[Bird_Enthusiast]

Currently I have a Bushnell Hillary Legend (8 x 40), which is approximately 10 years or older. I see just fine with it, but I was wondering if upgrading to a better pair of binoculars is worth the money.

Anyway I currently have a EOS Rebel T1I Canon camera with a 55-250mm lens. I want to upgrade to either a 400mm or 100-400mm Canon lens to get better shots and not disturb the birds by getting too close.
These are the two lenses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6L_IS_USM.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

Which of the two lenses are better or is there a better one for my purpose at a similar price?

[knotsbirder]

Depends what you want it for. If its a purely birding lens you're after, then the 400 prime is arguably better, however both are good lenses (I have the 100-400mm). Anyway, you might be better asking this question here, the sub-section of the forum dedicated to this: http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=292 .

Sam

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by knotsbirder

Depends what you want it for. If its a purely birding lens you're after, then the 400 prime is arguably better, however both are good lenses (I have the 100-400mm). Anyway, you might be better asking this question here, the sub-section of the forum dedicated to this: http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=292 .

Sam

Yes, I would like to capture smaller varieties of birds in greater detail.

[knotsbirder]

But would you use the lens just for birding is my question? For that price I felt more comfortable getting a more-than-one use lens for my money rather than a bird-specific one.

Sam

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by knotsbirder

But would you use the lens just for birding is my question? For that price I felt more comfortable getting a more-than-one use lens for my money rather than a bird-specific one.

Sam

I already have another lens for portraits, so yes it would be specifically for birding.

[jimthomson]

you have identified two of the three affordable options. The other is the 300mm F4lL with a 1.4x converter. All three have pluses and minuses as birding lenses. Different people have different preferences.

Personally I chose the 400mm f5.6L, but i've seen great pictures taken with both of the other lenses.

If you have no problems with your current binoculars then it is probably not worth it upgrading. I recently replaced some 30 year old bushnell binoculars with Nikon Monarch 5's. The new binoculars are a little better in low light conditions, but in regular use i don't see much difference. The Nikons are however lighter to carry.

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by jimthomson

you have identified two of the three affordable options. The other is the 300mm F4lL with a 1.4x converter. All three have pluses and minuses as birding lenses. Different people have different preferences.

Personally I chose the 400mm f5.6L, but i've seen great pictures taken with both of the other lenses.

If you have no problems with your current binoculars then it is probably not worth it upgrading. I recently replaced some 30 year old bushnell binoculars with Nikon Monarch 5's. The new binoculars are a little better in low light conditions, but in regular use i don't see much difference. The Nikons are however lighter to carry.

In your opinion, which would be most suitable for a novice?

[Froggy]

The two lenses are the best in that price bracket IMHO .
The prime is sharpest and fastest autofocus .
The zoom covers the range of focal lengths , has Image stabilisation ,and packs smaller for bag .

The prime is of single purpose , 400mm , and does so without compromise .
The zoom offers versatility in focal length and handholding with IS .

I was surprised at the need for good technique and high shutter speed at 400 mm .
The IS on the zoom will help a little with handholding but you will still need a high shutter speed for birds .

The best advice I can offer is rent the prime and see if it suits your needs .


Edit : Lordy that reads terrible , sorry on IPad , like wallpapering the hall through the letterbox .

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Froggy

The two lenses are the best in that price bracket IMHO .
The prime is sharpest and fastest autofocus .
The zoom covers the range of focal lengths , has Image stabilisation ,and packs smaller for bag .

The prime is of single purpose , 400mm , and does so without compromise .
The zoom offers versatility in focal length and handholding with IS .

I was surprised at the need for good technique and high shutter speed at 400 mm .
The IS on the zoom will help a little with handholding but you will still need a high shutter speed for birds .

The best advice I can offer is rent the prime and see if it suits your needs .


Edit : Lordy that reads terrible , sorry on IPad , like wallpapering the hall through the letterbox .

Do you think the 400mm would give me issues fitting birds in the frame of the picture? I like my current 55-250mm because of its versatility, but after the sun begins to set the lens becomes useless. I'm already accustomed to this. I just have a problem catching small finches, warbles, cardinals, and blue jays due to not being able to zoom in close enough.

[Froggy]

Originally Posted by Bird_Enthusiast

Do you think the 400mm would give me issues fitting birds in the frame of the picture? I like my current 55-250mm because of its versatility, but after the sun begins to set the lens becomes useless. I'm already accustomed to this. I just have a problem catching small finches, warbles, cardinals, and blue jays due to not being able to zoom in close enough.

Well both lenses are 400 mm , so both will either work out long enough or not (the 100-400 is a little shorter at closer focus) .

