Canon Birding Setup

[Bob D]

I've close to deciding that I will move from digiscoping and also a P&S (most recent a S3 IS which I really like for most uses, especially the video) to a DSLR for a birding photography.

My selection pretty well comes down to a Canon 30D and the Canon 100-400 IS as a "basic" setup. The 30D is currently has a $100 rebate and it would be doubled by purchasing the above zoom.

With the $100 rebate it would bring the body down to around $1050. With both rebates it would bring the total package to about $200 more than the same package with the Canon 400D body.

I'm giving up 2 MP with the 30D but am gaining in faster autofocus and a 5 fps burst and a faster rewrite to buffer? I've handled both cameras and find the 30D to feel more comfortable in the hand. I've not shot any photos with either camera.

Does going to the 30D seem logical?

I've also handled the Nikon 80D but am not comfortable with the lens selection (out of ignorance) and if I recall correctly a slower burst rate. Not sure about autofocus speed with long lenses. The reason for considering it is that I have a Nikkor 28-105 AF lens which would serve as a general shooting lens.

I feel comfortable with the challenges a DSLR will cause. It shows my age to say I used a 4x5 Speed Graphic for several years and my first 35 mm cameras were a Nikon S2 and a SP back in the late 50s.

Hopefully this seems logical. Any suggestions/alternatives to the above would be appreciated.

Bob

[UlfL]

Does going to the 30D seem logical?
Hi Bob,

I'm using the setup you are suggesting (30D, 100-400 IS) and it is an excellent combination for bird photography. I also own a 350D, but I much prefer the 30D for birds because of its faster framerate and more comfortable handling. The 400D has two MP more, but the difference is not big enough to produce any significant increase in detail.

The 100-400 IS is an excellent lens, very sharp, and as a zoom very versatile. It is equaly good for birds in flight as for larger birds on close range. And it is also great for photographing family and friends, and even for some landscape photos.

I'm sure you will be very happy with your choice.

Regards,
Ulf

[gmax]

My selection pretty well comes down to a Canon 30D and the Canon 100-400 IS as a "basic" setup.

Excellent choice Bob and, as already confirmed by Ulfl, I believe you won't regret it a single moment, but, wait, ... where's Keith in this thread? |;|

[Bob D]

Thanks !

[Keith Reeder]

Keith's here - but Ulf has said it all!

;)

[ornithographyplus]

The 30D is an excellent choice! Although I would prefer using a prime lens (I started with a 300mm,f4 with a 1.4x extender) the 100-400 is also a good lens to use.

Bob K.
www.pbase.com/ornithographyplus

[UlfL]

Although I would prefer using a prime lens (I started with a 300mm,f4 with a 1.4x extender) the 100-400 is also a good lens to use.
I also started with the 300f4 IS + 1.4x TC. But a couple of months ago I sold the 300f4 and bought the 100-400 IS instead. Mainly because I wanted a more versatile lens, but I also didn't like the idea of being totally dependent on a TC.

According to my tests the 100-400 is at least as sharp as the 300 alone (I can't see any difference), and sharper than the 300+1.4x. The TC also affects the colors, making them more pallid. The difference is not huge, and only noticeable if you have a good look, but more than enough for me to be very happy with the 100-400.

[gmax]

I also started with the 300f4 IS + 1.4x TC. But a couple of months ago I sold the 300f4 and bought the 100-400 IS instead. Mainly because I wanted a more versatile lens, but I also didn't like the idea of being totally dependent on a TC.

Hello Ulf,
In terms of versatility I thoroughly agree ... moreover, using a TC is sometimes a disadvantage

According to my tests the 100-400 is at least as sharp as the 300 alone (I can't see any difference), and sharper than the 300+1.4x. The TC also affects the colors, making them more pallid. The difference is not huge, and only noticeable if you have a good look, but more than enough for me to be very happy with the 100-400.

I have almost the same setup and I'd be interested in seeing some test shots; no doubts that with a TC on, there's some loss in image quality, but since my 300mm f/4 is said to be (much?) sharper than its IS equivalent, that would be a useful comparison
Thanks,
Max

[UlfL]

Hi Max,
I photographed a playing card on about 4m distance with the 300 alone, 300 + 1.4x, and 100-400, at different apertures. I can post the pictures here, just be patient a day or two ;)

Another thing I remember from the test was that it is really a good idea to stop down the aperture if you are using the TC. There was a significant increase in image quality from f6.3 to f8. For me this is another disadvantage. Since I live up here in the Nordic Darkness, I'm seldom able to photograph at f8 and maintain reasonable ISO-levels. |;|

Cheers,
Ulf

[citrinella]

I've close to deciding that I will move from digiscoping and also a P&S (most recent a S3 IS which I really like for most uses, especially the video) to a DSLR for a birding photography.

