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

[artyfax]

I am new to photography of birds, but am not a beginner in photography, I just can’t resist having a go living (and working) on the North Norfolk Coast.
At the moment I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM which although an excellent lens is not suitable for photographing birds due to its short focal length. I purchased a canon x2 tc , a mistake really as apart from losing the AF it loses 2 stops and 4 x less light is more of a problem than I first anticipated, I just didn’t really think it through, I admit!
What I would appreciate is opinions on the two options I am considering as a lens to photograph “flight shots” in particular.
I say flight shots as the first choice seems to be suited to these, the Canon 400 f5.6

But this is the alternative.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS and use the x2 TC I already have, with it.
On the face of it this would give me a 400mm 5.6 lens but with IS and still AF.

So it’s a bit heavier and more expensive, but not much more.
I know theoretically there will be image quality issues as this combination will not be on a level playing field with a prime lens but could the IS outweigh this?

I haven’t mentioned the camera as this post is really about lens/combinations but just for the record it’s a 350D

I suspect apart from optical issues there maybe physical, ie wieight and balancing issues that not having had experience in bird photography I haven’t considered?
I haven’t seen a post on this comparison before and maybe its not a sensible one but I would be interested and really appreciate any advice.

Thanks in anticipation…

Marcus

 

[postcardcv]

Hi Marcus and welcome to BirdForum

I've not used the 70-200 f2.8 so cannot comment on it, but review suggest that while it's an outstanding lens the quality does drop of a fair bit with a 2x on. I did use the 400 f5.6 for quite a while and really liked it, very fast AF and super sharp results. The best bet would be to make the short drive to East Dereham where there's an excellent camera shop, this would give you the chance to test the two options on your camera.

I'm sure you'll enjoy taking photos of birds, there are some outstanding locations very close to you.

 

[artyfax]

Many thanks Blueskybirds...
I will get over to Dereham next week hopefully. Really love the challenge of bird photography, it is tricky, more so than I thought but thats part of what makes it so much fun and frustrating too which is why I want to get the lens right, well at least somewhere near! I do feel blessed to be in such a great location...
Marcus

 

[lmans66]

Try a 300 F4L....with a 1.4 converter....I know you have the 2TC now but if you somehow can snag it, you will end up with an IS lens, L.....that gives you an option of having 300 or 420 depending on if you use the TC. I believe it will not take the 2.0 TC so that is the problem. Perhaps a swap with someone.... Just thought I would bring this option up.

 

[artyfax]

Thanks Imans
Thats an interesting suggestion as it looks like it gives the same 400 5.6 spec but with IS, am not sure after a quick look at the specs if it is weather proofed but its not too much of an issue. Weight looks favourable, the second hand price of the TCs is good so I am not worried about having to purchase a 1.4tc, more concerned about choosing the right comination or lens.
Marcus

 

[JohnZ]

It will not be as good as a 400mm f5.6.

 

[artyfax]

Thanks Johnz, I suspected this may be the case being a prime lens, just had a look at your website, nice work! What lens do you use around 400?
Marcus

 

[a.dancy]

Provided all things are in place you will get excellent quality images with a Canon 300f4 IS lens and will still retain good quality images with a 1.4X converter attached. I have previously recommended the combination to those starting out in bird photography. However, you have been quite specific with your desire to do flight photography and so on that basis and that basis alone the received wisdom appears to be the Canon 400L as the lens of first choice. The reason for this is because of the speed of focus for inititial acquisition of the moving target, The prime 400 is quicker on the uptake than the prime 300 . In regard to IS, I don't see that the lack of IS on this lens should be much of an issue. For flight photography you need high shutter speeds to freeze the bird so why the need for IS? For other birds and in lower light you will need a tripod or be able to rest your lens on something which will give adequate stability.

 

[artyfax]

Thanks A.dancy
You are quite right, for flight IS doesn't matter, I just hadn't thought of that, I was thinking more in general photography situations when I should have been thinking "flight". I really shouldnt be thinking about what else I could do with the lens. I was specific about flight not because its the only bird photography that I ever want to do but just the first aspect I want to concentrate on. I will do my best at this before I move on to other shots, hopefully! This has been really useful, its really forced me to think about what my objective is!
Marcus

 

[JohnZ]

I use the Canon 400mm f5.6.

 

[hampers]

I use the 400 f5.6, its an excellent all round, good value, lens for bird photography. Image quality is excellent and its good for birds in flight due to its light weight. Can also recommend the East Dereham option to try things out, its run by people who know what they are talking about and are most helpful.

Phil

 

[stevetb]

Yep, the Canon 400 f/5.6 L is superb. It'll offer you far better image quality than the 70-200 with 2X, and the AF should be better too.

For flight shots it's one of the best lenses out there, due to it's swift AF and handling - and the amount of detail it resolves allows for large crops, too.

Here's a shot of a Nuthatch with a 100% crop. It's nothing special, but shows the detail that can be resolved:
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3516/nuthatch.jpg

 

[paul goode]

Well I use the 300mm with 1.4x for my, nowadays very occasional, bird photography
However as you emphasise your interest in flight photography I would really suggest the 400mm f5.6.
Even on a 1d body I notice the af slow down when using the tc and and the odds are for an awful lot of bird photography you would never take the tc off the 300mm.
As a bare lens, I love the the 300mm, it takes bitingly sharp images with a lovely background blur wide open. I have taken my best ever aviation images with this lens and the IS does come in useful for slow shutter speed panning images, but I think its too short as a birding lens unless you are dealing with woodland birds at a feeding station

 

[Pluvius]

400 f5.6 for me as well. Brilliant piece of glass.

 

[postcardcv]

Thanks Imans
Thats an interesting suggestion as it looks like it gives the same 400 5.6 spec but with IS, am not sure after a quick look at the specs if it is weather proofed but its not too much of an issue. Weight looks favourable, the second hand price of the TCs is good so I am not worried about having to purchase a 1.4tc, more concerned about choosing the right comination or lens.
Marcus

Like I say try them for yourself, obviously there is a lot of strong opinion on these lenses... I've fortunate enough to have owned both the 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 + 1.4x combo - they are both very good options with different pros and cons. I agree that the AF on the 400 is faster and wide open you might notice a slight difference in sharpness, but with the 300 you get IS, a much better close focus and the option of using it at f4 when needed.

If it really is mainly about flight shots then I think the 400 f5.6 does have the edge, but when you get down to Salthouse in the winter to photograph the snow buntings a 300 f4 would probably be very handy...

 

[paul goode]

If it really is mainly about flight shots then I think the 400 f5.6 does have the edge, but when you get down to Salthouse in the winter to photograph the snow buntings a 300 f4 would probably be very handy...

Something I forget to mention was to keep the 70-200 f4. That should handle the buntings pecking round your toes shots :-O

 

[187]

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.

 

[paul goode]

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.

Not at all, its another fine lens. In fact having sold mine I wish I hadn't and am thinking of getting another because its such a good all round lens.
However the OP specifically mentioned BIF and for that the prime is IMHO the winner basically down to its faster af.
I took plenty of flight shots with my 100-400, a good few of which i've go on to sell, but compared to my 300mm f4 the initial focus acquisition and tracking af is a bit slower. No doubt it'll do the job but for BIF it maybe isn't the best tool.

 

[lmans66]

One thing to keep in mind is that 'now'...you are looking at birds in flight. But as we all know, once you get into something, your birding desires expand. So flight now, tomorrow...who knows? Keep that in mind and get what fits your needs and the way you prefer to bird.

I know I do not want to come anywhere near carrying a tri or mono pod......But I would probably love the ability of the 400 reach prime and will eventually pick up that lens too, to compliment my 300 f4 (Which gives me 420mm with the TC...and it also provides IS) Either way with either lens, you can't go wrong....

I have heard various arguments on the value that IS adds......I am for IS....Recently I did some experimenting with and without IS on shots and I really like the IS feature for the images turn out better, in 'my' humble opinion and the way 'I' photograph. I am sure others do a better job of photo'ing, especially if they use a mono or tripod and find they don't need IS when using the 400 prime.

 

[JohnZ]

Jim, I recently sold my Canon 300mm f4 IS. The reason being that I could not take a fast shot with it ! By the time the IS had wound itself up the bird had long gone.
There are obvious merits in IS but for me it just didn`t work out.