Which prime??

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

I have been given a bonus with my work :t::t::t: and now need to know which prime I should be thinking about.

I am currently using the 100-400 and I love it. In fact I just really enjoy taking photo's! What should I be thinking about??

EDIT I am using a canon 30D.

[POP]

I have been given a bonus with my work :t::t::t: and now need to know which prime I should be thinking about.

I am currently using the 100-400 and I love it. In fact I just really enjoy taking photo's! What should I be thinking about??

EDIT I am using a canon 30D.

I would keep your setup and spend your bonus on a birding holiday and also have a rather nice large "snifter".

POP

[paul goode]

Got to say I think I'm with POP on this one.
If you love the 100-400 and are really enjoying taking photo's with it why change?
The big primes are
a. very expensive (how big was the bonus :eek!:))
b. flipping heavy. Do you want to change your 'birding experience' because i've got to say, after lugging my 500mm f4 + tripod etc around the local reservoirs after Black Terns on a damp muggy afternoon, it wasn't much fun!

Paul

[a.dancy]

Can I work at your place?8-P

All depends what you think you might need (focal length ) and how much you have to spend.

[David Smith]

Thats really interesting as I am in a very similar situation. I really enjoy the 100-400 but was thinking 500f4 (as well as-not instead of) or 300 2.8 plus 2x TC.
Paul Good's comment re' weight is very persuasive isn't it?
It will be interesting to see which way you go but I think for now I will stay with what I've got.

[fugl]

Well, that's it, isn't it (once the finances are worked out)--weight? The Canon 500 f4 is a truly spectacular piece of equipment. In my area, 2 of the small group of local birders have this lens and they taket mouth-watering pictures with it. But what stops me every time from rushing out and buying one is the thought of lugging all that weight around. So my advice is the same as everybody else's so far on this--if you have a good portable rig that you're satisfied with, stick with it.

[Keith Reeder]

The 500mm f/4 is the birder's lens, without doubt.

But even if the weight of the lens doesn't worry, there's the additional weight - and considerable additional expense (anything up to another £1000 for the best) - of a carbon fibre tripod and gimbal head that are up to the job.

Personally I would (will) be happy with a Feisol/Amvona Gitzo clone tripod and Jobu gimbal head (thereby saving up to £500) but it's still a lot of extra cash, and you really can't not add these to the purchase.

[Keith Reeder]

Don't rule out the 400mm f/4 DO either: it's expensive for what it is, but it's very light and easy to hand-hold, works well with a 1.4x on a 30D, and - these days anyway - has excellent IQ and sharpness (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26544917)...

[postcardcv]

Which prime is a very open question... is your budget in the range of the 400 f5.6/300 f4 or up at the 500 f4/600 f4 range? As others have said the big primes are great but they are a big weight to carry around. The smaller primes will not offer you much, if anything more than the 100-400 gives you.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Thanks for these replies. Without being to crude my bonus is enough to purchase a prime lens, the support, and a pair of swarovskis :t:

I love my setup for its mobility. But. This weekend I went out to phtograph some pied flys. I did not want to disturb them so kept my distance. I felt my set up didn''t have enough reach (whose does;)) and depsite what others find I don't like the results with the 'taped' converter nor the slower hunting time.

I may try the 100-400 in a solid tripod just to see what impact is has on mobility etc and see how it compares.

[postcardcv]

Thanks for these replies. Without being to crude my bonus is enough to purchase a prime lens, the support, and a pair of swarovskis :t:

lucky you :t:

If you don't mind the weight then the 500 f4 is very hard to beat, the image quality is superb even with a 1.4x tc on it. Effectively you end up with a 700 f5.6 IS lens so you'll get almost twice the reach your zoom gives. Find someone who uses one and see what you think of the weight, it's teh only possible problem with then lens.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Thanks - I'll offer to lug someones gear next time I'm out - they'll be chuffed!

[Roy C]

I have no doubt that the 500mm f4 is the birding lens and I have been very near to getting one myself recently. Problem for my style is the weight, there is no way I could manage a 500 + pod without changing my birding habits which is walking 4-5 miles and shooting as and when a bird comes along (no problem with the lightweight 400 5.6).