My selection pretty well comes down to a Canon 30D and the Canon 100-400 IS as a "basic" setup. The 30D is currently has a $100 rebate and it would be doubled by purchasing the above zoom.
...
Bob
Hi Bob,

If you have an S3IS already, I would rely on it for those "most uses" and concentrate on getting the best out of the DSLR for the specialist extremes. In that light, I would look for a prime for birds : as long and fast as you find reasonable for price and weight.

I bought a DSLR to cover this specialist area - birds, then find I need a host of lenses for other purposes. Weight ! (I do a bit of travelling). Then I find it is no good having another lens on the camera - you never know when you will see a bird, so you need two bodies anyway. I am urgently considering rationalizing all non-specialist uses to a super-zoom. Maybe even a smaller compact.

I have a 30D, and love the spot metering, rapid recovery (don't find 5fps critical), fast AF : all big plusses for birds.

Mike.

[mr_birdman]

Hi,

I have been using a 30D since March with a kit-zoom, which is crap, therefore, I have been thinking of the 100-400 IS, but think it may not live up to the expectation. Prime lenses are aways sharper than zooms and even though it is an L zoom, I have read many a complaint about its performance beyond 300mm.

For birding, I have returned to wanting the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x as well as the 2x converters.

Has anyone used the 2x? Other than MF only, and f/8, what problems would I be facing???

BTW, the below link provides access to very useful site for reviews in case you guys haven't yet checked it out.

300mm f/4 review here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm

100-400mm review here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Regards
Akos

[Keith Reeder]

I have been thinking of the 100-400 IS, but think it may not live up to the expectation. Prime lenses are aways sharper than zooms and even though it is an L zoom, I have read many a complaint about its performance beyond 300mm. Then you have impossibly high expectations, Akos..!

;)

Frankly, there is a lot of nonsense posted about the 100-400mm: more accurately, there's a lot of out of date nonsense.

It may be that some older 100-400mms were less than brilliant at 400mm, but more recently-built lenses are a diferent beast entirely.

One of the best bird photographers out there - Romy Ocon (AKA Liquidstone - a 400mm prime fan for a long time) has recently obtained a 100-400mm which - in his own words - is "prime-sharp":

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240421

If it's good enough for Romy, it's good enough for us.

More proof of the 100-400mm's capabilities?

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240508
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240152

How sharp do you want?

;)

IanF on this forum has both the 400mm prime and the 100-400mm, and is a fine photographer. He agrees that they're as near as makes no difference, except wide-open.

More reading here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=731849#post731849


Seriously, Akos: of all the factors that might make have an affect on the sharpness of a picture, the relative theoretical difference between the 100-400mm and any comparable lens is by far the tiniest - the photographer has a much greater impact.

[baillieswells]

Hi,

I have been using a 30D since March with a kit-zoom, which is crap, therefore, I have been thinking of the 100-400 IS, but think it may not live up to the expectation. Prime lenses are aways sharper than zooms and even though it is an L zoom, I have read many a complaint about its performance beyond 300mm.

For birding, I have returned to wanting the 300mm f/4 and the 1.4x as well as the 2x converters.

Has anyone used the 2x? Other than MF only, and f/8, what problems would I be facing???

BTW, the below link provides access to very useful site for reviews in case you guys haven't yet checked it out.

300mm f/4 review here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm

100-400mm review here:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

Regards
Akos

If you look at these reviews the 300mm f4 comes out with a higher MTF (resolution score) than the 100-400mm set at 300mm, and the 300mm + 1.4 converter (420mm) has a higher score than the 100-400mm at 400mm.
However, if you read the report on the 100-400mm lens the writer ascribes the poor performance of this lens to testing a substandard example.

[citrinella]

Hi,

Has anyone used the 2x? Other than MF only, and f/8, what problems would I be facing???

Akos
Slightly different set up :

I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS (for other purposes). Till I could afford something longer I have been using this with a Canon 2x convertor. Results ? OK. Very pleasing sometimes, even handheld, so the misses are probably operator issues.

Of course, this combination does allow proper AF on 30d.

Saving up for 400 DO f4 IS and 1.4x. Will retain 2x for tripod work, might even stack ...

Mike.