Does your local retailer offer a no quibbles return policy ?
You could buy the prime and if you find you miss the need to zoom swap it .

I can give you my reasons for getting the prime :
Already have up to 200mm covered .
Don't need and don't want IS .
Want all the money I spend on image quality , AF speed , build quality .

[jimthomson]

Originally Posted by Bird_Enthusiast

In your opinion, which would be most suitable for a novice?

I would say that most people go for the 100-400mm to get the most versatile lens. Its the one I would recommend unless you have already determined that you will be almost exclusively using the lens for birding.

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by jimthomson

I would say that most people go for the 100-400mm to get the most versatile lens. Its the one I would recommend unless you have already determined that you will be almost exclusively using the lens for birding.

This lens is exclusively for birding. I want a lens that can zoom enough for birds high up like Blue Jays, Cardinals, Woodpeckers, et cetera because my current lens cannot do so.

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Additionally many people are complaining that the 100-400mm has some issues with dust and other defects.
Should this be a genuine reason to worry on its quality? I want something reliable that doesn't need repairs.

[jimthomson]

Originally Posted by Bird_Enthusiast

This lens is exclusively for birding. I want a lens that can zoom enough for birds high up like Blue Jays, Cardinals, Woodpeckers, et cetera because my current lens cannot do so.

Then get the 400mm f5.6L and the Kenko 300 DGX 1.4x converter.
In good light the T1i will auto focus the combination.

Be aware that no lens is ever long enough. You will always want a longer lens for those birds that are just out of range of your current set up.

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by jimthomson

Then get the 400mm f5.6L and the Kenko 300 DGX 1.4x converter.
In good light the T1i will auto focus the combination.

Be aware that no lens is ever long enough. You will always want a longer lens for those birds that are just out of range of your current set up.

Indeed, but my 55-250mm lens is too inadequate for what I've trying to photograph. I cannot lie, I did get some great shots, but I feel with a more decent lens my photos would improve greatly.

Additionally would I need some sort of flash as well? I seem to have no trouble with lighting in pictures until around 7pm, but its not a big deal to me.

Much thanks!

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by jimthomson

Then get the 400mm f5.6L and the Kenko 300 DGX 1.4x converter.
In good light the T1i will auto focus the combination.

Be aware that no lens is ever long enough. You will always want a longer lens for those birds that are just out of range of your current set up.

I was also looking at the Sigma 50-500mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6_3_DG_OS.html)
Do you think that lens is worth looking at?

[Froggy]

IMHO the sigma is nowhere near the sharpness of the canon lenses you are looking at .

Was out with 400 today , no bird shots but I did shoot a least weasel at minimum focus distance and the detail was absolutely fantastic .
REALLY happy with the lens .
All I have to do now is get a loads of practice with it , very different to use than 200 mm !

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Froggy

IMHO the sigma is nowhere near the sharpness of the canon lenses you are looking at .

Was out with 400 today , no bird shots but I did shoot a least weasel at minimum focus distance and the detail was absolutely fantastic .
REALLY happy with the lens .
All I have to do now is get a loads of practice with it , very different to use than 200 mm !

Indeed. I was thinking the same thing, but I'm undecided between the 400prime and the 100-400. I hear that the 100-400 gets dust inside as such, while the 400 is fairly stellar in almost every way.

Have you had any experience with the 100-400 as well?

[tjsimonsen]

Originally Posted by Bird_Enthusiast

Indeed. I was thinking the same thing, but I'm undecided between the 400prime and the 100-400. I hear that the 100-400 gets dust inside as such, while the 400 is fairly stellar in almost every way.

Have you had any experience with the 100-400 as well?

I have used the 100-400 since 2006 and haven't had problems in that regard - and I have used it in pretty dusty places such as the prairies and deserts of western North America (I used to live in Alberta, Canada) and South Africa. There are a couple of specks of dust inside the lens, but nothing that affects the IQ. The zoom-lock will wear out at one point, but that’s easily fixed. I picked the zoom over the prime because it fits my way of shooting better: the IS is very nice, the 1.8m close focus is extremely handy when taking pictures of critters like butterflies and dragonflies, and the zoom is very, very useful.

The IS wasn’t a deal-breaker, but the two other features were.
You can see an example of the usefulness of the close focus here:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/126568751

Here is my favourite example of the usefulness of the zoom. First a picture at near full zoom, then zoomed out when the situation changed:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624259
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624261

You also asked about a pair of bins, I believe. The top of the pack are of course Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon’s HD series. But you can get a long way for much less money. I’m personally using an 8*42 Pentax DCF SP. While it isn’t quite up there with the big boys, it’s not all that far behind (and the differences are mainly in the build quality). And it’s only a third of the price.