I keep coming back to the 300 2.8 but am not convinced that it will consistently perform at 600 f5.6 ( 2x tc). I have no doubt that it is very good at 420 f4 (1.4 tc) but this would not give much more reach than the 400 albeit you gain a stop and have IS.

If you think you can handle the weight without cramping your style then I would go for the 500 f4.

[paul goode]

I have no doubt that the 500mm f4 is the birding lens and I have been very near to getting one myself recently. Problem for my style is the weight, there is no way I could manage a 500 + pod without changing my birding habits which is walking 4-5 miles and shooting as and when a bird comes along (no problem with the lightweight 400 5.6).

Hand on heart Roy, I do think you may well have already chosen the best lens for your birding. If I did what you do I'd buy a 400 f5.6 tomorrow.

Paul

[amilne]

I only have one decent lens, and I've only had that a couple of weeks, but I have no doubt that that the much lighter weight for a loss of only 100mm to the 500mm f4 makes the Canon 400mm DO IS worthy of consideration for anyone who wishes a high quality lens with reach and lightness, which must be most birders, provided that they have more money than sense. The lens is 560g more than your 100-400mm. Most people seem to use the 1.4x with it so allow the weight of that as well. The several links in the thread "Advice regarding 400mm DO IS lens" in this forum clearly show the quality achievable of the lens. I carry my monopod or tripod everywhere I go. I still have not used it in the 500 or so photographs I have taken with the 1.4X and 400mm lens, although I do rest it on any object if there's one handy. I'm sure I'll need it near dusk but am not seeing any shake evident at this time of year, perhaps because I'm using it wide open most of the time. If you go the way of this lens, you'll need to ignore the many bad reviews, and be prepared for the odd donut type of out of focus bokeh. I managed to force one of these today by taking a picture close into the sun of a seabird with strong reflections off the sea behind. That is now the second in 500 shots, and I was trying to force it to happen. A crop of the seabird would not show the strange rings. It could ruin some shots I expect. I'm not a photographer, just someone who likes taking bird photographs, so my vote for the lens does not carry much weight, but the photographers who have one in the thread do matter more.

[macshark]

Don't rule out the 400mm f/4 DO either: it's expensive for what it is, but it's very light and easy to hand-hold, works well with a 1.4x on a 30D, and - these days anyway - has excellent IQ and sharpness (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26544917)...

If the cost of the 400 DO was a little less, this would be a no brainer. The price difference between 300mm f/2.8L IS and this less is staggering...

... makes the Canon 400mm DO IS worthy of consideration for anyone who wishes a high quality lens with reach and lightness, which must be most birders, provided that they have more money than sense.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Keith Reeder]

I agree entirely, Steve - the price of the DO is the only real problem with it.

That said, Hong Kong retailers will do one for about £2500, which starts to raise the temperature a bit...

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

I have an offer from a BF memeber to try out the set up and see how it works out.
Another result from the forum!

Will report back soonish.

[chrisli]

Well let me share with you the experience I had with most of the lenses mentioned. I started off with the Tamron 200-500mm find it a bit too soft, did not want to spend too much, got a 400mm f/5.6 with 1.4 TC, produces good images, light to carry around, but could not focus fast enough since have to use manual focusing on a 40D, try taping it works but only on good light, a lot of missed chances. Took the plunged and go for the 500mm f/4.0 with 1.4TC, yes it is heavy, large investment plus all the accessories, but you get alot more keepers than missed chances. It will definitely not be that mobile but it will get you the shots you want. The next best thing apart from the 500mm is the 300mm f/2.8, it is light enough to carry and be mobile and with a 2XTC it still gives you very good IQ and a reach of 600mm focal length, it is the sharpest and fastest AF lens in the Canon range. If you are really keen to shoot birds these are the 2 lens I would recommend, or have both of them if you can afford it.
Just my 2 cents worth.

[pe'rigin]

Marcus,

Why not wait until the autumn when Canon announce their new range? Most people will envy your 30D + 100-400mm set-up at moment. Stick the bonus in an high interest account, buy in the autumn on the pay in a one years time scheme and reap the benefits.

[Keith Reeder]

Good call, pe'rigin...

[David Smith]

Marcus,

Why not wait until the autumn when Canon announce their new range?

Do you mean
a) they will have something different/better to chose from
or
b) the old range will drop in price

[Jaff]

I love my setup for its mobility. But. This weekend I went out to phtograph some pied flys. I did not want to disturb them so kept my distance. I felt my set up didn''t have enough reach (whose does;)) and depsite what others find I don't like the results with the 'taped' converter nor the slower hunting time.
.

Remember when you used to scope? 8-P ;)

Oh and I've managed to secure myself a Manfrotto 055V witha 701RC2 for £99 so you don't have to feel bad anymore!

With regards to the 500F4, Tracker almost exclusively (except when in a hide) hand-holds his 500 and look how he gets on.

More than a few envious people reading this thread I'm sure. :t:
Jaff

[paul goode]

With regards to the 500F4, Tracker almost exclusively (except when in a hide) hand-holds his 500 and look how he gets on.



Tom must have at least 3 Weetabix for breakfast, every morning! ;)

I do sometimes hand hold mine but things go very wobbly, very quickly. :eek!:

[pe'rigin]

Do you mean
a) they will have something different/better to chose from
or
b) the old range will drop in price


Either David really.

I don't know what they will have planned, but the D300 and D3 has done some serious damage to them, so they will respond.

If the bonus that Marcus has got is large enough, then the interest alone will pay for the Gitzo tripod.

If Canon keep slashing the MK III's price then that's worth a look.

They may even bring out a replacement.

What I think is important in this economical climate, is to get maximum benefit from your money and use the situation to your advantage. Canon and Nikon have sqeezed us for a number of years, let's have our time now.

[gmax]

Well let me share with you the experience I had with most of the lenses mentioned. I started off with the Tamron 200-500mm find it a bit too soft, did not want to spend too much, got a 400mm f/5.6 with 1.4 TC, produces good images, light to carry around, but could not focus fast enough since have to use manual focusing on a 40D, try taping it works but only on good light, a lot of missed chances. Took the plunged and go for the 500mm f/4.0 with 1.4TC, ...

Oh no, you have already trodden the path I'm currently on ... Tamron, Canon 400mm + tc ... does that mean that I'm on the verge of buying the 500 prime?? Am I doomed? :eek!:
If so, I'd regret my sweet half ... ;)

[Gary Jenkins]

Import from B&H in New York a 500mm f4.0 IS, Gitzo tripod and Wimberley head.I did, saved a packet.Sod the weight.Go large if you can afford it.

[GYRob]

get the 500f4isL nearly every shot in my gallery is taken by it and most are handheld although i do use a monpod more often now but thats more for carring it over my shoulder and haveing it ready for a shot .
NO good if its in a trecker or something .
The thing is we spend hours hopeing to get a shot driving to the place to get it etc etc So if funds alow get the lens that will help get the shot .
Rob.

[citrinella]

I always considered the 500 the ultimate lens, and gave up frittering away money on compromises and bought one. Not disappointed ;-) I can use it handheld, but carrying it between shots is also a chore. Mounted in the back of my tractor (yes, a cheap wee quadropod) it works fine with a 2x convertor. Hardly ever use it without a convertor at all.

However, for travelling it is just too much. I bought a 300f4 recently for that because I wanted IS. If I had had the money, I would have bought a 400 f4 DO.

I can't see why you would buy a 300 f2.8 if what you really want is reach. It is still a heavy lens. I would recommend 500 or 400 f4 DO. The choice should depend on how manoeuverable you really want to be. Whichever you choose, a 1.4 will be great, and a suitable tripod will improve every shot where it is possible to use it.

Mike.

P.S. Whatever your choice I recommend you PM kerso and ask for a price.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Marcus,

Why not wait until the autumn when Canon announce their new range? Most people will envy your 30D + 100-400mm set-up at moment. Stick the bonus in an high interest account, buy in the autumn on the pay in a one years time scheme and reap the benefits.

Is there any more news on this? It looks like we're boooking a trip to the states early 09, and I am preparing to take the plunge. The money is still in an account burning a credit crunching hole!!

[Jaff]

One thing Marcus, make sure you get a TC too, if you haven't got one already that is.

[Overread]

Looking at what you are after I would say definatly look at the 1.4 Canon teleconverter - and also if you can the 2* teleconverter. Get the 2* second only as the 1.4 adds range with minimal to almost no loss of quality - whist the 2* can be a little bit more of a punch (especially in lower light) though on either the two lenses recomeneded so far (the 300mm f2.8 or 500mm) good skills and light means both will still be very sharp lenses - have fun!

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Thanks I only have a kenko one, which I don't really use now. I personally find the lens 100-400 hunts quite a lot.

[paul goode]

I'll be surprised if Canon announce anything new in the big prime dept - the 800 has only just arrived, and the most likely new body is the 5D replacement so not too relevant, I don't think.

If you're bringing the lens back from the states what will you do about the hard case? I'd say for storing the lens and future resale its essential to have but a few people I know who have purchased lenses abroad have chucked the hard case away because it makes it more difficult to sneak through customs. Importing through Kerso, for instance, saves a lot of hassle. With exchange rates, taxes etc is it actually cheaper to bring one back yourself?

1.4x tc essential, 2x wouldn't rush to buy. I've just flogged mine because whereas the 1.4x lives on my 500 the 2x does degrade the image a bit compared to the 1.4x and I never bothered using it.

[paul goode]

Flog the Kenko get a Canon!!

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

I'll be surprised if Canon announce anything new in the big prime dept - the 800 has only just arrived, and the most likely new body is the 5D replacement so not too relevant, I don't think.

If you're bringing the lens back from the states what will you do about the hard case? I'd say for storing the lens and future resale its essential to have but a few people I know who have purchased lenses abroad have chucked the hard case away because it makes it more difficult to sneak through customs. Importing through Kerso, for instance, saves a lot of hassle. With exchange rates, taxes etc is it actually cheaper to bring one back yourself?

1.4x tc essential, 2x wouldn't bother. I've just flogged mine because whereas the 1.4x lives on my 500 the 2x does degrade the image and I never bothered using it.

Not sure what the hard case is, but why not say that's how I transport it?

[paul goode]

Not sure what the hard case is, but why not say that's how I transport it?

The hard case is a large plastic (?) case that the lens comes with. I don't know if its designed for safely transporting the lens in the hold of a plane though. I'm not at all sure I'd trust my 500mm f4 to baggage handlers. People seem to wangle lenses etc into hand luggage wherever possible. I've not taken mine abroad though so other people may have better advice.
Certainly when mine arrived the outer cardboard carton had extra padding around the corners of the case etc.

[Overread]

The hardcase that comes with a canon lens (or any lens) I would say is not strong or well enough padded for a plane flight!
Seriously consider a proper hardcase for travel if you intend to put it in the hold - and be prepared to get caught by customes (that way if you are it not as painful as if you don't - which means you have some home pocket money!)
I have read that some people will use a mailing or courier service to transport lenses abroad rather than risk passenger plane holds

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Ah right. I know the thing. I was gonna pay the extra and go hand lugage.

[Jaff]

Flog the Kenko get a Canon!!

Or why not have both, giving the option to stack them. Better than a 2x? (certainly cheaper!)

[Overread]

Would you get that in hand luggage?
It might meed size requirements - but still I have seen attendants and passengers pushing and squishing stuff to get it to fit - not the most gentle of people! If you can try and pad it out with something - put it in its bag inside another with padding
(though you could pay for an extra seat for it!)
edit - TC staking is fun to do and you can get some half decent results most of the time (though websized generally more than fullsized).

[paul goode]

Or why not have both, giving the option to stack them. Better than a 2x? (certainly cheaper!)

Why on earth would I spend a lot of money on a top quality lens and then sling a couple of tc's on the back of it.
If the 500mm and 1.4 tc doesn't give enough reach I'm not interested in the result.

[666taz]

Get the 800mm 5.6 they say it only weighs as mch as the 500mm and all that extra reach lol.

[Overread]

well canon 2*TC would let you get a good 1000mm out of that lens - and a heck of a lot cheaper than a proper 1000mm lens (and more practical as well!)
Further there are times when to get a shot you just have to go further
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my%20works/yorkshire%202/100%20percent/IMG_0935.jpg
though in that I was stacking a sigma 2*TC and canon 2*TC on top of each other on a canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS (sadly my longest good lens) - gave me an 800mm+crop sensor extra to get the peregrine - without I would have had nothing.

[NIGHTJAR1]

I've been using the 400DO for about 3 years now and can't recommend it highly enough. It's very light by comparison and very portable. It is expensive, but you usually only buy a prime lens like this once. There is a very important difference between this lens and the 500f4, and that is hand holding. I use this lens hand-held even with a 1.4x attached all the time and get sharp images. I for one could not use the 500 hand held, although I know some people do.

[Jaff]

Why on earth would I spend a lot of money on a top quality lens and then sling a couple of tc's on the back of it.
If the 500mm and 1.4 tc doesn't give enough reach I'm not interested in the result.

Perhaps I wasn't making it clear, I said the 'option'. It was intended as something to fool around with and as an alternative to a 2x for those situations where one may prove useful.

I have to say though that if I could have my choice of any lens I'd like the 400mm DO, one does have to consider what would it be like to carry the 500 all day, I know it would be too much for me (depends what style of photography you do I suppose).

[Roy C]

Or why not have both, giving the option to stack them. Better than a 2x? (certainly cheaper!)
I would agree with this, I have two 1.4tc's and a 2x and from the test I have done the stacked 1.4's are better than the 2x (don't ask me why but I have read many post where other people have come to this conclusion as well).

I have also done lots of tests with the Kenko pro 1.4 v Canon 1.4 and conclude that there virtually no difference in IQ between the two. Apart from the obvious advantage of the Kenko pro being considerably cheaper than the Canon it will also fit a lot more lenses e.g. I often use the Kenko on my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro whereas the Canon will not even fit.

[paul goode]

I have also done lots of tests with the Kenko pro 1.4 v Canon 1.4 and conclude that there virtually no difference in IQ between the two. Apart from the obvious advantage of the Kenko pro being considerably cheaper than the Canon it will also fit a lot more lenses e.g. I often use the Kenko on my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro whereas the Canon will not even fit.

Maybe the Canon tc works best on lenses like the big primes. Certainly on my 100-400 the Kenko was better af wise than the Canon and similar in IQ.

On the 500mm f4 though the Kenko was basically awful. Image degradation was obvious and af was slower. The Canon, you wouldn't even know it was there...

[Roy C]

Maybe the Canon tc works best on lenses like the big primes. Certainly on my 100-400 the Kenko was better af wise than the Canon and similar in IQ.

On the 500mm f4 though the Kenko was basically awful. Image degradation was obvious and af was slower. The Canon, you wouldn't even know it was there...

That's interesting Paul, I have only tried them on the 70-200 f4 and 400 f5.6 + the Kenko on the 100 f2.8 macro.

[Mick Johnson]

Marcus, I have a 100-400 and I too decided to buy a prime, either the 300mm or 500mm.

I tried both and eventually decided to get the 300mm 2.8 because of the size and weight factor. Also, I find it more versatile and also use it for motorsports etc.

With a 1.4x converter there's no loss in quality and is still much, much sharper, even wide open (f4) than my 100-400 at it's best (f8-f11)

I have just got a 2x but have'nt tried it yet but my mate uses one all the time on his 300mm 2.8

I have to admit that since I got it I've never used the 100-400 because it's just so good.

I do, however, think that which ever one you choose you WILL want the other one as well.

Here's a size comparison of the 100-400 and 300mm 2.8 if it's any use to you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Lens2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Lens.jpg

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Marcus, I have a 100-400 and I too decided to buy a prime, either the 300mm or 500mm.

I tried both and eventually decided to get the 300mm 2.8 because of the size and weight factor. Also, I find it more versatile and also use it for motorsports etc.

With a 1.4x converter there's no loss in quality and is still much, much sharper, even wide open (f4) than my 100-400 at it's best (f8-f11)

I have just got a 2x but have'nt tried it yet but my mate uses one all the time on his 300mm 2.8

I have to admit that since I got it I've never used the 100-400 because it's just so good.

I do, however, think that which ever one you choose you WILL want the other one as well.

Here's a size comparison of the 100-400 and 300mm 2.8 if it's any use to you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Lens2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Lens.jpg

That's an interesting comparison. I think I would have to go bigger to begin with and longer term replace the 100-400 if I needed to. The 300 seems a stunning lens. Interested that no-one seems to say the 600mm, of the sigmonster - the 500mm seems the weapon of choice.

[Overread]

I think the 600mm is just too expensive and heavy for most people - further its larger than the 500mm in size which is another consideration. The 300mm f2.8 makes a very good 600mm with the 2*TC (the 300mm being one of the best canon lenses) and for many that along with a 400 or 500mm is enough.

[Roy C]

I have though long and hard about the 300mm f2.8 - read thousands of post on different sites and spoken to people who have the lens. The bare lens is, of course, mega good but too short for birding. Add a 1.4tc and it still excellent ( roughly on par with the bare 400mm f5.6 in terms of IQ, but gives you 420mm at f4 and IS). For any real advantage over what I have now (400 f5.6) I would need to use it at 600mm just about all of the time and the consensus seems to be that although the IQ, while still reasonable ( about the same as the 400 f5.6 + 1.4tc) is not anywhere near the 500 f4 or even the 500 + 1.4tc (700mm).

I have spoken to several birders who have both lenses and the 500 is definitely the weapon of choice.

If you have a use for the 300mm f2.8 at 300mm and 420mm with just the occasional 600mm use then it is a superb choice but if you are going to use it at 600mm most of the time there are better choices IMO.

[a.dancy]

If you go to the Birdfair, go tho the 'British Birds' magazine stand (Biritish Birds ran a photo competition) look at the winning photographs and runners up photographs, which they will probably have mounted in their stand. You will see examples of 300mmm bare lens and 300 +2X converter as well as the expected 500mm lens shots.

[miketoll]

I did not want to lug a 500 plus tripod around, wanted longer than 400 with autofocus on a 40D so, having a tax rebate (or rather my wife had!) I looked around for a 400 DO plus 1.4 converter and dropped on a demo model 'as new' with a good discount. I am delighted with it and can hand hold with the converter on, carry it around all day and I am thrilled with the results.

[Den]

Hi Marcus, I get the impression you want and can afford the best gear to get the best images. Reach is all important in bird photography along with a loooverly bokeh. big prime will give you that and more, but there are weight penalties.
Many years ago (1980's) I bought a 600 f5.6 IFED manual Nikon lens which took and continues to take very good pics (take it abroad as its tidgy). I upgraded a few years ago to guess what - a 600mm f4 AF Nikon and D2Xs. I could have had a 400 or 500 or zoom but I chose 600. Never regretted it for one minute. Reach is vital and the 600 gives me 20% more than a 500!!
The wonderful bokeh these long lenses produce is worth its weight in gold. Go for the 500 f4 and a;though your shoulders may protest, your pictures will sing. Save enough for a Wimberley11 head and a Gitzo 5540LS, a Wimberley flash bracket and a Better Beamer for fill-in work. If you buy less, you will always regret it.
Here's the old and the newer kit to drool over, even if its Nikon,not Canon!!

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

My current thinking is the 500 f4, and then either the markIII and the sigma 300mm f2.8. OR the 500f4 and the canon 300 f2.8, and a 40D. I was gonna upgrade my bins, but I am happy with them.

Saying that I still need a macro... Lets ope the dollar doesn't collapse any further! Turns out the missus wants to go to Chicago as we have been to NY before. No BH photo unfortunately...I'find something I am sure.

[Mick Johnson]

My current thinking is the 500 f4, and then either the markIII and the sigma 300mm f2.8. OR the 500f4 and the canon 300 f2.8, and a 40D. I was gonna upgrade my bins, but I am happy with them.

The 500f4 and the Canon 300f2.8 is a perfect choice I think and I would like the 500mm myself someday.

The Sigma 300f2.8, is, from all I've read not as sharp as the Sigma 120-300f2.8. I think even Sigma says just that somewhere.

I have tried my 2x converter today but not on it's own yet. This Heron was a long way away so I put both the 2x and the 1.4x together just to see what it was like. It's not cropped, so I suppose I could of got it bigger in the frame. I was quite pleased with the result and thought it was better than I expected.

I did have trouble holding it still enough as I only had a monopod and with a 40d you have 1344mm focal length....I think.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Heron1.jpg

[Ingo]

It all boils down to the way you want to use your camera most.

I'm mainly a birder after personal record shots, but I do want some quality. I dumped my 100-400 and am now using (mainly handheld) a 300mm IS f2.8, pratically permanently with 2x (kenko). I use no tc or a 1.4 for flight and action shots. Considering size and weight it is the maximum I want to carry around on a longer strenous hike, and on trips abroad. It beats the lighter 400 f5.6 x1.4 imo already by the fact that you can use AF (reasonably well with a 40D). True, there's some softness with x2, but for non-printing purpos much can be saved with software. From about f8 onwards, sharpness is good with 2x - prints in A4 (and sometimes even bigger) look good enough to get published. The 500 f4 would certainly make better pictures on a tripod, but it's longer and a kilo more is a kilo more - more shake in handheld so that I'm not sure the 500 would actually beat a 300 with tc for handheld shooting, depends on your strength I guess. The 400 DO would actually suit my style better, but I have used one and 300x2 beats 400 DOx1.4 from my experience (some people claim otherwise, might be that I had a poor copy of the DO in my hands).

Another issue is the minimal focussing distance - the 300x2 is just ideal for sneaking through the jungle - many birds can pop up and be surprisingly close - you'll love the 300 it if you're into trekking.

As for a more static situation, shooting from a hide/car etc, nothing beats the big primes of course. I don't have one, but from looking at pictures in Asian forums, the 600 f4 seems to perform best (note that most of those pix are taken actually with 600x1.4 - you can never have enough reach ...). The 500 f4 seems like a compromise - more mobility against more reach/detail. If you're trac\velling a lot the 500 f4 will be easier to board as hand baggage.

I personally think that having a 300 f2.8 amd a 600 f4 in your arsenal is the ideal choice. What I would like to see is a proper test of a 400 f2.8 x2 against a 600 f4 x1.4. The 400 is smaller at the same weight (better for getting it into planes) and has better minimal focussing distance while the bokeh of the 600 will be nicer - but nobody seems to compare sharpness and contrast anywhere on the web.

[a.dancy]

The 500f4 and the Canon 300f2.8 is a perfect choice I think and I would like the 500mm myself someday.

The Sigma 300f2.8, is, from all I've read not as sharp as the Sigma 120-300f2.8. I think even Sigma says just that somewhere.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v510/mickjohnson/Heron1.jpg


I do not believe the Sigma 120-300 is sharper than the Sigma 300 f2.8 prime. There is an internet myth going about which was started off by a salesman although that could be a myth also:king: I use the 300 prime and considered getting the zoom 120-300 and tested it out. The zoom is a great lens and more than adequate and like the prime ,probably underated. The Sigma prime is a fantastic lense, razor sharp, great contrast and you would find it hard to tell the difference in image quality with the canon f2.8 300. It would fall easily into Canon's L series league in my humble opinion. However, as much as I love the lens, if you have the dosh the you have no choice but to opt for a combination Canon 500f4 and 300f2.8. The camera is secondary. The canon 300f2.8 has a focus limiter and IS. For me I can manage without IS but the focus limiter is a big big advantage.

The 600 lens in my view has to be the birding lens but owing to weight and certain other limitations I can understand why some would not choose it.

[gymell]

If you've got the budget (and it sounds like you do) don't accept a compromise. The 500 f/4 paired with a 1D Mark III is an unbeatable birding combo. The lens travels well as carry on luggage in a Think Tank Airport International bag. For carrying on hikes, use the comfortable Lens Trekker 600 AW bag, which will easily fit the lens attached to the 1D III, including a 1.4x teleconverter. Keep it well supported on a Gitzo CF tripod and it handles like a dream on a full Wimberley head. Add a Gitzo CF monopod with Really Right Stuff high-capacity monopod head to round out your perfect birding setup.

9 out of 10 Blackburnian warblers agree, the 500 is THE way to go! See more examples in my 500mm lens gallery (http://www.pbase.com/gymell/500_f4).

[Vectis Birder]

For someone on a budget, you can't beat the 400 f5.6 - superb quality and build and not too heavy either, I love mine. If I could afford the 500mm I'd go for one, without question, but at over £4000 it's an expensive bit of kit, but the Sigma 500mm, a lot cheaper at under £3000 is worth a look, too.

[Gary Jenkins]

Marcus,
as ive previously posted you will not go wrong with the Canon 500mm f4.0.It will fit in a Lowepro rucksack and can be put in the hand luggage lockers above ya head on a plane.I currently use a Canon 1D MarkIIn and the above lens.
Go for it mate,you wont regret it.
Good Luck.