[tjsimonsen]

One of the best bird photographers out there - Romy Ocon (AKA Liquidstone - a 400mm prime fan for a long time) has recently obtained a 100-400mm which - in his own words - is "prime-sharp":


Wise words from Keith.
The question is off course, what do you mainly want to do with your lens? If your main interest is taking pictures of brick walls and posting 100% crops on the web in order to show that you lens is close to being the sharpest piece of glass on the face of the planet, then the 100-400L IS it probably not the right lens for you (nor is the 300/4) B (:
If, however, you are looking for a sharp, versitale all-round wildlife-lens that allows high quality prints in 30*45cm, then it could be.
If you generally shoot @ 400mm and couldn't care less for shots closer than 3.5 meters, but on the other hand often find 400mm to be too short, then I'll recommend the 400/5.6 and a 1.4x TC.

/Thomas

[mr_birdman]

Then you have impossibly high expectations, Akos..!

;)

Frankly, there is a lot of nonsense posted about the 100-400mm: more accurately, there's a lot of out of date nonsense.

It may be that some older 100-400mms were less than brilliant at 400mm, but more recently-built lenses are a diferent beast entirely.

One of the best bird photographers out there - Romy Ocon (AKA Liquidstone - a 400mm prime fan for a long time) has recently obtained a 100-400mm which - in his own words - is "prime-sharp":

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240421

If it's good enough for Romy, it's good enough for us.

More proof of the 100-400mm's capabilities?

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240508
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240152

How sharp do you want?

;)

IanF on this forum has both the 400mm prime and the 100-400mm, and is a fine photographer. He agrees that they're as near as makes no difference, except wide-open.

More reading here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=731849#post731849


Seriously, Akos: of all the factors that might make have an affect on the sharpness of a picture, the relative theoretical difference between the 100-400mm and any comparable lens is by far the tiniest - the photographer has a much greater impact.


Hi Keith,

Thanks. :)

Perhaps my high expectation is based on the expense involved? ;)

Seriously, I did make a little boo-boo with the 100-400 review, as baillieswells so nicely pointed it out about the reviewer having a bad copy.

Nevertheless, I really WANT the lens to perform well even wide open, hence why I am not so sure about the zoom anymore. Unfortunately, I don't know of any shops in Australia, where you can simply try before you buy and it is a fair bit of dough to part with to not end up 100% happy. Trying first would make it so much easier. I know a fellow Hungarian bloke back at home who swears by his 100-400 and Kenko 1.5x and he does take very nice pics.

Best regards
Akos

PS: BTW I know who Romy Ocon is. :)

[Robert Jueneman]

Hi Keith,

I have a 30D and a 350XT with a 100-400, 28-300, a 600mm f/4 non-IS, plus both the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs, and I have used them all on various occasions. I've even used the 100-400 with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC in combination. Decent enough as it goes, if you don't have any other choice.

And BTW, I have tried various combinations of lenses with and without teleconverters, vs. cropping in PhotoShop, and I have yet to come to a definitive conclusion as to which aproach is better.

In summary, I would rate the 100-400 (around $1K US), the 28-300 (around $2K US) and the 600mm (used, at $3K US), in exactly their price order. Yes, Vriginia, when it comes to L glass, you pretty well get what you pay for.

All in all, considering usability, weight, and other factors, probably my favorite is the 28-300, but then again I'm not really into big-time birding. I wouldn't willingly sell any of them.

In terms of overall quality and long reach, my 600mm if/4 is king, but it is a monster, and don't even think about using it without a full-sized Wimberley head and the biggest Gizto 1548 carbon-fiber tripod, used without a center column. Even then, hope the wind doesn't blow too much!

OTOH, the 600mm plus a 2.0 TC plus the 1.4 TC on a Canon 30D with mirror lockup is the equivalent of a 2688mm f/11 telescope, and it more than fills the frame with a full moon. The result has a slight amount of chromatic aberation, but that is easily corrected in PhotoShop.

Hope that helps.

Bob J.

[Robert Tilt]

On the subject of the 100-400L lens:

For what it is worth (as I have mentioned in my thread about Jessops) I have been permitted to buy a 100-400 by `she who must beobeyed`.

From a dandelion flower to a flying cormorant in less than two seconds!

Blimey - and both sharp as well!

A prime lens might be sharper BUT this lens is incredible. If (as is my case) you don`t `only` take birds then it seems perfect. Autofocus is instant and accurate and I even witha TC it is acceptable - NOT what I had expected at all!