much shorter MFD, and in the near future. A four-stop hybrid IS 400mm f/5.6 would be awesome, and I would have to consider selling a body part for it.
The funny thing is, I was just shooting some birds on a bayou with my Nikon D100 with 400mm f/5.6 Sigma alongside my 40D with 28-135mm yesterday at "golden hour", andIhave become a little disenchanted with the AF of the Nikon/Sigma combo in less than full daylight, so I have been considering selling the whole kit andbuying a Canon tele with the money. While I was shooting, though, I also realized that some of my shots really needed much more than 400mm, so Iam kind of nervous about a 300mm, which is obviously shorter. Being limited by available funds, I want to make my next lens be as flexible as possible, but with outstanding IQ.
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
That would be a nice lens, but IMO it still would not compensate for the loss of AF sensitivity due to f/5.6.
The more recent 1-series bodies' center-point AF is cross-type up to f/4 and linear up to f/8. That is a whole level of awesome in itself. While every EOS body has center point AF up to f/5.6, it is not cross-type. And again, on most bodies, peripheral AF points don't even work at f/5.6 (though they do on the 1-series).
The funny thing is, I was just shooting some birds on a bayou with my Nikon D100 with 400mm f/5.6 Sigma alongside my 40D with 28-135mm yesterday at "golden hour", andIhave become a little disenchanted with the AF of the Nikon/Sigma combo in less than full daylight, so I have been considering selling the whole kit andbuying a Canon tele with the money. While I was shooting, though, I also realized that some of my shots really needed much more than 400mm, so Iam kind of nervous about a 300mm, which is obviously shorter. Being limited by available funds, I want to make my next lens be as flexible as possible, but with outstanding IQ.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Well, first of all, you're using a low-density DX sensor with a third-party f/5.6 lens, so it should not be terribly surprising that the AF performance is poor and the reach is insufficient. If you were using a high-density APS-C sensor with a faster f/4 lens, you would be well on your way to rectifying those shortcomings. But it doesn't sound like you really intend to work near MFD with the super-teles if you say you can't get enough reach. There is no substitute for a 400mm or 500mm lens. You may have to consider saving for an EF 500/4L IS, which with a 1.4x II gives 700/5.6. There isn't any way of getting much further than 400/5.6 with anything less than the big whites (unless you go third-party).
Once you go beyond the 77mm front filter diameter, you enter a whole new realm of imaging...and cost.
If anything, you should rent the 300/4L IS, 400/5.6L, and EF 1.4x II, slap them on your 40D. You will immediately find (1) AF performance with the 300/4L IS is superior to the D100+Sigma; (2) Crop ability is superior due to the higher sensor density in the 40D over the D100; (3) 400/5.6 AF may be slightly less impressive, and perhaps even undesirable in low light situations. What you really need for birding is a 500/4L--relatively light weight, long focal length, and wide aperture. That is, unless you are me and have a peculiar obsession with hummingbirds.
As a point of fact, the D100 is a crop body, with a 1.5x factor, so it is very similar to my 40D if not quite the same. You're right about the low density, at 6.1 MP. Certainly my Canon's resolution is much higher. A 400mm on the D100 is effectively 600mm, whereas a 400mm on my 40D is effectively 640mm. Different, but not hugely.
Good point about the AF system in my 40D versus the 1-series. I just remembered I have a test subject in the form of a Nikon D200 (a loaner from a friend before I bought my D100 to use with the Nikon-mount Sigma that I got as a gift), so I will be able to see for myself what effect a different body has, all else equal.
You're right about the MFD probably not being important, but it is ironic that I have enjoyed the Sigma's macro capabilities, as it is a APO TeleMacro version which is good for 1:3 magnification. Takes great, frame-fillingflower pics with nicely blurred background almost certainly BECAUSE of the focal length.
I just need a night job, I guess.
P.S. Brent, I am sorry if we sort of hijacked your thread. [:$] It is still about the 300mm f/4, though. [
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote