A Question For The "Birders" On Lens Choice.

[Tannin]

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.

Yep. Soft as.



(40D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 1600i, wide open at f/5.6, 1/200th hand-held, no flash)


Terrrible lens.



(1D III, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/8 1/1600th, hand-held, no flash)


Useless wide open.



(20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/5.6, 1/1000th hand-held, no flash)


I don't know why anybody buys them.



(20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/6.7, 1/3000th hand-held, no flash)

[Annette]

I have the 300mm Canon L which I used with a 1x4 converter which gives really sharp shots however sometimes the converter slows down the focus ( seems to anyway) I now have the 400 L 5.6 which is great for birding I turn IS off anyway for flight shots so that's no hassle . I thought of selling the 300mm only because for birding the 400 is never off the camera but I love that one so much will keep it for shooting my grandson playing footy!!

[Shelley]

I recommend umm, let me think.....

I love prime lens for shooting birds, can't explain it. I love the 400 5.6L, but it has its shortcomings just like the other lens, but it still is the one I would choose.

Tony and Richard's photos certainly back up their reasons for the 100-400. There is no perfect lens for birding, if there was, we would all have the same lens (well if the price was right).

What the heck, here is what it can do :

[PH005]

Kinda seys it all. Even wiyhout the captions. Great shots Tannin.

[PH005]

Inspiring images Richard. I'm sold. Thank you.

[PH005]

Lovely work Shelley.

[PH005]

Thank you so much to everyone who replied to my query. Your input has been so useful in making up my mind. I will ( definitely ) be purchasing a 100-400. Look forward to many happy years ahead and hopefully sharing some images here.

Thanks again, Paul.

[I @ M]

Good move Paul, those who know have offered sound advice.

[Kerro]

Paul, I have the 70-200 F 4 L IS and the 400 F2.8 L IS and they are both great for birding.
I have a Kenko 2x converter and a Canon 2x series 3, makes a heck of a difference on the 400.
love them both.
I have a Sigma 120-300 as well, but use it only when Im relatively close. The pictures are not as
sharp as the 2 Canons. but still a good lens.

[unistudent1962]

I've got a 70-200 f4L IS
Beautiful lens, INCREDIBLY sharp.
I've tried a f2.8LII and I can't pick the difference in IQ, BUT as already stated 200 just isn't long enough for birding.
I've thought about adding a 1.4xTC which drops in to an f5.6.
I don't like push/pull type zooms (personal preference + a friend who had one which sucked dust!!) so that ruled out the 100-400.
Canon are about to release the 200-400 f4L IS with built-in 1.4TC, this looks VERY apealing to me BUT the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR is at least $6K grey, so I would expect the Canon to be a similar price.
Have you had a look at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...play.php?f=107 to see what people are able to do with specific lenses?

[Othrelos]

those of you who are trying to discredit my statement that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft at 400mm with web sized images taken with APS-C cameras aren't proving anything. I use full frame canon DSLRs and with the larger sensor the image quality of the EF 100-400L @ 400mm on a 1DSMKIII is lacking at f/5.6 only at f/8 does it become acceptably sharp - my EF 200mm f/1.8 with a 2X teleconverter can beat the the 100-400L any day at 400mm @ f/5.6. I prefer faster working apertures due to the fact that they facilitate the use of flash which I consider to be essential for wildlife work. you can crank the ISO as far as you want - but if the light isn't good, you are wasting your time.

[Tannin]

those of you who are trying to discredit my statement that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft at 400mm with web sized images taken with APS-C cameras aren't proving anything. I use full frame canon DSLRs and with the larger sensor the image quality of the EF 100-400L @ 400mm on a 1DSMKIII is lacking at f/5.6 only at f/8 does it become acceptably sharp - my EF 200mm f/1.8 with a 2X teleconverter can beat the the 100-400L any day at 400mm @ f/5.6.

Err ... it's a bit more than not "trying to", various posters here have discredited it.

First, we need to discard this "APS-C" nonsense. We need to remember that there is absolutely no difference in sharpness between different sized sensors. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. (Refer to this thread for some useful background.) (You might also note that only some of the pictures posted in this thread were taken with APS-C cameras - not that this actually matters.)

Second, we can usefully recall that the key issue for sharpness is pixel density - not, repeat not sensor size. (Obviously, we are assuming equal lenses and the like.) The more pixels per unit area of the sensor, the sharper the image. We can now refer to the table in that thread to discover that the Canon 5D II which has exactly the same number of pixels per unit area as a Canon 20D.

