Choice of Canon lens for beginner in Bird Photography (1 Viewer)

Hi
I just moved to Canon from Olympus. I have a 500D and a Canon EF400 f5.6 USM - I can only say that so far I have been totally knocked out with both lens and Camera. My comments would be:
1)I don't see a lot of point in using a Zoom lens for bird photography because I think that for 90% of the time you will be using it at it's longest focal length anyway so why suffer the inevitable loss of both optical quality and speed as compared to a fixed focal length lens?
2)I endorse everything said above (and in other threads on the Canon forum) about the EF 400 f5.6 USM - it focuses at lightening speed (even in moderate light conditions) - the focus is accurate, also it returns lovely sharp shots with lovely soft and smooth background blur. It really is a super lens for the money and is very well suited to bird photography.
3)I don't really see much value for image stabilisation in bird photography because virtually every shot requires high shutter speed (to avoid subject motion blur) and therefore camera shake is not much of an issue. Better to spend the money on a good tripod and head - I use a tripod all the time - my arm and wrist quickly begin to tire otherwise and I have not found it much more hassle to cart around a camera on a tripod (although I admit I use a carbon fibre one - worth every penny) than it is to cart around a camera with a telephoto lens on it
4)After a lot of good advice and support from various members on this forum I purchased a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter and I have found it works fine with my camera and lens - as long as the light is not poor. It gives me some very usable extra reach - it's particularly useful for wildfowl on open water and waders on mudflats and sandbanks
5)If you do go for a tripod - get a good one and a good head - I wasted money on two cheap ones before I learned my lesson - a good tripod and head make a massive difference.
6)Finally - be prepared for a fair bit of disappointment at the beginning - and remember that no matter how good your kit you still have to use a lot of patience and ingenuity to get near enough to birds to get decent shots. For woodland birds I have found a bit of camouflage net really does work: find a bit of coppice or trees by water or a muddy scrape, settle down under your camo net and sit and wait - usually something interesting turns up sooner or later - hopefully before you succumb to hypothermia or terminal cramp!

That's my two pence worth - hope it helps, regards Pete

187 said:

I asked myself the same question as artyfax asked and I concluded I needed the 100/400. Since no one mentioned that lens in any of the replies my question is have I come to the wrong conclusion. I am not so interested in bif.

Click to expand...

definitely not a bad choice... as Paul mentioned there are some negatives (mainly AF speed) but it is a very versatile lens. I had one a few years back as my walkabout lens. I ended up selling it and buying a 400 f5.6, then added a 300 f4... I recently sold both of these and went back to a 100-400. Despite the minor negatives of the 100-400 it's the lens for me, I can get bird shots and then back off to 100mm for snaps of my kids. As an alrounder I think the 100-400 is hard to beat, but as a flight shot lens the 400 f5.6 is definitely better.

I have the 100-400 and use it for birds in flight as well as dragonflys and butterflys .The 100-400 also has a closer focus of about 6ft compaired with the 400's 11ft but the 400 is slightly sharper so it depends on what you want to do with it but i find the 100-400 super for what i want .

I'm in the 400mm f5.6 camp for BIF

I want to thank every one very much for all your help. I did initially answer each post individually but your response was too great to maintain this.
All the help you gave was really usefull and interesting, it has been really helpfull.
It seems that that given the emphasis on birds in flight that the lens most recommended is the Canon prime 400 5.6. I have taken this on board and this looks like my most favoured choice at the moment.
However as has also been pointed out I may well change direction and want to aquire other shots apart from BIF, I believe this will be the case and have as a result taken all your suggestions and experience on board so thanks to everyone. I feel really overwhelmed that you have all gone to so much trouble to help me.
Please carry on offering suggestions on this thread as I will carry on reading and responding and it is sure to help others in need of advice.
Once again many thanks and I will update you all...
Marcus

The lens comby you have is not bad, but of course the 2.8 70-200IS would be better. I have this lens, and it's one of my favorites-very sharp.

Unfortunately for outdoor photographers, one cannot get close enough! Long primes are the best IMHO, but getting long enough is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$........

The 100-400mm isn't exactly useless for flight shots mind you but as always the skill of the person behind the camera plays the biggest part. Still, you may get more keepers with the prime and may occassionally get frustrated that you missed that classic shot with the zoom but there are still many superb BIF shots taken with it. And you're getting a more versatile lens on the whole to boot.
Bottom line is as I always maintain, the 300mm, 400mm and 100-400mm are all excellent lenses and whichever you choose and once you've learned how to get the best from one, will knock your socks off!