Thomas

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by tjsimonsen

I have used the 100-400 since 2006 and haven't had problems in that regard - and I have used it in pretty dusty places such as the prairies and deserts of western North America (I used to live in Alberta, Canada) and South Africa. There are a couple of specks of dust inside the lens, but nothing that affects the IQ. The zoom-lock will wear out at one point, but that’s easily fixed. I picked the zoom over the prime because it fits my way of shooting better: the IS is very nice, the 1.8m close focus is extremely handy when taking pictures of critters like butterflies and dragonflies, and the zoom is very, very useful.

The IS wasn’t a deal-breaker, but the two other features were.
You can see an example of the usefulness of the close focus here:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/126568751

Here is my favourite example of the usefulness of the zoom. First a picture at near full zoom, then zoomed out when the situation changed:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624259
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/105624261

You also asked about a pair of bins, I believe. The top of the pack are of course Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon’s HD series. But you can get a long way for much less money. I’m personally using an 8*42 Pentax DCF SP. While it isn’t quite up there with the big boys, it’s not all that far behind (and the differences are mainly in the build quality). And it’s only a third of the price.

Thomas

First off those are amazing pictures!

But will the zoom lock is that an expensive repair?
Additionally do you think a cover such as this one will prevent dust from entering the lens?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...for_Canon.html

[Froggy]

From what I have READ on the net , the dust pump thing is a bit of over hyped myth .
Many types of zoom extend and contract with focal length , but these are not given the same moniker .

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Froggy

From what I have READ on the net , the dust pump thing is a bit of over hyped myth .
Many types of zoom extend and contract with focal length , but these are not given the same moniker .

I figured as much, but it still seems to worry me. I don't want to go on vacation and suddenly find my lens with dust inside of it without a place I trust to repair it at.

[Weekend Birder]

I have both the Canon 100-400 and the 400/5.6.

They are both superb lenses.

The dust issue for the 100-400 has been exaggerated. The worst you will get is a few tiny specks on the objective, which will not affect image quality at all.

100-400 pros: Zoom capability, shorter minimum focusing distance.

400/5.6 pros: Slightly faster autofocus, a bit lighter with a nicer lens hood.

Incidentally either lens will autofocus with a T1i and a Kenko 1.4x DGX teleconverter, under all but the most exacting conditions. You have to tape the pins on the converter (it's really easy to do).

This would give you an effective 896mm f8 lens.

Again the 400/5.6 seems to be a bit more reliable with the teleconverter, autofocusing without any excess searching about 95% of the time. it also seems a little bit sharper than the 100-400 with the teleconverter attached.

I see no difference in sharpness without the teleconverter between my copies of each lens, but the 100-400 is a more complicated lens and is possibly subject to more variation in quality.

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Weekend Birder

I have both the Canon 100-400 and the 400/5.6.

They are both superb lenses.

The dust issue for the 100-400 has been exaggerated. The worst you will get is a few tiny specks on the objective, which will not affect image quality at all.

100-400 pros: Zoom capability, shorter minimum focusing distance.

400/5.6 pros: Slightly faster autofocus, a bit lighter with a nicer lens hood.

Incidentally either lens will autofocus with a T1i and a Kenko 1.4x DGX teleconverter, under all but the most exacting conditions. You have to tape the pins on the converter (it's really easy to do).

This would give you an effective 896mm f8 lens.

Again the 400/5.6 seems to be a bit more reliable with the teleconverter, autofocusing without any excess searching about 95% of the time. it also seems a little bit sharper than the 100-400 with the teleconverter attached.

I see no difference in sharpness without the teleconverter between my copies of each lens, but the 100-400 is a more complicated lens and is possibly subject to more variation in quality.

When you tape the converter is it with regular Scotch Tape?

[tjsimonsen]

Originally Posted by Bird_Enthusiast

First off those are amazing pictures!

But will the zoom lock is that an expensive repair?
Additionally do you think a cover such as this one will prevent dust from entering the lens?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...for_Canon.html

Thanks.

I have no idea what it costs if you have the zoom-lock repaired by Canon for the very simple reason that I "fixed" it myself.
The zoom-lock generally stops working because the soft coating on the inner surface of the zoom-lock ring wears out so you can't increase the friction between the ring and the zoom barrel. Others on these pages have reported how you can stick a small piece of sticky tape on the base of the zoom barrel and thereby at least be able to lock the lens @ 100mm. So I thought that if you put some tape on the base and another piece along the barrel for the entire length of the zoom the lock should be working again. And it is. You can see what I've done in the attached picture: it's taken from the side and I have stuck similar pieces of tape on either side. It may look a little funny, but the lens works perfectly - and that's all I care about.

Thomas