Canon camera and lens (1 Viewer)

S Crisp · Dec 11, 2009

I have been digiscoping for two years and I am now thinking about complementing this with a DSLR camera and telephoto lens. I have followed all the recent, different threads but find it very difficult to actually use this information to make a decision!!

I cannot afford to move into the ‘big league’ but I would be prepared to spend about £2000 on a camera body and lens. I am thinking of a Canon 7D or 40D and a Canon 100-400 f4.5 / 5.6 or a Sigma 150 – 500 f4.5 /5.6. I would welcome any comments or suggestions.

Marcus Conway - ebirder · Dec 11, 2009

With your budget I would be looking at the 7D plus the 100-400 or the 400 f5.6. Some say that is a touch shaper. However most beginners I meet like the versatility of the 100-400. Especially at some of the main sites like Bempton, The Farnes and Donna Nook.

Adam W · Dec 11, 2009

I am a relative new starter myself and have the 100-400mm lens and find it very good i think as Marcus said the 400mm 5.6 is probably a bit sharper but the zoom gives more versatility i do often use it at lower zoom for flocks of birds etc.

I have a 50D camera which may take you a bit out of budget but i'm sure the 40D or 7D are both very good and you wouldnt be dissapointed.

postcardcv · Dec 11, 2009

I reckon that the 100-400 is one of (if not) the best walkabout lenses available, I had one, then changed it for the 400 f5.6 and then the 300 f4 but have now gone back to the the zoom. The range is very useful and the image quality is excellent. As for cameras I'd be inclined to start with either the 40D or 50D rather than the 7D (though I've not used one yet). That way you'd still have some of your budget left for other bits like memory cards, spare batteries and a bag. You may well find that you also want a shorter lens for other photography or perhaps a macro... either way a £2k budget should be plenty top get a very nice set up.

JohnZ · Dec 11, 2009

As usual, I beg to differ with both Marcus and Peter, postcardcv. I went to Bempton last year and found that I had to use my 1.5x TC to get any half decent pics. To be honest I did go at the wrong time. However I still had to use my TC. Oh and the weather was abysmal.
I use the Canon 400mm f5.6 and I cannot remember how many times it has saved me ! But I will agree with Peter that it would be, probably, best that you get a 40D or 50D before going on to the 7D ?
I should add that I haven`t used a 7D yet either. I am sorely tempted though.

redeyedvideo · Dec 11, 2009

I went for the 100-400 as the minimum focussing distance is 1.5 metres as opposed to 3.5m for the 400mm. The zoom is also very useful for finding birds in flight which is my main passion.

I've used two 100-400's and one was significantly sharper and more responsive than the other on my 40D. A 300mm F4 & 1.4x converter would be another option.

From what I can gather, you won't get the quickest auto-focus with the Sigma lens.

Roy C · Dec 11, 2009

I started with the 400/5.6 and have never regretted it.
Whenever people report a soft copy of the 100-400 the 'experts' all say there is a steep learning curve with the lens and it must be user error. I can assure you that the 400/5.6 is an absolute breeze. Dead easy to use, just open it right up to f5.6, point and shoot. The AF is mega quick and as long as you keep the shutter speed up then sharp shots are guaranteed.
If you are at all interested in birds in flight then the 400/5.6 is a no brainer. There are many top birders who shoot with one of the super primes but still use the 400/5.6 for flyers due to the light weight, balance and super quick AF.
On the other hand if you think you will be using a lens at 100-399 then the zoom is the one to go with. To be fair I only used a friends 100-400 a couple of times but the AF seemed so much slower to me and I do not think I could ever get used to the push-pull zoom, although if I had one it would be locked at the long end that's for sure (I have not got any 'tame' birds to shoot from hides and the like and getting near enough is the number one problem for me).
In all the years I shot with a 400/5.6 i reckon I probably missed a half a dozen shots because I could not go below 400mm ( probably missed countless thousands because 400mm was not long enough).

