• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

what lens - yet again (1 Viewer)

neil brown

Well-known member
so sorry to bring this up yet again and the only reason i do is because it represents a large financial layout for me so i want to be sure i get this right. Am now in a position to buy either the canon 100-400 L zoom, the 400 prime 5.6 L or the 300 L is. I have managed to get to this position without selling my 70-200 f4 L which i originally thought i would have to do. This lens would be strictly for wildlife and mainly birds and i have always been attracted to the IS as i think im a bit shoogly (if you know what i mean) but would the sharpness of the 400 prime make up for that. Please bear with me one last time and advise
many thanks
Neil
 
400 5.6 L, with a good tripod and lightweight gimbal head. Get a monopod if you prefer traveling while shooting. That's what I'd do.
 
As I've said on a few threads before, all three options are very good. All have pros and cons, but there really isn't much in it. Work out which features are most important to you (IS, AF speed, fast aperture, range of focal length) and that should tell you which would suit you best. If possible get to a shop and try them for yourself, you might find that one feels better to use. You don't need to worry about image quality as all three are excellent.
 
you have the 70/200 so with a tc that brings you close ( sort of ) to the 100/400 SO
imo its really between the 400f5.6 or 300 f4IS
both are good the 400 is sharper but needs more care .
the UK light is often bad so the 300 with IS may be the best bet overall IF you get a 1.4 tc .
Rob.
 
The weather we are having at the moment would not suit the prime lens, 400mm f5.6. However when the sun does eventually shine you may not be sorry you bought it.
If you are able to afford it I would still go for the 300mm IS lens. It is a stunning lens and you would do well to look at RoyC`s gallery.
 
Last edited:
you have the 70/200 so with a tc that brings you close ( sort of ) to the 100/400 SO
imo its really between the 400f5.6 or 300 f4IS
both are good the 400 is sharper but needs more care .
the UK light is often bad so the 300 with IS may be the best bet overall IF you get a 1.4 tc

I disagree with much of this... the 70-200 f4 is a superb lens, but with a tc in place it does not compete with the 100-400 (especially on reach). I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400 and although there is a cross over in focal length they work for different uses. The 70-200 is a lovely outdoor portrait/candid lens and the 100-400 is my walkabout wildlife lens (birds, mammals, insects the lot). I'm not saying it's better than the primes, just that it does work well alongside a 70-200.

As for the primes, in my experience there is nothing to choose between them in sharpness and IQ terms. The 400 f5.6 has a slight edge in terms of AF speed and is lighter, but the 300 f4 has IS and a much better close focus (it's a superb butterfly lens). There are advantages to all three options, I'd happily have one of each, but I doubt that any of them would disappoint.
 
The weather we are having at the moment would not suit the prime lens, 400mm f5.6. However when the sun does eventually shine you may not be sorry you bought it.
If you are able to afford it I would still go for the 300mm IS lens. It is stunning lens and you would do well to look at RoyC`s gallery.

I suspect that the OP is looking at the 300 f4, not the 300 f2.8...
 
I disagree with much of this... the 70-200 f4 is a superb lens, but with a tc in place it does not compete with the 100-400 (especially on reach). I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400 and although there is a cross over in focal length they work for different uses. The 70-200 is a lovely outdoor portrait/candid lens and the 100-400 is my walkabout wildlife lens (birds, mammals, insects the lot). I'm not saying it's better than the primes, just that it does work well alongside a 70-200.

As for the primes, in my experience there is nothing to choose between them in sharpness and IQ terms. The 400 f5.6 has a slight edge in terms of AF speed and is lighter, but the 300 f4 has IS and a much better close focus (it's a superb butterfly lens). There are advantages to all three options, I'd happily have one of each, but I doubt that any of them would disappoint.

i think my words Sort OF gave the OP a view of what he could have with the 1.4 tc .
Alone it could not compete with the 100/400 but with the 300 IS plus tc he will covers the long side of the range rather well.
Rob.
 
I've owned and used all of these lenses, and still have two of the four (70-200 f4 and 400 f5.6). I'll offer my experiences.

