Beginner

[bonobo]

Dear All

Merry Christmas to you all and Hope your New Year will be Well !

I am a beginner who hopes to do some travelling to Africa, India etc to view and photograph wild animals and birds mainly, but landscapes and humans etc.

I think I'm set on the 40D.

Someone has recommended the 400mm f5.6 lens for wildlife etc and the 17-85mm for Landscapes.

Would anyone with the relevant experience be kind enough to give their - and + opinions and / or further recommendations for me to bugger off and take some fantastic photos.

Oh and I realise that Canon are offering cashback at the moment but with the current financial climate would it worth waiting until spring / early summer when the recession is starting to really bite before purchasing this equipment ?

Many thanks for reading !

[JohnZ]

I am totally biased as I use the 400mm f5.6 myself and, at the risk of repetition, it saves me time and time again. I think it is a fantastic lens. Others on here may beg to differ.
I have only ever had a very brief go with the 17-85mm.
As far as waiting is concerned, as you have not said when you are thinking of going to Africa etc., it is a bit difficult to say. You may also want/need to practice a bit first ?

[QuantumTiger]

I have both of those lenses. The EF400mm f/5.6 is an absolutely stunning lens. I love it and it spends more time on my camera than any of my other lenses. It is a great birding lens. I pretty much always use it on a monopod for stability, as it is just that little bit too long to hand hold unless the light is excellent.

By comparison the 17-85mm is merely an okay lens. Actually it is fine - it's just that the 400 is so good, it spoils you. At the wide end my 17-85mm looks a bit muddy compared to the 400. I guess no wide angle lense is going to rival the 400's clarity, but I believe that the newer 17-55 f/2.8IS is supposed to be better as is the 17-40 f/4L.

As far as waiting is concerned, generally lens prices stay pretty stable, so it's only really the body that is likely to drop in price much. As John says pratice is good so I would definately get your hands on the camera before you travel, particularly if you've never shot with a long telephoto before. It's worth familiarising yourself with your kit on non-critical shots rather than regretting missed opportunities later on!

[russ1610]

There is little doubt that the 400f5.6 is a great lens, However I would go for the slightly more expensive and yes possibly inferior pic Quality 100x400 IS Zoom. Why well the 400 may give you a nice close up of an ear on a close animal but with the 100x 400 you can adjust down to 200 0r 100mm and get just a head shot or the whole animal. (IS) I also feel would be a help on any safari type trip the F400 5.6 does not have it. As for light there shouldn't be a problem.
Now the little lens, 28-135 is Zoom or possibly the new 18-200is zoom. The first I own and is a very nice little lens indeed.

[Roy C]

The 400 f5.6 is a cracking lens which takes a 1.4tc well but if you have a need to shoot at less than 400mm then the 100-400 is obviously more versatile.

[Vectis Birder]

Another vote for the 400mm f5.6 - I also have one and love it. It's a cracking lens, certainly the best I have ever owned.

[tjsimonsen]

Hi, I can't comment on the 17-85IS as I use Tamron 17-50/2.8 (an amazing lens for the price) as my landscape zoom.

However, a couple of years ago when I went digital, I picked the 100-400IS L over the 400/5.6L. And I must admit, I haven't looked back. The prime is cheaper, has somewhat faster AF (though the zoom is no slough - especially on a camera like 40D), and probably slightly sharper. Though with respect to the last point I think it will take a highly skilled photographer and a very large print (A3+) for the difference to be noticeable in real life. Furthermore, the zoom has IS which (IMO) more than make up for the possible inferior resolution. Where the zoom wins clearly (again in my opinion) is in flexibility (I was mainly a prime user in the film days). The following two pics illustrate what I mean. They were shot within few minutes and are of the same animals (both the animals and I stayed in exactly the same positions).
First I shot at 320mm:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624259

Then I zoomed out to 135mm:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624261

