A Question For The "Birders" On Lens Choice.

[PH005]

i cant believe it took 10 posts for someone to come out with the 100-400L... sheesh!
just get that one.

I do feel myself leaning this way Ving. Cheers.

[PH005]

Yes I agree the 100-400 IS is a really nice lens. I did find it hard to hand hold and slow shutter speeds even with IS becuase the lens is so light and long.
You could also try 300mm 2.8 + a 1.4tc. The extra stop of light is very useful when the light becomes a bit dim. Not only for shutter speed but also allowing your camera to focus.

Thanks Fabian. The zoom factor is a nice "have" point. By all accounts the 100-400 sounds like a good multi tasking lens. Cheers.

[Tannin]

Memo to self: read all the way to the end of the thread before answering.

Memo to Paul: of the lenses you listed, none are really suitable for birding. the 300 is the best of a bad lot. ("Bad" insofar as birding lenses go, that is - perfectly good kit for other jobs, of course.) If you have to use a teleconverter as routine, you have the wrong lens - simple as that.

I see from sneaking a peak at the last couple of posts that you are thinking about a 100-400. good. They didn't get to be easily the most popular birding lens by accident. Enjoy!

[PH005]

Thanks Tony. When you only want to have ONE resonably long lens in your kit it is difficult to choose. If I went the 300L f4 IS USM then I think I would need say a 70-200, but if I go the 100-400 I have it just about covered.

[piXelatedEmpire]

i cant believe it took 10 posts for someone to come out with the 100-400L... sheesh!
just get that one.

I thought the same thing! I've very recently converted to Canon with a 7D and that lens. You will need at least the 400 for bird photography, and the zoom focal length should suit your motorsport photography. Win win.

[PH005]

I thought the same thing! I've very recently converted to Canon with a 7D and that lens. You will need at least the 400 for bird photography, and the zoom focal length should suit your motorsport photography. Win win.

Thanks Adam. Another tick for the 100-400.

[ving]

paul, stop ticking and just buy it

[PH005]

paul, stop ticking and just buy it

I know Ving, I know. I just dont want to rush it this time. BTW, Best price I can get the 100-400 is $ 1696.25 delivered. Sounds pretty good.

[kiwi]

Just a bit of experience talking, I've sold plenty if perfectly good lenses that I wasn't good enough for ;-)

[PH005]

Just a bit of experience talking, I've sold plenty if perfectly good lenses that I wasn't good enough for ;-)

I know what your'e saying Kiwi. I sorta rushed in to the Sigma purchase and after a short time kicked myself for not going with an L series. The AF on the Sigma is not good. Could be just a bad apple. I hope to get the " right " lens for Me and my purposes , and one that I will keep for a long time. I am probably not good enough for my Sigma or any L series that I may buy. But hopefully I get something that I am happy with. Cheers.

[in2fx]

go the 100-400 L for its versatility

[Tannin]

Thanks Tony. When you only want to have ONE resonably long lens in your kit it is difficult to choose. If I went the 300L f4 IS USM then I think I would need say a 70-200, but if I go the 100-400 I have it just about covered.

Cheers Paul,

The 100-400 isn't just good for birding. These days, I mostly use mine for - believe it or not - landscapes. Most (not all) of my birding employs the 500/4 and 7D, and the 100-400 lives on the old 1D III, where it is around about equivalent to an 80-320 on a crop camera. It's brilliant! I love the way I can reach out into the landscape and pick out just the part I want, excluding all the irrelevant surrounds, and also the way it lets me flatten perspective and bring unity to a composition by having background and foreground on roughly the same scale.

On a crop body, it's a bit longer and perhaps not quite so inviting, but just the same - don't neglect it as a landscape lens. You might surprise yourself!

[PH005]

Thank you Tony. I'm pretty certain that the 100-400 will fit my purposes. My birthdays coming up anyway. Note : Present to Self.

[BUGSnBIRDS]

Reach is everything but needs to be balanced with price.

100-400 L Canon or grab a second hand Canon 500mm.

Still need to master stalking small birds but you would be well on your way then.

[PH005]

Cheers BnB.

[mongo]

PHoo5 , Mongo is not surprised about the 120-400 but you have not told us why you do not like it for the purpose. Is it image quality or speed or both ?

The canon lens will most likely be better. From what Mongo knows, the f4 version of the 70-200 is as sharp and at times, sharper than the f2.8 version but you will need it to work well with a converter. The 300mm is probably the best bet and should work well with a converter. Also, if you can stretch it to a 100-400mm L canon (and Mongo recommends a good second hand one of these which should be more affordable) it seems to give really superb results (look at Richard Hall and Shelley’s stuff). Maybe a straight canon 400 f5.6L

If speed is not the issue (if your camera can operate at higher ISO and still give good images) , Mongo must say that Mrs Mongo’s newly acquired sigma 50-500mm is giving fantastic results on a Pentax K5 at about 1600 ISO comfortably.

The ultimate lens is a canon 500 f4 L but pricey and much heavier (again , get a second hand one in great condition). Mongo would if he used canon gear.

[PH005]

Thank you Mongo. Am not happy with the AF. Maybe it is not suited to my 40D, I dont know. I really dont like the overall feel of the lens anymore. I dont think it is as sharp as it could be, maybe that is me or again my body. All the feedback slowly comes together and you can get a feel of what the " right " choice might ( and I say 'might' ), be. I'm sure I will be happier with an L series. I hope.

[Othrelos]

Sigma do make some pretty average lenses, the 100-300mm f/4 is the best thing they have going for general birding photography, the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 is too slow( but optically excellent) and the 200-500mm f/2.8 is even heavier than my Pentax 67 M*800mm f/6.7 ED - and any 35mm lens that is heavier than that lens is just isn't worth the trouble in my books.

here is an image from my 100-300mm f/4 on My pentax K7 - f/5.6 ISO 800 1/125th -focal length around 200mm, and I used a AF540 Flash with a 1/2 CTO gel

[PH005]

Thanks Othrelos. I think the extra 100mm on the Canon will come in handy. Nice shot .

[Othrelos]

Thanks Othrelos. I think the extra 100mm on the Canon will come in handy. Nice shot .

not if you plan on using it at 400mm all the time, the canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is rather soft at 400mm f/5.6. At the long end your working aperture will most likely be f/11 - and again, that is far too slow IMO, especially if you use flash like most wildlife photographers do, and High ISO won't be of much use.