Third, we can sidestep this "web-sized images" business by taking a 100% crop. (100% crops are not always the correct way to compare resolution - see that thread for details - but in this case they are idea.)

So let's look at an image:



Seems decently sharp to me. Canon 20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 100% crop, no post-processing of any kind (besides cropping). It's a half stop down from wide open (because it is my habit to stop any lens down a touch and I'm too lazy to hunt around for an f/5.6 one) but half a stop is nothing.

I prefer faster working apertures due to the fact that they facilitate the use of flash which I consider to be essential for wildlife work. you can crank the ISO as far as you want - but if the light isn't good, you are wasting your time.

I'm sorry, I am unable to follow your logic here. What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing. You can use flash at any aperture - indeed, one of the nice things about working with flash is that you have complete freedom to use whatever aperture you prefer for depth of field control - or, more often, to balance your flash illumination with the natural light.

The main difference a faster maximum aperture makes for bird photography is focus speed. In general, any lens you use for bird work will be long enough to obtain good subject-background separation, so just having f/4 available doesn't especially matter for DOF. But faster lenses focus faster, and that is always welcome, at any aperture and in any light. Oh, and when you are NOT using flash, a faster lens lets you keep on working and getting good results where you would have to give the game away with an f/5.6 lens. But to achieve that benefit you have to multiply your budget and the weight and bulk of your lens by a factor of four or five.

No matter: I'm sure thgat that 200/1.8 is a very nice item indeed. Not what I'd reach for first as a bird photographer, but a very sweet lens which I'm sure I could enjoy finding a use for.

[I @ M]

those of you who are trying to discredit my statement that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft at 400mm with web sized images taken with APS-C cameras aren't proving anything.

I tend to disagree entirely with that, the point has been proven that on a crop sensor body as the OP has and presumably intends to use said lens that the lens is entirely adequate to produce excellent images. Whether they be for web viewing or printing they are going to be more than adequate.

Maybe you got a bad sample of that particular lens, has been known to happen before. From your kookaburra image you may even have a bad sample of that lens and or body, that one hasn't held up well at all.

[Tannin]

The more pixels per unit area of the sensor, the sharper the image.

Just to clarify - this holds true only so long as you hold all other factors equal, and only within broad limits. Very high pixel densities become counter-productive, as we have seen with those idiotic 14MP P&S sensors.

[I @ M]

Four guaranteed ways to get a soft image.

#1 Use a cheap third party lens.

#2 Fit a cheap third party converter to said lens.

#3 Shoot wide open.

#4 Use a Nikon D200 ( Tanin told me they were crap cameras)


Conran and birds_03-29-2009 09-05-02.JPG

[Tannin]

I did not! I might have said that I didn't like their high-ISO performance, however.

[Othrelos]

"What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing."

wow mate you really don't get it at all do you? the faster the lens is the less flash power you have to use to illuminate your subject - the less power you use, the faster the recycle times are and the faster the lens is, the more range you get out of your flash unit.

"that there is absolutely no difference in sharpness between different sized sensors"

true, on a per-pixel basis there isn't any difference but due to the difference in the image circle being captured by the sensor there is a rather large difference between FF adn APS-C cameras - there are some lenses that perform well on APS-C perform poorly on larger FF sensors, the Canon 17-40 f/4L is a good example of this.

[Tannin]

"What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing."

wow mate you really don't get it at all do you?

You're probably right. I don't get it. All my flash photographs of birds are crap. Maybe you could show me how to improve them so that they are decent.



(580EX II & Better Beamer, 1D III, 500/4, 800i, f/5.6, 1/1000th)





(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4, 640i, f/5, 1/1000th)




(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4 & 1.4 converter for 700mm, 500i, f/8, 1/1250th)




(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4, 500i, f/4, 1/1250th)

[Shelley]

Tony, excellent flash work and I just love that last shot.

Can you give some tips on using the flash in birding please??

[Othrelos]

"You're probably right. I don't get it. All my flash photographs of birds are crap. Maybe you could show me how to improve them so that they are decent."

you know it's very telling that you didn't use the 100-400mm f/4.5 ~5.6L for any of those flash photos but instead used the EF 500mm f/4L - not a bad lens however, I prefer to 400mm f/2.8's because they work better with a 2X teleconverters