• 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.

Travel bird lens (1 Viewer)

C

citrinella

Well-known member
A few years back I got a 70-200 2.8 IS for candids. With a 2x TC this has become my travel birding set up. Now I have bought a 500 F4 for use at home this combo seems less satisfactory. Can't think why, but the 500 f4 works best for me mounted in the back of my tractor, which is a bit heavy for hand luggage.

I have 1.4TC (I haven't actually welded it to the 500) as well as 2x. Any suggestions as to what I might carry instead of the 70-200 ? I want at least some of the following advantages : longer focal length; better IQ; lighter (well I would sacrifice a little here for the right advantages in the other areas). I want to retain AF without tape and IS.

400 f4 is a possibility. I have already been put off that by the iffy reports on image punch but ... and it isn't cheap ... or light.

400 f5.6 is great on weight, but loses too much in other areas.

300 f2.8 is so heavy ... especially on the wallet. Otherwise it would be easy.

300 f4 ?

Had been considering a S/H 200 prime 2.8 or better, better IQ, possibly lighter, but no IS. This new prototype has my attention but would need to stack TCs and I suspect the weight will be grim.

Thoughts please, preferably based on actual experience of normal people (not Charles Atlas) who have carried their kit all day, and done it again next day.

Given that the 500 burnt the budget it will be a while before I do anything except dream ...

Mike.
 
AF without taping - what body are you strapping the lens to?

Also, I am not sure you are going to see huge improvements in IQ from your current 70-200 with or without convertors...

PS. You haven't included the 100-400 in the options...(wow! I beat Keith to saying that ;) ).
 
The 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 are both very good lenses that are not to heavy on the wallet or the back. However the 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 are a real step up, if your budget allows and you don't mind the weight I'd narrow it down to these two. The 400 f4 DO did get some dodgy reviews in the early days, but current copies seem to be as problem free as the other primes. I guess given the choice I'd go for the 300 f2.8, it's amazingly sharp wide open and works well with both 1.4x and 2x tc - a 600mm f5.6 IS as a travel option sounds very tempting. However if you're using a 1D series body you could get the 400 DO and get upto 800mm AF with it.
 
mw_aurora said:
AF without taping - what body are you strapping the lens to?

Also, I am not sure you are going to see huge improvements in IQ from your current 70-200 with or without convertors...

PS. You haven't included the 100-400 in the options...(wow! I beat Keith to saying that ;) ).
Click to expand...

30d body so AF as long as max aperture f5.6 or better. People report mixed results on this. I find my combo OK. Yes, there are problems shooting amongst shrubbery in low light. That is the stupid photographers fault for stretching the gear to its limits, just a reminder that the shot is bound to be crap anyway.

I don't expect to see huge improvements in IQ. I find the 2x not too bad on this lens, either I'm tolerant or I'm lucky as some folk reckon it is quite detrimental. So, I would like to achieve no loss or a slight increase in IQ and a slight increase in focal length without too much weight.

I forgot to put the 100-400 in the list but it really doesn't meet the spec. Wee increase in IQ, slight drop in weight (IIRC), but no AF with untaped TC.

Much as the 300 f2.8 is the bees knees, it really is too heavy which is why I put in a 300 f4.

1.6 kg for 70-200 2.8 IS
1.2kg for 300 4 IS
2.0 kg for 400 DO
2.6 for 300 2.8 IS

Both the middle 2 have been criticized in reviews for lacking punch. Maybe for this task that criticism would be nit-picking. If I had a Sherpa I would want the 300 (when I have saved up). I really think it is too heavy. Maybe I should wander round with an extra 1kg tied onto my lens and see !

I should really narrow it down to between the 3 & 4 f4s. There is a huge difference in weight and price. Can anybody comment on either of these ?

Mike.

P.S. new girl-friend is good and birdy, otherwise I'd probably have to abandon the idea.
 
graham catley said:
P.S. new girl-friend is good and birdy, otherwise I'd probably have to abandon the idea


then you have a Sherpa!
Click to expand...

I wondered who would be first to say that. Now I know you are a lazy b.... ;-)

Yes Keith, the 400 5.6 is a very attractive lens, 1.25 kg, relatively unexpensive, universally acclaimed. Somehow it doesn't offer enough extra optically to overcome my main exclusion criteria : lack of IS. My excuse is I'm getting older ! I'm _not_ going to carry a tripod.

Mike.
 
citrinella said:
Yes Keith, the 400 5.6 is a very attractive lens, 1.25 kg, relatively unexpensive, universally acclaimed. Somehow it doesn't offer enough extra optically to overcome my main exclusion criteria : lack of IS. My excuse is I'm getting older ! I'm _not_ going to carry a tripod.
Click to expand...

If you want IS without the weight of a big prime then it really is a choice between the 300 f4 (though you'll probably want a 1.4x tc on it much of the time) or the 100-400. Both good lenses (as is the 400 f5.6) it probably a matter of trying them and seeing which suits you.
 
"Ruling out competitors"?

No, I'm simply trying to help Mike by pointing out that if he wants a 400mm lens that will AF with an un-taped 1.4X TC, neither the 100-400mm nor the f/5.6 prime is in the frame.
 
Last edited:
P.S. Actually my girl-friend has a dinky wee OM10 and her "telephoto" is a slow 200mm which weighs in about the same as a matchbox. She doesn't think much of DSLR bodies even without a lens.

Mind you, nor do I. Sure they could do better.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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.

Similar threads

B
Budget dictates either a 600mm f/4 prime without IS or a 500mm f/4 with IS?
Replies
4
Views
842
Bird Companion
B
C
emergency birds in flight setup
Replies
1
Views
1K
kimmik
kimmik
K
R7 ideas for birds in flight and in low light situations
Replies
3
Views
3K
timmyjones
timmyjones
mayoayo
Benro Travel Angel C0690TB00
Replies
0
Views
534
mayoayo
mayoayo
C
Looking for a nice travel scope
Replies
7
Views
2K
Bill Atwood
Bill Atwood

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top