Nobody mentions Canon 100-400 IS? Neil, Is the 400/5.6 that much better for BIF? I'm thinking of gulls, herons & vultures within 100 metres ,,,
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
300f2.8 / 500F4 Dilemma (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Martin Standley
- Start date
Nobody mentions Canon 100-400 IS? Neil, Is the 400/5.6 that much better for BIF? I'm thinking of gulls, herons & vultures within 100 metres ,,,
Dave Williams
Well-known member
The Canon 100-400 IS might well have got mentioned had this been a Canon thread ! Neil added the Canon 400f5.6 but that assumes Martin hasn't got any Nikon gear at all ( which may well be the case).
I haven't any experience of the Canon 100-400 but I would have thought it's a more flexible lens than the Canon 400mmf5.6. Neither are well suited to a TC really. The Nikon 80-400mm can produce very sharp pictures but the AF is slow and noisy and it won't take a Nikon TC.
To be honest, even with a 600mm f4 plus TC you still need to be within 25 metres to get a decent picture IMO .
Martin,
Have a look at this demonstation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_euUMN-V1s of big Nikon lenses. It will give you a good thought on how large these lenses really are.
I use the Nikon 400mm 2.8 VR when using hides. Sometimes I take it on a walk - I use a lowepro lenstrekker to safely transport it - but it rather heavy when you live in a mountain area and need to go up and downhill.
Cheers Machiel
Have a look at this demonstation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_euUMN-V1s of big Nikon lenses. It will give you a good thought on how large these lenses really are.
I use the Nikon 400mm 2.8 VR when using hides. Sometimes I take it on a walk - I use a lowepro lenstrekker to safely transport it - but it rather heavy when you live in a mountain area and need to go up and downhill.
Cheers Machiel
For the fastest solution for flight shots a zoom just won't cut it as AF is too slow. For ground shots the zoom can produce excellent results though.
Neil.
Bob Thompson
Well-known member
Brendan,
The straight 400mm f5.6 is faster than the 100-400mm zoom in my opinion. The focussing is slow with a TC1.4x but using the lens on a crop camera (Canon 7D) you gain a 1.6x so no need for the teleconvertor
Bob
The straight 400mm f5.6 is faster than the 100-400mm zoom in my opinion. The focussing is slow with a TC1.4x but using the lens on a crop camera (Canon 7D) you gain a 1.6x so no need for the teleconvertor
Bob
Last edited:
Very useful information to me Bob, that combination of camera & lens for BIF. Thank you for thinking about my question.
I knew a little about crop circles but nothing about crop factor during actual shooting ... and just as I was deciding whether or not to opt for Canon 7D! Is cropping on the 7D the equivalent of extra zoom? I use the 40D which has no cropping or zooming until review stage.
666taz
Phill Wain
Niel you say the100-400mm carnt cut it taking bifs i use mine for those and dragoflys in flight as well it locks on and keeps locked no probs it may focus slightly slower than the 400 prime but not enough to dissmiss it ,also the big advantage of the zoom is it will close focus down to about 1.8m where the prime it 3m so you can get a frame full of insects cheers Phill.
gandytron
Well-known member
Martin,
Do you already have a dslr body?
To be honest, if I was in the market for a serous prime lens and was starting with a clean sheet I would probably get a Canon body and the 400mm f4 DO. A mate of mine has one that I played with a few months back - it is amazingly light weight and compact. Early copies had poor contrast and got slammed by reviewers, giving the lens a bad reputation, but my understanding is that now it is a great lens.
If you go with Nikon, I can assure you that the 300mm f4 af-s (whih I use) is a great lens, and still super-sharp with 1.4 tc...but I'm still desperate for the day when Nikon release a 400mm f5.6 VR lens, or an equivalent to Canon's 400mm f4 DO.
Best wishes
Dave
Do you already have a dslr body?
To be honest, if I was in the market for a serous prime lens and was starting with a clean sheet I would probably get a Canon body and the 400mm f4 DO. A mate of mine has one that I played with a few months back - it is amazingly light weight and compact. Early copies had poor contrast and got slammed by reviewers, giving the lens a bad reputation, but my understanding is that now it is a great lens.
