Newbie needs basic telephoto advice

[vjack]

I'm a new Canon 20D owner, and I'd like to buy my first telephoto lens suitable for birding. This forum has been extremely helpful, but I will probably always be overwhelmed with all the lens options.

I plan to shoot a combination of small birds in trees and larger birds in flight. From what I can gather here, focal lengths < 400mm will not be adequate. I am still somewhat unclear about whether 400mm is long enough or whether I should set 500mm as my goal.

I have read many reviews around the internet, and the following lenses appear to be worth consideration:

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Canon 400mm f/5.6L
Tamron 200-500
Sigma (Bigma) 50-500


The 100-400mm sounds like an extremely versatile lens, especially because the IS would permit some handheld shooting. I have 3 questions for you:

Is 400mm going to be adequate for birding?
Are there other lenses (similar in price) that you would recommend instead of these?
Given my anticipated needs (i.e., shooting small birds and handling in-flight shots), should I drop any of these from consideration?

[JSI]

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Tamron 200-500
Sigma (Bigma) 50-500


I'd like to see what the pro's on here say. I'm looking into the same thing.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Sigma because it seems to be getting good reviews on here and has a good price as well.

[postcardcv]

Personally I'd go for the Canon 400mm f/5.6L - it is not as versatile as a zoom, but the image quality is stunning - see the thread prime vs zoom - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37420

Of the three zooms I'd go for the Canon 100-400 IS - it is an excellent lens and the image stabalization can be very useful.

[compa]

I have to agree in general with postcardcv on his comments. I have the 100-400mm and while it is very versatile with the zoom feature and the image stabilization allows for hand held shots I am disappointed in the sharpness. The Canon 400mm prime is very good but without the image stabilization you lose the ability to hand hold, which for the things you want to shoot, is a requirement.

Check out this review of the 100-400 against the 400 prime: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

The other lenses can't be used without a tripod making them unusable for the shots you want.

So ... that leaves you with what I use: the Canon 100-400mm f/5.6L IS lens. It's a good but not quite perfect, general use lens for birding.

[geedub]

You could also check out Sigma's 80 - 400 EX OS, Sigma's version of an optically stabilized zoom lens. Image quality is excellent and the OS works a treat - I've had mine for 2 months now and am more than happy with it. The only downside is that you lose autofocus if using teleconvertors for that bit of extra reach. Check out reviews on www.photographyreview.com/PRD_145261_3128crx.aspx

[jiminlondon99]

Not that I can afford one, yet, but you may want to consider this?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=41&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

I read somewhere that some people do not like the way DO optics blurs the background when fully open but cannot recall the source.

My own preference, at the moment, is the 400 5.6, but I plan to play with some RAW files first as I may be blaming the lens rather than the jpg format for the lack of quality I notice on my IS zoom lens? You should also consider the link below if you have not already seen it. As I also read somewhere "lenses are for life, digi cameras spec change with the season";

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38488

There are some strong arguments in favour of the smaller and faster option?

[Ryder]

Hi:

For small birds there is no such thing as too much reach.
Same for Raptors-larger birds too really as they are hard to approach.
I use a Sigma 500mm f4.5 and I am looking to go longer but I will keep the 500 too.
At 30' I can't begin to fill the frame and the 500mm almost always has a TC on it.
I also use the 500mm handheld for birds in flight.You just need to do a few push ups and keep the shutter speed up at about 1/2000.

A used Sigma can be had for about $1800-2,000 and is one of the best deals out there IMHO.

Some reviews here at Fred Miranda's site:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=131&sort=7&cat=38&page=1


Moose Peterson considers the 400mm his "large animal" lens.
http://www.moosepeterson.com/index.html

Aurthor Morris' favorite for birds is the 600mm.
http://www.birdsasart.com/

Remember that there is quite a big differnce in going from 400 to 500mm. Not just 25% as some suppose. The image size is actually increased by 56% by the change as image size is a function of the square of the focal length.

500/400=
5/4 ratio=
25/16 (squared)
25-16=9
The image at 500mm is 9/16ths larger (or 56%) than 400mm.

All that being said good birders usually have a shorter lens too for some flight shots etc..., and some good shots can be had with them, but they always have the loooong one too. Really depends on how YOU shoot, how much versatility you want in the lens, and whether you want to spend major $$ on a lens just for birds.

Cheers
Craig Ryder

[vjack]

Now I am really confused. So far, the recommendations I have received appear to indicate that IS is so vital for in-flight shots that I should not consider lenses without it. This is very different from what I have read elsewhere. Specifically, most people appear to prefer the Canon 400mm f/5.6 (doesn't have IS) for in-flight shots over the 100-400 IS because the AF is considerably faster.

[jiminlondon99]

I find the IS is most useful for pictures like the one below = lens at 300mm+poor light+handheld+1/30sec with a static or slow moving subject, at the lowest ISO I can get. I only have the 75-300 IS but in the comparative tests I have done switching IS between on and off, I would agree with the previous post that shutter speed is more important that the IS for birds in flight. With the 75-300 I also find you miss shots as the IS can be quite slow on fast moving subjects, hence my preference for the 400/5.6 and the fast focus.

[vjack]

The Tamron 200-500 sounds comparable to the Canon 100-400L for less weight and less money. No IS, but this is a pretty impressive review: http://www.photofocus.com/showarchive.php?aid=224&cid=1

[compa]

Just to insure that there is no confusion on what Image Stabilization does and what it doesn't do. IS has nothing to do with movements made by the subject you wish to photograph. The only motion it cancels out is your movements while holding the camera. And this is a very good thing!

While it will not help you freeze the movements of a sparrow hopping around while feeding, it will help give you a sharp photo of that deer frozen in fear in the shadows.

Another point ... how bright are the lenses. The Tamron is a F/5-6.3 while the Canon is F/4.5-5.6 and these numbers are very important! While these 2 lenses may produce images that are near identical under good lighting they differ greatly in low light situations. With the Canon being brighter AND having image stabilization it should consistently get better results in those iffy lighting situations.

And one more point. In the review that vjack mentions the reviewer says of the Tamron lens: "they are made specifically for digital cameras". This makes me wonder how good the image would be on a full sensor size camera. Do the edges hold up? Remember you will have most any lens longer than the camera body and full size sensors will likely be the norm within the next few years.

All that said the Tamron is lighter weight and less expensive than the Canon. Both of those attributes are very important as well as the images the lenses produce.

[vjack]

Another point ... how bright are the lenses. The Tamron is a F/5-6.3 while the Canon is F/4.5-5.6 and these numbers are very important! While these 2 lenses may produce images that are near identical under good lighting they differ greatly in low light situations. With the Canon being brighter AND having image stabilization it should consistently get better results in those iffy lighting situations.

This is certainly a good point. While I am not planning to use the lens in poor lighting situations, this does make the 100-400 more versatile in another way. In fact, much of the criticism I have seen for the 100-400 focuses on it not being fast enough.

[compa]

In fact, much of the criticism I have seen for the 100-400 focuses on it not being fast enough.

There isn't a zoom lens in the world that is fast enough! :cool:

Or long enough for that matter. ;)