The 70-200 f4 IS doesn't have the reach for 99.9% of bird photography, IMO. I don't care for its IQ with a 1.4x Canon TC. It is a great lens in its native focal range for lots of other subjects and situations.

The 100-400 is very versatile, but in my experience has the lowest IQ of all the lenses you are considering. You will probably use it at 400mm for 99% of all your birding. I sold mine as it just didn't get used and I prefer primes.

The 300 f4 IS is a very good lens. It is pretty good with the 1.4x TC and you will have a focal length of 420mm at f5.6 IS. I sold mine and many times have been tempted to get another one, but at 300mm, it is still lacks the reach you want for most birding photos unless you use the 1.4x TC.

The 400 f5.6 is a great lightweight lens. I use it for BIF and for still shots. I would never sell my 400 f5.6. It's that good and also somewhat specialized for BIF. With the 1.4x TC, its IQ is very good, but at f8, it will not auto-focus on a crop body camera. Even with taping the pins, the AF hunts and is slow performing. I use manual focus in those few situations when I might use a TC with it.

I finally bit the bullet, and got a 500 f4. Finally, I have the reach I need to fill a frame at 500mm or at 700mm with the 1.4x TC. However, this is a full set-up for best results with Wimberly II head. Its not a "walk-around" lens like the 400 f5.6 or 300 f4.

IMHO, your choice is very much either the 300 f4 IS and a 1.4x TC or a 400 f5.6 as you already have a fine 70-200 f4 which covers 1/2 of the range of the 100-400 for versatility concerns. You will want 400mm or more for birding.

Jay
 
no question the 400 f5.6 prime.

Its as sharp as the 500f4, it focuses faster and costs less than a third of the price of a 500f4.

kev
 
well i will say the 300 f4 coz thats what i use and the 70-200 F4 and find the the different combos all have uses and handle the TC very well maintaining AF and IS for what its worth.
 
If as you say you are a bit 'shoogly' a sharper lens will not make your pictures any better that's for sure. you need IS and/or some kind of support. If your shakiness transposes to your hands then you will need cable release.

Advising on a lens set up is a bit like a doctor treating a patient and the matter of deciding which lens set-up to purchase must be examined holistically. It is simply impossible to say what is best for you without knowing what birds you will photograph, the distance you are from them, their size,the opportunity for you to have support if no tripod available, the light that will be available and the time of day you will be shooting in. You also have to consider your style of picture. Do you want environmental shots or in your face close-ups?

The 500 or 600mm focal length lenses are said to be the best owing to reach but such lengths are not always necessary and can be a positive disadvantage at times. Working from a hide and using set-ups you can easily manage with focal lengths of 400 and less...sometimes much less. When using the 100 -400 I average at about 260-300mm FL and with no hide when I do forest birds or park and water birds.

Where you go can have a significant impact on how approacable birds are. If I were to go in the country to photograph a robin I may not get within 20ft of it so not less than a 500 lens is required but if I go to my local park I can easily take pictures at 100mm or less.

Postcardcv is absolutely correct with his comments above. I have always advised that you must find the lens that fits your needs. Issues of sharpness are secondary and also with respect to other commentators other factors come into play with sharpness and over all picture quality. All lenses suggested are sharp enough.

For the reasons that you have given yourself I would not advise you to purchase a 400mm prime if you are not going to have a tripod or good support and possibly a cable release. You would be wasting your time and your money.

Finally good luck with your choice. Just remember that no lens fits all situations and that can be a frustration....work to the lense's best parameters and hopefully you will end up with quality pictures. Looking over your shoulder at others equipment can turn your heart cold and your soul green with envy.
 
I will have to beg to differ with you Adrian. The 400mm f5.6 is a superb lens but does require a reasonable amount of light. When we eventually get some nice light I suspect the person who originally asked the question will wish he had bought this lens.
 
I will have to beg to differ with you Adrian. The 400mm f5.6 is a superb lens but does require a reasonable amount of light. When we eventually get some nice light I suspect the person who originally asked the question will wish he had bought this lens.

John

I agree that the 400 prime is superb and indeed I advised my best birding pal to get one, and he did. One day I will get one!!! I have used a 400 prime and processed shots from a 400 prime on many occasions and will be doing so on Friday but you have to advise the 'individual' according to their needs: generalised views about a lens are worthless.The lens and the photographer are a team and they both have to pull together to meet the challenge. The OP has pointed something out which everyone has missed and that is why I have chipped in.

If I read your quote correctly you have offered a reason as to why not to get the prime 400mm! I'm sure that was not your intention. The OP has indicated that he may have a problem that will amount to referred camera shake. He will probably need double or tripple the light that you need when hand holding so in effect will only be able to work hand holding in harsh light....what good is that? The best light is soft light and soft does not always give the highest shutter speeds. I did not exclude the OP from getting the 400 prime if he were to use a tripod and/or possibly a cable release. But I'm afraid it does not end there. What's the point in having a lens requiring bright light and forcing up the ISO if like me you do a lot of forest birds or urban birds that are often in shade or low light? I have done a raft of pictures recently with low shutter speeds and they are all sharp except where subject movement comes into play. I would not have been able to get a fraction of the shots with the prime (you might but I wouldn't). Upshot being I have obtained a lot of quality shots which would not have been possible if I had not been using an IS lens or one where I could use zoom, not to mention that I was able to get frame fillers of small birds because I was able to maximise the benefit of being able to focus at only 1.8M.

On a general point. It is a testament to the 400 prime lens that so many defend what they use with almost football supporter enthusiasm and the 400 prime is indeed worthy of high praise but to assume that other lenses won't do the job in good light is a bit off the mark, others are equally enthusiastic about their lenses and with justification. All lenses perform better in good light...I want one that performs in poor light. I use a range of lenses and have used 'bad' lenses but have still managed to get shots with bad lenses that can be put up on a wall and or get published. I'm afraid the biggest influence on a good photograph is the photographer and his or her technique. I do not consider myself special by any means but I have obtained good results with all types of lenses and feel that I am qualified to advise objectively. You will find award winning shots with all the above lenses and some with lower grade lenses :eek!:. For that reason one should pick a lens appropriate to ones needs not because of the minute differences in sharpness or focus abilities which may exist.

Cheers

Adrian.
 
Thank you everyone and in particular Adrian for your helpful comments. I thank it has helped me eliminate the 400 prime and left me with a choice of 2. The shoogly element of my photography became obvious with my 70-200 f4 when noticing the big difference in sharpness when using a tripod (i do have a very good tripod and monopod) however the majority of my photography is done on foot usuallly over good distances and in rough and boggy ground, i also carry a good deal of other birding and ringing equipment so do not tend to have the tripod etc with me. When i purchase either of the two lenses it was my intention to also get a 1.4 converter so it seem now i am left with a reach question the 420 of the 300 + 1.4 or the 560 of the zoom, i also do a lot of butterfly and dragonfly work so the close focus of the 300 is also attractive. at the risk of stretching your patience any further comments would be welcome

thanks

Neil
 
Neil,

Its worth remembering that the 300mm f4 will work very well with a tc but the 100-400 will need pins taping to get it to work with a tc (unless you have a 1 series body) and the results may be a bit hit and miss. Some people got great results, Keith Reeder springs to mind, but others seemed to fare less well, quite possibly due to technique or the camera bodies willingness to af. Its certainly worth remembering that IS isn't a guarantee of sharp images if you're handholding a 560mm lens in a gale with a shutter speed of 1/250 ;)

I'm not by any means trying to talk you out of the zoom, I've just sold a 300mm f4 and gone back to a 100-400, but don't expect miracles from the zoom with a tc.
 
Its worth remembering that the 300mm f4 will work very well with a tc but the 100-400 will need pins taping to get it to work with a tc (unless you have a 1 series body) and the results may be a bit hit and miss.

But the 100-400 doesn't need a TC to (nearly) match the 300 + TC in focal length. So it's a bit of a moot point.

Although that does bring up another point that I don't think has yet been mentioned. We all know that the listed FLs of most lenses aren't totally accurate. I've read (can't find it now) that the 100-400 is more like 380mm at the long end. If that's so, and the 300 is actually 300mm, then the shorter prime + TC may be 10% longer than the zoom.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top