If you go with Nikon, I can assure you that the 300mm f4 af-s (whih I use) is a great lens, and still super-sharp with 1.4 tc...but I'm still desperate for the day when Nikon release a 400mm f5.6 VR lens, or an equivalent to Canon's 400mm f4 DO.
Best wishes
Dave
Last edited:
Dave Williams
Well-known member
The 400 f4 should be a great lens...have you checked the price ?! I'm not sure who buys it as for £100 more you get the 500mmf4.
Stick a 1.4TC on a 300mm f2.8 and you have a 400mm f4 for an awful lot less.
Still expensive though !
Martin Standley
Well-known member
Dave
I don't have a DSLR body at the moment although all my digiscoped shots are with Nikons.
I do like the way nikons are set out and a semi-professional photographer (non birder)who I know also swears by nikon.
Bye the way I still haven't taken the plunge yet.
Al the best Martin
gandytron
Well-known member
The person that buys the 400mm f4 DO is the one who wants to take their lens everywhere - I was astonished that this thing really is a "walk about" lens. Another friend of mine has the Canon 500mm f4 and it's a complete b*gger - I would never contemplate buying that kind of lens unless I was a fully dedicated bird photographer who was looking at spending most of my time stationary, (rather than a birder who wants to be more mobile). My mate with the 500mm came to Cambodia with me - he spent half his time swearing under his breath about the weight of his lens, and missed getting pix of Bengal Florican because he couldn't be bothered to get the big boy out of his back pack!).
Another advantage that Canon has over Nikon (as I understand it) is that Canon's 2x TC is pretty sharp, whereas the Nikon 2x TC is regularly slated for giving poor results (I've not used it myself).
Best wishes
EDIT: Just checked the weight of Canon 300 f 2.8 v the Canon 400mm f4 DO....the 400mm is A LOT lighter (4.3 lbs v 6lbs), the 500mm f4 meanwhile is 8.53 lbs!!!!! The respective Nikons are a little heavier than the Canons.
Last edited:
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Very interesting information re the 400 f4. It never occurred to me it would be so light, but there again, as a Nikon user I never looked !
I think you are right about the 2.0x TC too, I have seen some superb Canon results but you rarely hear the Nikon version mentioned .I have certainly been put off buying one.
I think you are right about the 2.0x TC too, I have seen some superb Canon results but you rarely hear the Nikon version mentioned .I have certainly been put off buying one.
gandytron
Well-known member
These lenses that cost thousands of dollars are out of my league really; my loyalty will go to whoever (Canon or Nikon) first produces a 400mm f 5.6 with image stabilizer. If Canon do it I'll sell my Nikon D90, 300mm f4 & 1.4 TC without much hesitation - it's a nice set up but the AF is slowed by using a TC (as I was reminded today when trying to photograph hyperactive Arctic Warblers).
Another advantage of Canon, I think (?) the crop factor of their DX sensor is 1.6x as opposed to Nikon's 1.5x.... jeeeeez, why am I shooting Nikon?!!
Another advantage of Canon, I think (?) the crop factor of their DX sensor is 1.6x as opposed to Nikon's 1.5x.... jeeeeez, why am I shooting Nikon?!!
I think there is a Canon 400/5.6 for sale here. Would be a good choice as you don't need Image Stabilising with modern cameras. Neil.
gandytron
Well-known member
Thanks Neil,
You're saying that we don't need IS because...? The quality of top end DSLR bodies at high ISOs is so good now that you can shoot in poor light and high ISO speeds without a problem?
Does this mean that the age of IS/VR will soon be over? And that Nikon will never bother producing a 400mm f5.6 vr because the VR will be redundant??
Thanks
Dave
PS I'm hugely impressed by your digiscoping work elsewhere on the forum
Dave,
Basically , yes to the first part and don't hold your breath on Nikon coming out with any tele 5.6 lenses with VR.
The old iso 100 is now the new iso 800 ( up until recently it was 400 ) and with the D3 it's been 1600. With the D3s apparently it's iso 3200 ( low to no noise ). I have VR on the 500/4 and 300/2.8 and usually have it switched off as it slows the AF down a tad and is a bit noisy. I don't have it on the 300/4 with 1.4x and I find I don't miss it very often and when I need more speed in low light situations I'm happy to see a little more noise to keep the shutter speeds at 1/800th second plus. (90% of my flight photos in the Gallery are taken with the VR off).
Neil.
Similar threads
