Canon EF 400mm f/5.6: good for birding? (1 Viewer)

[christineredgate]

An image taken with the 400F5.6 and Canon 1x4 extender,with the 3 pins taped.A very dull morning,in fact it started to rain 5 mins after this shot was taken.The first time I have tried the 1x4 ,using auto focus,and yes ,it seems to be okay.An ISO of 400 was used.
Normally one would not be wanting to take a Mallard shot using an extender,but she just happened to be there.

 

[graham catley]

unless I have missed it in all of the above one thing which has not been mentioned re the 400 5.6 and 100-400 is the difference in close focus--the draw back with the 400 5.6 is the poor close focus at about 3.5m from what I recall whereas the 100-400 is about 1.8m and the 300 f4 is 1.5m--it may not seem that relevant but it is amazing how often a tame bird will be closer than 3.5m and having to walk away from it or use extension tubes is a real pain---I did have the 100-400 but IMHO it was just not sharp enough on flying birds due to factors which included a shallow DOF at the 400 end--I now use the 300 f4 and 1.4 converter---at first I used them together most of the time but now I tend to work harder at my fieldcraft, get closer to the bird, or frame and compose shots with less bird per picture---as the 300 focuses so close it is also ideal for butterflies and dragons and is mazing on flying birds---all attached taken with the 300mm f4

 

[gmax]

... the difference in close focus--the draw back with the 400 5.6 is the poor close focus at about 3.5m whereas the 300 f4 is 1.5m-- I now use the 300 f4 and 1.4 converter---at first I used them together most of the time but now I tend to work harder at my fieldcraft, get closer to the bird, or frame and compose shots with less bird per picture---as the 300 focuses so close it is also ideal for butterflies and dragons and is amazing on flying birds---all attached taken with the 300mm f4

Hello Graham, thanks ...
I'd be glad to hear about your experience with the 300mm f/4 + TC 1.4x .. would you recommend this kit for flyers? With or w/o TC? 300mm is rather a short range ... Any advice or reports from you all?
Thank you very much,
Max

 

[graham catley]

Hello Graham, thanks ...
I'd be glad to hear about your experience with the 300mm f/4 + TC 1.4x .. would you recommend this kit for flyers? With or w/o TC? 300mm is rather a short range ... Any advice or reports from you all?
Thank you very much,
Max

the 300 plus 1.4 works well on flying birds--I tend to practice of hirundines and Swifts just to make wildfowl seem a doddle! several more pics on my blog at http://pewit.blogspot.com/ and my website www.Nyctea.co.uk

 

[gmax]

the 300 plus 1.4 works well on flying birds--I tend to practice of hirundines and Swifts just to make wildfowl seem a doddle! several more pics on my blog at http://pewit.blogspot.com/ and my website www.Nyctea.co.uk

Thanks, Graham

excellent shots in your blog ... congratulations!
Regards,
Max

 

[Peter Ericsson]

I wonder what the slowest speed one can handhold the 400mm lens without leaning on something? I used to use an old 500mm Tamron reflex lens and I'd be able to hold it down to .60S.

What would be a good budget flash to use with this lense for birds inside the forest?

 

[bpw]

I have only handheld the 400mm lens (without any type of support) for birds in flight, when I’m typically using fast shutter speeds, so I cannot answer your question with hard facts.

I used a monopod for a while and found this produced good results in good light, but I had too many failures in moderate/poor light and wind, so went back to my tripod. I never go anywhere without my tripod now and only ever remove it when there is no room, e.g. in some hides.

If you’re in an area with much better light you may have more luck, but my feeling is that the 400mm lens needs to be on a tripod to produce consistently good results.

 

[JohnZ]

Peter, I have posted a couple of shots that were taken in error by yours truly. The first was shot at 1/125 sec when I first got my lens and did not know what I was doing. Still don`t really ! The second was taken at 1/400 sec which, according to the pundits, is still too slow for the lens. The speed is supposed to be in excess of the focal length of the lens.
Neither are world beaters but both, in my opinion, acceptable. The third shot is of a Sand Martin taken with the 400mm f5.6. I was surprised/happy with this shot.
bpw is absolutely correct in that you may have to use a tripod to get consistently good results but sadly I have never mastered the art of tripods/monopods so I have to do without. This means I have less of a success rate re ; "Keepers" but that`s just the way it is.

 

[WCA]

Having done nothing else but read every review of the 400 f5.6 over the past few days, I am 95% on the verge of ordering one.

However, at the final hurdle i am hesitating for one particular reason which I am looking for some reasurance before i order.

I wonder if anyone has used the lens say for example at an east coast birding location on a dull day and got more than acceptable results of warblers by handholding this lens

If so, then this will more than likely sway my decision to go for this lens rather than the 100-400 IS zoom.

Regrds,

Bill Aspin.

 

[Roy C]

Having done nothing else but read every review of the 400 f5.6 over the past few days, I am 95% on the verge of ordering one.

However, at the final hurdle i am hesitating for one particular reason which I am looking for some reasurance before i order.

I wonder if anyone has used the lens say for example at an east coast birding location on a dull day and got more than acceptable results of warblers by handholding this lens

If so, then this will more than likely sway my decision to go for this lens rather than the 100-400 IS zoom.

Regrds,

Bill Aspin.

Hi Bill, Attached is a shot that I took this morning with a 1.4 tc attached and hand held (896mm inc crop factor). Beauty with most DSLR is that you can up the ISO and still get results - this was shot at 800 ISO because it was not very good light.

 

[Peter Ericsson]

Very nice shot of the sparrow.
What was the speed in this picture?

Peter

 

[Roy C]

Very nice shot of the sparrow.
What was the speed in this picture?

Peter

Peter, this was 1/1000 at ISO 800.

 

[Peter Ericsson]

Roy,

That is not exactly poor light then. What is the slowest speed u can handhold the lens?

 

[Roy C]

Roy,

That is not exactly poor light then. What is the slowest speed u can handhold the lens?

Peter, This would have been poor light if I was using, say ISO 200 (1/250 with 896mm on board!)- the point I was making was that you can bump up the ISO in low light to compensate. Without the tc I like to use a min of 1/500 but there are many people who can hand hold at 1/250.

 

[Peter Ericsson]

Tx! The reason for asking is that I am afraid I won't be able to handhold the lens very much. I am used to digiscoping and there is hardly a time I can use speed like that, mostly 1/30-125. Does my scope (82mm ED, with 30x eyepiece) gather less light then the 400mm and thus I have to shoot at slower speed? Maybe a dumb question but I rather stand to be corrected then to remain ignorant.

 

[postcardcv]

Peter, this was 1/1000 at ISO 800.

If you can get 1/1000th (even at ISO800) then the light can't have been too bad... The Canons are useable even to the highest ISO's, so you'd be able to use your set up in much worse light.

The 400 f5.6 will give better shutter speeds than you'll have been getting digiscoping. I guess that both the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400 IS will give very similar shutter speeds as they are both 400mm lenses with a max apeture of f5.6. There was a thread some time back that discussed the pros and cons of primes vs zooms - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37420
Also, here's a link to a helpful comparison between the two Canons - http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

Getting good shots handheld is not just about fast shutter speeds, technique has a lot to do with it. Personally I'm not great at handholding and rely heavily on my tripod, but at least using a tripod make shooting at slower speeds much easier.

 

[JohnZ]

postcard Pete, Please have a look at the shots I have posted about 8 posts above yours. The first shot was taken at 1/125 sec and I was, in my ignorance, pointing straight into a dark bush. I had only just got the lens and did not know how to use it. Probably still don`t !
It is very easy to get a high shutter speed with this lens but you introduce noise into the shot. There is also light and good light. I have recently taken loads of shots but have binned them due to the bland white/grey background. We need some sunshine and then you will see how well this lens really performs.
Could not agree more about the technique side of things but until we get the weather then it is, for me at least, practice, practice, practice.
When you first pick up the lens and camera it seems mighty heavy but with a bit of practice it soon becomes hand holdable ? If a muppet like me can get a half decent shot of a Sand Martin in flight then anybody can !

P.S. Please note the colour of the water in the Sand Martin shot. Yes it is grey again !

 

[WCA]

Hi Bill, Attached is a shot that I took this morning with a 1.4 tc attached and hand held (896mm inc crop factor). Beauty with most DSLR is that you can up the ISO and still get results - this was shot at 800 ISO because it was not very good light.

Hi Roy,

Thanks for posting the Sparrow pic, very nice. After much deliberation, I've decided the only way forward is to get both Lenses, starting with the 100-400 L IS zoom for versatility and the 400mm f5.6 prime for good light and really sharp flight shots (hopefully!).

Regards,

Bill.

 

[jiminlondon99]

hand held

The answer depends very much on luck and what you are photographing. This crops shows a nervous fox frozen in the light using the 400mm 5.6 prime with a tripod @1/30-f7.1 and 800 asa.

By contrast my slowest decent hand held of a bird without bracing or leaning against something with the 400mm is 1/400 @f6.3 and 100 asa.

FYI with my 300 IS zoom I can get good resuts of the foxes at 1/30 handheld at short range.

hope this helps.

Jim