I wouldn't have got any of these pics with the prime, and I have been in quite a few situations like that - so I can live with the slightly poorer resolution and slower AF. Another thing worth considering is that the minimum focus distance is 1.8m for the zoom, but 3.5m for the prime. For birds that rarely mean a difference (but it can sometimes), but it does mean that the zoom doubles as a good butterfly/dragonfly lens. Coming from 400mm primes (though none quite as good as the EF 400/5.6L) I was quite skeptical about the zoom and picked it mainly because of the IS and the close focus. But it has grown on me, and though I mainly use it for birds and mostly on 400mm, the flexibility has given me photos I didn't imagine before I bought it. The only area where the zoom really falls behind as far as I can see, is when it comes to BIF shots. Though useful, the zoom is nowhere near the prime in this category.
Bottom line is, I guess, that both are cracking lenses, but to me the flexibility of the zoom (both with respect to focal length and focus distance) wins my support.

Thomas

[a.dancy]

There are a lot of discussions regarding the prime and zoom 400 lenses in this and other forums. The prime edges in front for sharpness and birds in flight and if that were your chosen area then that is what I would advise. However the zoom is still no slouch being an 'L' series lens and you can still do those sorts of shots. However the area where the zoom comes to its own is as a safari/animal lens. The choice is a no brainer since you have the versatility of the zoom coupled with image stabilisation and you will get far more shots that are freely hand held (especially in glorious fading light).

Good luck

[hollis_f]

Oh and I realise that Canon are offering cashback at the moment but with the current financial climate would it worth waiting until spring / early summer when the recession is starting to really bite before purchasing this equipment ?
The problem with waiting is the possibility that the value of Sterling will drop even further than it has. That would make it more likely that prices of imported goods will have to go up.

[Roy C]

The problem with waiting is the possibility that the value of Sterling will drop even further than it has. That would make it more likely that prices of imported goods will have to go up.
I agree with Frank, Even if Sterling does not drop any further, as retailers replenish their stock there is every chance that prices will rise especially for lenses.

[Tectortony]

Agree with Frank, I think prices will start to rise due to the exchange values, I'm just about to go for a new camera now rather than later.

[Geoff Brown]

17-85mm a good lens but also consider the Canon EF55- 250mm zoom if finances are tight as it is an excellent lens for the money

[JohnZ]

But the 55-250 will not give you the Landscape photography that the OP spoke about ?

[Keith Reeder]

However I would go for the slightly more expensive and yes possibly inferior pic Quality 100x400 IS Zoom.

Yeah, look how "inferior" these are - soft, no detail... I don't know why I keep wasting my time with the 100-400mm...

;)

People will continue to insist that the prime is sharper (Romy Ocon knows a bit about bird photography and lenses, and he says his 100-400mm is as sharp as his prime - believe him), and - seriously - I'm happy to stack these up against anything from the prime.

And I've got 100-399mm to play with and IS.

You might get a sub-standard copy of the zoom of course, but new ones seem to be routinely fine.

I could easily sell my 100-400mm for more than the price of a prime, but why in God's name would I do that?

Incidentally, one of the 100-400mm's nicknames is The Safari Lens...

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Agree wholeheartedly with Keith, and I am lucky enough to own the 500mm f4 IS. This week I visited family knowing I could steal a few hours to get some pictures of potentially a firecrest. Which lens did I turn to? The trusty 100-400. Stunning lens. Cannot see myself ever shifting it as it's immense. Never let me down either. Soft for BIF, not up to the 400?? Not for me or the many pros who use it and win competitions with it such as Portfolio winners in Wildlife Photographer of the Year.

[russ1610]

Keith, I own a 100x400 myself and I'm more than happy with it. However popular opinion and everything else confirms my statement. (allegedly the 400 f5.6 is better) Me I'm with you have the 100x400 every time and your photo's say it all, there superb, mine ain't so good but there again there good enough for me.

[Roy C]

People will continue to insist that the prime is sharper
.
To be fair Keith, the poster did say "possibly inferior pic Quality 100x400 IS Zoom" and this is certainly a distinct possibility according to Romy Ocon who states that he has had soft copies. I have read hundreds of post where people claim to have a soft copy of the zoom so the poster's comments were valid IMO.

[nick the grief]

To be fair Keith, the poster did say "possibly inferior pic Quality 100x400 IS Zoom" and this is certainly a distinct possibility according to Romy Ocon who states that he has had soft copies. I have read hundreds of post where people claim to have a soft copy of the zoom so the poster's comments were valid IMO.

I can't disagree with someone like Keith - I've got the 100-400 and I have to say it's my favourite lens ( I've got a Tamron 200-500 as well) I did borrow one for a couple of days and to be fair that one was soft with my 350d but mine copy is pin sharp ( the only let down is the idiot on the shutter release:-O) That said the one I borrowed was pin sharp on two other camera's so maybe it was the older ones?

I know someone else who has the Sigma 80-400(?) OS lens, that is a bit cheaper then the Canon but is a good lens as well.

[Roy C]

I can't disagree with someone like Keith - I've got the 100-400 and I have to say it's my favourite lens ( I've got a Tamron 200-500 as well) I did borrow one for a couple of days and to be fair that one was soft with my 350d but mine copy is pin sharp ( the only let down is the idiot on the shutter release:-O) That said the one I borrowed was pin sharp on two other camera's so maybe it was the older ones?

I know someone else who has the Sigma 80-400(?) OS lens, that is a bit cheaper then the Canon but is a good lens as well.
If you actually read my post you will see that I am not saying that the lens is good,bad or indifferent - I have never tried one so it is completely immaterial to me.
What I said was there are many post on the web from user who claim to have a soft copy and indeed the one person that Keith mentioned has himself said that he has had soft copies. If you do not believe me just go into Romy's web site and read for yourself ;) If you have never read any of these type of comments then you must be doing a lot of very selective reading.
If you read Russ's reply to Keith's post you will realise that he is a big 100-400 fan himself and did not deserve the response he got. Are you saying that no one as ever had a soft copy of the zoom, if so then I doubt if even Keith would agree with you.
Have a good one and go out and enjoy your lens, it is more rewarding than trying to score brownie points.

[russ1610]

Thanks Roy I love my 100x 400 just wish I could use it as well as Keith. I got my view that the 400 F5.6 may be sharper, reading all the posts on here. Me don't care, love what i have and it's far better than I am. Seems almost as if some people do care, too much, about types of equipment and some of the twitchers really hate Photographers. I made the mistake of saying Spooked a bird once. I was 100 yards away on my own trying to get a little closer to a grouse the only person I upset was myself, no-one else there to see it. Never use the word spooked.

[kim]

I have both the 100-400 ISL and the 400 f 5.6. I have to say I far prefer the prime lens - both for speed, sharpness and above all - it is light to carry when out for the day!
I guess it comes down to personal preference. Which ever you choose - both are terriic lenses!

[Cashie]

I have both these lenses too & comparing them both at 400mm you would be splitting hairs IMO.

[QuantumTiger]

I have both these lenses too & comparing them both at 400mm you would be splitting hairs IMO.
But isn't that what sharpness is all about ;)

[AC/DC]

But isn't that what sharpness is all about ;)
But is that what photography is about? ;) The difference in the detail resolved in these two lenses is hardly going to be the deciding factor in how good a photograph it is.
For safari work, I would imagine the zoom would be better for its versatility, but i've seen some great safari shots with the prime too.

[Jaff]

Prime is a cracking birding lens, zoom is a cracking wildlife lens, that's all I'll say on that.

With regards your little lens, I believe many have commented on other threads that the newer 18-55mm IS is actually better for IQ than the 17-85mm and it's a hell of a lot cheaper. If it were me, I'd get that instead. But if you're prepared to pay more money then definitely look at a third party wide lens with a f2.8 aperture, think of the glorious sunsets!

Adam