It always amuses me the number of people who swear by the versatility of the zoom and yet dream of upgrading to one of the big primes

Just my 2p's worth :t:

Roy C · Dec 11, 2009

Adam W said:
I have a 50D camera which may take you a bit out of budget but i'm sure the 40D or 7D are both very good and you wouldnt be dissapointed.

Not sure I understand this - If the 50D takes the OP out of budget then surely the 7D will decimate it !!!.

postcardcv · Dec 11, 2009

JohnZ said:
As usual, I beg to differ with both Marcus and Peter, postcardcv. I went to Bempton last year and found that I had to use my 1.5x TC to get any half decent pics. To be honest I did go at the wrong time. However I still had to use my TC.

The downside of going for the longer option of the Sigma 150-500 OS is the slower AF and inferior image quality. I know three people who bought the 150-500 thinking it would be the ideal birding lens, one has upgraded to a 500 f4 and two have swaped to the 100-400. They felt (as I do) that it is worth sacraficing a bit fo reach for IQ.

Roy C said:
I started with the 400/5.6 and have never regretted it.
Whenever people report a soft copy of the 100-400 the 'experts' all say there is a steep learning curve with the lens and it must be user error. I can assure you that the 400/5.6 is an absolute breeze. Dead easy to use, just open it right up to f5.6, point and shoot. The AF is mega quick and as long as you keep the shutter speed up then sharp shots are guaranteed.

It always amuses me the number of people who swear by the versatility of the zoom and yet dream of upgrading to one of the big primes

I agree that the 400 f5.6 is an outstandingly good lens (I'd happily own another one) and that the AF is very fast, if I didn't have a big prime I wouldn't have sold mine. But I do love the 100-400 zoom... it's a good walkabout birding lens and is also great for loads of other stuff. I use mine for loads of stuff, it is the best lens to have for a family day out as I can grab bird shots and get snaps of the kids. It is a really versatile lens and the IS can come in handy, the push-pull is surprisingly easy to get used to.

As for the soft copy issue, I guess it does exist but both the copies I have owned and the three other copies I have used in the field have all be very sharp... perhaps there are less soft copies out there than some may fear (or perhaps my standards are just too low to notice them

).

mike nesbitt · Dec 11, 2009

Hi.
If it were me, I would go for the 40D and either the 400 prime/zoom lens. this would leave you with a few hundred quid for other essentials like bag, tripod, remote, spare battery etc.
Best regards, Mike.

Adam W · Dec 11, 2009

Roy C said:
I started with the 400/5.6 and have never regretted it.
Whenever people report a soft copy of the 100-400 the 'experts' all say there is a steep learning curve with the lens and it must be user error. I can assure you that the 400/5.6 is an absolute breeze. Dead easy to use, just open it right up to f5.6, point and shoot. The AF is mega quick and as long as you keep the shutter speed up then sharp shots are guaranteed.
If you are at all interested in birds in flight then the 400/5.6 is a no brainer. There are many top birders who shoot with one of the super primes but still use the 400/5.6 for flyers due to the light weight, balance and super quick AF.
On the other hand if you think you will be using a lens at 100-399 then the zoom is the one to go with. To be fair I only used a friends 100-400 a couple of times but the AF seemed so much slower to me and I do not think I could ever get used to the push-pull zoom, although if I had one it would be locked at the long end that's for sure (I have not got any 'tame' birds to shoot from hides and the like and getting near enough is the number one problem for me).
In all the years I shot with a 400/5.6 i reckon I probably missed a half a dozen shots because I could not go below 400mm ( probably missed countless thousands because 400mm was not long enough).

It always amuses me the number of people who swear by the versatility of the zoom and yet dream of upgrading to one of the big primes

Just my 2p's worth :t:

While i dont doubt that the 400 5.6 gives a sharper image and may well be a better lens the 100-400mm is more versatile one of those half dozen shots youve missed might be the shot of a life time and i personally like the push pull zoom,youre hand is always in the right place to balance the lens.