I started taking a few photos yesterday of BIF, I think its still going got be a 400 5.6, but waiting for stock to arrive, but meanwhile I had a go with the 70-200 f4, it did open a few questions.
I found it tricky, (I wasn't suprised) and it raised some questons a few asked in this post.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=149058
The other question more specific to this post though is...
1. Is the AF faster on the 400 5.6 than the 70-200
2. As for these photos I used iso 400, would this be usual for these shots?, I could have been working on the limits as the lens was fully open and 1/1250, not sure what shutter speed would be the norm...

Light was reasonable but about 7.30 in the evening...


Thanks, Marcus

I cannot comment on the AF speed of the two lenses. But I use ISO 400 as standard for telephoto, and regularly go up to 800.

Thomas

The AF on a 400 f5.6 is lightning fast so I find it hard to imagine that the 70-200 would be quicker. But I may be wrong.

I vote for the 100-400. While a good deal of the time I use it at 400mm, there are quite few times that I back out to 100 (for kids and distant landscapes) or somewhere in between. Main reason I highly recommend it is to cut down on swapping lenses. Besides the dust getting on your sensor when changing, you're just much more likely to get shots that require less reach than 400mm if you have the zoom on there than if you have to switch lenses. You're not going to do it, and more often than not, you're not going to have time to swap to get the shot.

It's still an L lens and vastly superior to my other lenses. I'm happy with the AF speed, though I've never had a prime lens for my DSLR to compare the speed to. You also have the ability to start wide on a bird and zoom into it, rather than having to find the BIF with such a narrow FOV.

Also, for me the IS is indispensable. There are plenty of times I use the lens either at 400 or 100 in low light and get quite useable shots with IS. I borrowed a friend's 70-200 f/2.8 and could not get a clear shot in low light at all, when I was just fine at 400mm with IS on my lens. Sure, the bokeh was better with the 2.8, but at 400 wide open the bokeh is fairly comparable.

Owning the 100-400, I can't imagine giving up the focal length range for a prime lens of the same length and speed, despite the faster AF and better IQ. The alternative would have to be faster or longer to make the extra AF speed and sharpness worth the loss of focal length range.

I have used both the 400mm and the 100-400mm. Depends on the size of birds in flight you intend to photograph. I used the 100-400m on birds in flight and I was down to about 200mm so while the 400mm is a pin sharp lens the fixed focal length might not be ideal for birds in flight especially where large birds are the subject, for static birds its great. So in my opinion a 100-400 zoom lens would be ideal. I would forget the 70-200 + 2x.
Also for birds in flight IS is useless.
Best of luck,
Simon.

Had same choice: why I went for the 400mm prime

Hi Marcus,

I'm curious to find out which choice you make/made.

Faced with the same choice (I have the 70-200 non-IS zoom), I spent days on the internet last week reading up on what the best affordable option would be to give me more reach. It became immediately clear that there's no single "best choice". People made different choices (400mm prime, 100-400mm zoom, 300mm + 1.4) and were generally satisified with the results.

I bought the 400mm prime + 1.4 TC last weekend and the main factors affecting my decision were as follows:
1. Although I have the 17-85mm kit lens (which is fine for holidays, local events, etc.), my 70-200mm (100-280mm with 1.4 TC) is my main walkabout zoom. I don't need another 300mm lens or a 100-400 zoom.
2. My only reason to buy a new lens is to get as many fine details as possible as clearly as possible. The 400mm prime with a 1.4 TC gives me a reach of 560mm with - if internet reports are reliable - little loss of sharpness.

That was the theory! In practice, I'm still learning the basics of how to use a slow telelens (using high ISO, noise reduction, etc.). My first impressions of the 400mm are very good - it feels sturdy, robust and well-balanced with my 40D. I can carry it around all day and the AF is really fast!

Good luck with the choice!

Mike

When I was using Canon the best results I got were from a combination of 200mm f2.8L prime - very fast af and very sharp- when 200mm was enough - adding a Canon 2x to give a 400mm f5.6 for longer shots - af speed did'nt seem to change as much as I'd thought it might and the quality di'nt seem particularly compromised. The quality of a prime but two lenses in one so to speak. The 200mm can occasionally be picked up second hand, often overlooked but a great lens.

wilfredsdad said:

I just moved to Canon from Olympus. I have a 500D and a Canon EF400 f5.6 USM - I can only say that so far I have been totally knocked out with both lens and Camera.

Click to expand...

I'm interested to hear what Olympus equipment you had, and what differences you've found with the Canon.

Every cloud has a silver lining.
A few days ago, I went up the Subalpine trail in Manning Park with a friend. On our way back, we saw 3 blue grouses on the road side. We kept our main lens in the trunk. I had the 100-400 on my 40D and my friend his Nikkor 70-200 with 1.7 ion his D300 with us. We just stopped the car on the road and start shooting. We found the zoom very useful in framing and getting shots at different distances as the birds moved around. Lucky I kept the lens even after I bought the 300 f2.8 and 300 f4.
Blue grouse 1-400 L at 320mm f9 1/320sec full frame