Any professionals use just the medium format lenses I.E. 1-4 zoom, 400 f5.6, etc (1 Viewer)

Just wondering if there are any professionals that use any of these lenses exclusively? It seems that for most situations handholding a lens is ideal. Of course I have limited experience but I "Love" the 1-4 zoom. When I purchased this lens, I had the idea that it would be a great lens to learn on at a semi-professional level. It has really exceeded my expectations. I of course like every bird photographer am thinking about upgrading. However it seems the options are not much better then what I already have for reach. I noticed that the 500 f/4 gets a lot of rave reviews. However 500 is not enough reach to justify having to use a very cumbersome tripod that would probably limit my getting close to birds and I would then have to rely on blinds. I know you could get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and increase the focal length quite a bit but from what I have heard this reduces the image quality, AF speed significantly. Also the F stop would go up to 5.6-8 which would suck for me cuz I live in gloomy michigan.

I am wondering if when the tele is added can the 500mm beat the IQ of the 1-4zoom at 400mm? I mean 640mm to 1000mm would be great but at what cost? Obviously a tripod would not be a big deal if I was getting double or near double the reach of my current lens.

I find myself shooting mostly passerines mostly.

Thanks!

I doubt that any full time pro bird photographer would be relying on with of these lenses all the time, though most will probably have one or both in their lens collection. I've owned both the 100-400 IS and the 400 f5.6 and agree that they are both excellent lenses, and are very capable of producing amazing results. However when you compare them to one of the big primes (I went for the 500 f4) you will see the difference. The extra reach of a 500mm over a 400mm is quite noticeable, then add a 1.4x tc and you've got a 700mm f5.6 IS lens that will AF a good deal faster than the 100-400. I regularly use a 1.4x tc with mine and am more than happy with the results, the IQ is better than my 100-400 could ever deliver.

On the focal length difference - you may be surprised how much difference it makes. Italian nature photographer Juza has some good comparisons on his forums on this thread.

Scroll down and you will see the comparison of the super telephoto focal lengths (400+).

I wouldn't dream of using a 100-400 zoom or any zoom as my main bird lens. A good prime lens with reach, 500 or 600mm, is the order of the day. Yes they are big and heavy and expensive and need a tripod and muscles but what a difference they make to getting a stunning shot. They are crisp to the point of being razor sharp, produce a wonderful bokeh(out of focus background), are lightning fast with the autofocus and need a chunky tripod but I would not trade my 600 F4 in for anything.

I have the 400mm f5.6 and like it very much but I would only consider this and the 100-400 as entry level birding lenses (although weight and/or cost sometimes means this is the only option).
One thing I like doing from pics in the gallery is to try and guess the lens before looking at the data - when I see a truly stunning shot (to my eyes anyway) it has very often been taken with the 500/600 f4. I know that there are other very good lenses out there but to my mind these two stand out for bird photography.
If I were to upgrade (and do a body building coarse ) I would go for the 500 f4

I kinda agree with Peter and Roy, but I'd say that it's reach and speed as much as (or maybe even more than) IQ that has the professionals using the 500mm and 600mm lenses.

If our baby lenses weren't capable of producing "professional" images, Art Morris, Nigel Blake, Michael Furtman and many more, wouldn't use 'em at all - and they surely do.

In fact - to answer CCRII's primary question - Michael Furtman does indeed use the 100-400mm as his - ahem! - prime lens:

A visitor to my website wrote to ask why I didn't have some information on what glass (lenses) I used and liked. I told him that I didn't have much to say because virtually all of my wildlife images were taken with a single lens -- the Canon 100-400 L series zoom.

Click to expand...

Keith Reeder said:

I kinda agree with Peter and Roy, but I'd say that it's reach and speed as much as (or maybe even more than) IQ that has the professionals using the 500mm and 600mm lenses.

Click to expand...

I guess you are probable right Keith, If reach was not an issue we would not be looking to upgrade (although i would not say no to the 300mm f2.8 8-P )

I tend to use a wide number of lenses with none being the 'main' lens, I use the 600mm when shooting waders, rarities etc, sometimes but infrequently with a 1.4X more often with extension tubes,
But much of my work is shot on 300mm or shorter, more recently I use between 20mm and 80mm a great deal of the time, bear in mind also that I shoot on a full frame sensor almost exclusively,
The reason for using fast lenses such as the 600mm f4 and 300mm f2.8 is much more to do with utilising the wide aperture for manual focusing, the shallow DOF wide open means that you can really see it crack in and out of focus. It is rare indeed that I ever shoot with any lens wide open, generally I work in the f11-f16 area because thats where the sharpness is optimal, however this depends on the type of image I want and how I manage depth of field to suit the subjects isolation from (or interaction with) the background
Many people seem to be hung-up on reach being the most important issue, but for optimum image quality working with the shortest amount of space between you and the subject cuts down the amount of IQ lost to atmospheric effects like dust and haze, and camera shake (yes even IS is not infallable).
There is no substitute for fieldcraft and patience.

.............Oh and time!