I of course dream of a big prime like most but i think we dream of the 500mm f4 and until then i think the zoom is certainly to be considered as much as the 400mm 5.6. If i was to use the 400mm 5.6 i might realise it is a better lens but from my experience of the zoom it would certainly make a good lens in the circumstances the OP is in.

Roy C · Dec 12, 2009

At least my post has given the OP something to think about - there are other birding lenses apart from the 100-400. I know I would never convince anyone who already has the zoom, that's natural. Having laid out so much dosh everyone is convinced their lens is best. I have found in the past that 100-400 users are a highly protective breed who do not take kindly to others suggesting the 400/5.6 might be better for birding.

Like I said in my earlier post "if you think you will be using a lens at 100-399 then the zoom is the one to go with" although I suspect that most birders use the zoom at the long end (about 380mm from what I read) the vast majority of the time.

I know for sure that if I had the carrying power and cash I would go for the 800/5.6 without a moments hesitation - sod the 100-799 range :-O

BTW for what it is worth I do not own either of the two lenses :C

p.s. the OP is coming from digiscoping so I suspect he is not in to shooting birds from 6 feet away

S Crisp · Dec 12, 2009

Many thanks for all comments and suggestions. Is the 7D a more complicated camera than the 40D / 50D as the suggestions seem to indicate I’d be better off with the 40D / 50D? Why is this?

hollis_f · Dec 12, 2009

mike nesbitt said:
Hi.
If it were me, I would go for the 40D and either the 400 prime/zoom lens. this would leave you with a few hundred quid for other essentials like bag, tripod, remote, spare battery etc.
Best regards, Mike.

Well, the only really expensive item there is the tripod. And, as the OP has been digiscoping for a couple of years, I would imagine they've already got a decent one.

Roy C · Dec 12, 2009

S Crisp said:
Many thanks for all comments and suggestions. Is the 7D a more complicated camera than the 40D / 50D as the suggestions seem to indicate I’d be better off with the 40D / 50D? Why is this?

I have both the 40D and 7D at the moment. The main difference between the two is the AF system on the 7D, which is better when tracking flyers in AI servo mode. With the 40D, as long as you keep the AF point over the bird then the it will be fine, trouble is the moment you lose the bird it will latch on to something else in the background. It then takes a while to get the bird locked on again, by which time the bird is probably a goner. With the 7D you have a Servo tracking option which can be set to slow, this means that if you do lose the lock on the bird then the camera will take a lot longer to pick up the background, this delay gives you enough time to get back on the bird with losing focus. Another useful aid is AF point expansion which gives you, in effect a larger point of focus for flyers.

There are a lot more customisable options with the 7D but at the end of the day it is just another Camera. It has taken me about two weeks to sort out the different AF options on the 7D. Image quality wise there is not a lot to choose between the 40D and the 7D IMO.
The extra MP's on the 7D is both a plus and minus as far as I can see. On the plus side, when you crop an image you obviously end up with more pixels over the bird than if you had cropped to the same size with the 40D. On the minus side, the 7D is less forgiving when it comes to getting all the shooting parameters right. If you underexpose and then push the exposure in processing, then noise could become a problem (this is the same for the 40D but it is not so noticeable probably due to the larger size of the individual pixels).

I cannot comment on the 50D but I would have thought that any of the three is capable of superb bird images. There is no doubt in my mind that the 7D is the best 'non one series' birding camera from Canon. Whether it is worth three times more than a used 40D only you can decide. If I were on a tight budget then I would go for the 40D.

a.dancy · Dec 12, 2009

Image below taken at 135mm

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/282188/ppuser/25708

Roy I am a big fan of the 100-400 however I am not locked into thinking that it is the only lens to recommend. I have advised others including my best birding pal to get the prime. I have also advised others to get the 100-400. You should get the lens that you need for the habitat and the conditions and light you are going to shoot in. In my view matters of sharpness and speed of focus etc should not be an issue when deciding between the two lenses. For me I love to shoot at less than 400 mm and the range gives you perspectives that you don't get by the prime, as in see image above.

I bet Nigel Blake was glad he had the 100-400 when he took this

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=104428

As for birds in flight the 100-400 is no slouch, after all I have done peregrines with the lens for the last 5 years and managed to lock on black redstarts too and every year goldeneye that are like speeding bullets. The 400 v 100-400 ? is a bogus question, each lens offers different opportunities. When you compare these lens you are making an irrational judgement based purely on limited technicals and not photographic requirements and opportunities. The mallard was shot at the 400 (soft end

)

HokkaidoStu · Dec 12, 2009

Roy C said:
. Having laid out so much dosh everyone is convinced their lens is best. I have found in the past that 100-400 users are a highly protective breed who do not take kindly to others suggesting the 400/5.6 might be better for birding.

You could say it the other way round too Roy!

I have the 100-400L and am actually toying with the idea of getting a 400/5.6 in addition. The big primes are out of my price range alas. I don't think you can beat the zoom as a walkaround lens( I do zoom in and out, the minimum focus distance is closer plus the IS helps a lot when the light is poor) but for flight shots, tripod stuff and on brighter sunny days when shutter speed is not a problem the 400 would I feel be better.

I feel both lenses can get shots the other can't.

paul goode · Dec 12, 2009

That Mallards a lovely shot Adrian :t:

for what its worth I'm a previous 100-400 owner, currently using a 300mm f4, with a 500f4 in between

and am soon putting the 300mm up for sale to go back to a 100-400.
Quite simply I miss the flexibility the zoom offered and based on my first copy I'm quite happy that the lens will be sharp enough for my requirements.
Saying that I do far more diverse photography than birds and wildlife and thats why I want the zoom, it'll do sports, aviation,motor racing, trips to the zoo, portraiture and whatever else I chuck at it along with birding. If I was totally focussed on birding, and relied on having to always be at 400mm, and had no other interests apart from maybe motor racing then I probably would go for the prime simply because its lighter to carry around and probably is better for flight shots.

And as Bempton has been mentioned

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=88797

Robert L Jarvis · Dec 12, 2009

As for camera lens whether it is the 400 prime or 100-400 zoom what no one has pointed out that if you use a teleconverter to get more reach you will need to tape the pins unless you are shooting in very brighht conditions.
The reason for this is the F value of each lens which is 5.6. Either lens is a great buy just bear in mind if you shooting big birds close then a zoom is handier than the 400 prime because you can zoom back. I use a 100-400 personally, the reason is practicality as I only want one lens. Having a 400 prime may be, I repeat may be a bit restricting in certain situations.

Having purchased your lens, see how much money is left, you may not be able to buy a 7D as well as any of the above lens unless you go s/h. Although no video I think you will find a 50D is more than adequate and affordable. Leave some money over for getting a spare battery and a couple of big memeory cards. A spare battery for a 7D is some £70 I believe a heck of a lot more than for a 50D.

Good luck.

Robert

Roy C · Dec 12, 2009

Just one person in this thread has suggested that there just maybe something other than the 100-400 to considered and all the fanboys are up in arms -Wow betide anyone who would even suggest that there maybe be alternatives to the perfect 100-400

. I just cannot work out why a lot of 100-400 users seems to have an inferiority complex about their lens - after all it is very capable of producing nice images.

As for posting a few images to prove how good a lens is, that does not really wash with me I am afraid. I could post some shots taken with the 400/5.6 + stacked 1.4 and 2x tc's (1120mm) that are quite tidy but I would not like to give the impression that it is a usable everyday combination when it clearly is not.

Just one final though from me - if I had £1 for every post I have seen on the web where a 100-400 user claims that his copy is soft at the long end, then I would be well on the way to getting my 800/5.6 LOL. To be fair if I had a pound for all those that claim the 400/5.6 is soft I would probably be able to get a 2 GB memory card :-O

Canon camera and lens (1 Viewer)

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

It's like water off a duck's back!

Occasional bird snapper

Occasional bird snapper

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Active member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Registered User

Attachments

occasional moderator

Well-known member

Robert L Jarvis

Occasional bird snapper

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread