Lens for Bird Photography (2 Viewers)

[Bird_Enthusiast]

I have had difficulty choosing a lens both based on finance and the various lenses available to me at around 1000 to 1600.
From my research I found these five to be the best candidates
-Tamron 200-500mm
-Sigma 150-500mm
-Sigma 50-500mm
-Canon 100-400mm
-Canon 400mm prime

But I feel the prime would be the best choice because it is the lightest, simplest, and the image quality seems to rival that of much more expensive lenses with practice. The runner-up is the Sigma 50-500mm and I'm not entirely sure if the versatility's of the lens is worth the extra weight and loss in image quality.

Basically I'm looking for a lens where I could walk around all day with it and capture birds either in flight or high up in trees. (Mostly high up in the trees).

I would appreciate it, if anyone can post their thoughts, comments, ideas, or views regarding my thinking and choices. I'm not an expert and I'm willing to hear anyone out.

I greatly thank you for your time!
B :t:

 

[Lisa W]

I have both the 100-400 and the 400 prime. Excellent lenses, I actually use the 100-400 more. I don't see a lot of difference in weight, or at least haven't noticed it. Unlike some on the forum I actually use the 100-400 for birds in flight (BIF). The 100-400 will give a little more versatility. I'm sure others will disagree.

 

[Bird_Enthusiast]

I have both the 100-400 and the 400 prime. Excellent lenses, I actually use the 100-400 more. I don't see a lot of difference in weight, or at least haven't noticed it. Unlike some on the forum I actually use the 100-400 for birds in flight (BIF). The 100-400 will give a little more versatility. I'm sure others will disagree.

Interesting.
I'm just a little worried due to the pump zoom style, which seems to suck dust into the camera. I'm sure this is over-hyped, but I want a product that won't fail me and is extremely durable.

 

[Lisa W]

I'm just a little worried due to the pump zoom style, which seems to suck dust into the camera.

I keep the 100-400 on my camera most of the time. I don't think I would say it gets any more dust than when I do have my other lenses on. I know I don't seem to get more than I used to when I had the 50-500 Bigma on the camera. The pump does take some getting used to, didn't take a long time.

 

[Roy C]

Of the five lens you mention I would go for either the 100-400 or 400/5.6 myself. The zoom is obviously more flexible but if you are just wanting a lens for flight shots or birds high up in trees as you mention then the prime is the better bet IMO. The 400/5.6 is known to be a superb birds in flight lens as the AF is mega quick and it balances lovely for hand holding. It is also a bit lighter and a bit cheaper but this is marginal.

As far as IS goes it is non applicable for BIF. I use a 400/5.6 hand held all the time for birds and providing you maintain a usable shutter speed then the lack of IS is no problem whatsoever (I also have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses so I do know what IS is all about!)

For the technique I use for birds in flight it is essential that the lens is sharp wide open and to this end the prime most certainly is, you need never stop down unless you particularly wanted more depth of field. With a Camera like the 7D birds-in-flight is ridiculous easy IMO.
Hope this helps.

 

[Bird_Enthusiast]

Of the five lens you mention I would go for either the 100-400 or 400/5.6 myself. The zoom is obviously more flexible but if you are just wanting a lens for flight shots or birds high up in trees as you mention then the prime is the better bet IMO. The 400/5.6 is known to be a superb birds in flight lens as the AF is mega quick and it balances lovely for hand holding. It is also a bit lighter and a bit cheaper but this is marginal.

As far as IS goes it is non applicable for BIF. I use a 400/5.6 hand held all the time for birds and providing you maintain a usable shutter speed then the lack of IS is no problem whatsoever (I also have a couple of 4 stop IS lenses so I do know what IS is all about!)

For the technique I use for birds in flight it is essential that the lens is sharp wide open and to this end the prime most certainly is, you need never stop down unless you particularly wanted more depth of field. With a Camera like the 7D birds-in-flight is ridiculous easy IMO.
Hope this helps.

Thanks a lot for a very well written and knowledgeable response! Seems like the 400 f5.6 is perfect for me.

I'm not too fond of the 100-400 zoom due to its trombone zoom.

 

[BodyResults]

Thanks a lot for a very well written and knowledgeable response! Seems like the 400 f5.6 is perfect for me.

I'm not too fond of the 100-400 zoom due to its trombone zoom.

400 prime is a great choice. You really can't beat the image quality and focusing speed. I love mine.

 

[Steve Babbs]

It's a mystery to me why people don't like the push pull zoom on the 100 - 400 it took me seconds to get used to it. I'd go for the Canon 100 - 400. I've got it and had the Tamron for a few years. I don't like using a tripod so IS is a big deal for me, which is why I got rid of the Tamron. Also if you buy a Canon lens and want to move on, you'll lose very little selling it on. Not the case for the rest.

Canon 300mm f4 + 1.4 x convertor another option.

 

[Roy C]

It's a mystery to me why people don't like the push pull zoom on the 100 - 400 it took me seconds to get used to it. I'd go for the Canon 100 - 400. I've got it and had the Tamron for a few years. I don't like using a tripod so IS is a big deal for me, which is why I got rid of the Tamron. Also if you buy a Canon lens and want to move on, you'll lose very little selling it on. Not the case for the rest.

Canon 300mm f4 + 1.4 x convertor another option.

If you look at the OP requirement it is primarily for BIF,for a start in case you did not know IS is useless for flyers!. The 400/5.6 is faster focusing,lighter,better balanced and pin sharp wide opening making it the ideal BIF lens. Also the prime holds it value just as well as the zoom.

The 300/4 + 1.4x tc would certainly be quite a lot slower focusing for flyers than the prime (even slower than the 100-400) and the IQ loss with the tc makes the IQ a fair way behind the bare 400/5.6.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the 400/5.6 IQ is right up there with supertele's. BTW I have tried a 100-400 and also currently own a couple of 4 stop IS lenses (not like the very old first generation IS found on the 100-400 and 300/4 ) so I do know what IS is all about. For Birds in flight there is no way the 100-400 or 300/4 + 1.4x tc is as suitable as the 400/5.6 IMHO.

 

[Bird_Enthusiast]

If you look at the OP requirement it is primarily for BIF,for a start in case you did not know IS is useless for flyers!. The 400/5.6 is faster focusing,lighter,better balanced and pin sharp wide opening making it the ideal BIF lens. Also you insinuation that that the 100-400 loses little for resale but the 400/5.6 prime would is rubbish IMO, the prime holds it value just as well.

The 300/4 + 1.4x tc would certainly be quite a lot slower focusing for flyers than the prime (even slower than the 100-400) and the IQ loss with the tc makes the IQ a fair way behind the bare 400/5.6.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the 400/5.6 IQ is right up there with supertele's. BTW I have tried a 100-400 and also currently own a couple of 4 stop IS lenses (not like the very old first generation IS found on the 100-400 and 300/4 ) so I do know what IS is all about. For Birds in flight there is no way the 100-400 or 300/4 + 1.4x tc is as suitable as the 400/5.6 IMHO.

Additionally I think the 400 is also great for taking pictures of birds high up in the trees.
I see many people using it handheld. It will have a learning curve just as the 100-400 has with zooming.

 

[Roy C]

Additionally I think the 400 is also great for taking pictures of birds high up in the trees.
I see many people using it handheld. It will have a learning curve just as the 100-400 has with zooming.

There are three things to remember when handholding the 400/5.6 :-
Shutter speed
Shutter speed
Shutter speed.

There is nothing magical about IS, it just enables one to handhold at a slower shutter speed than you could with a non IS lens when shooting near stationary birds. If you do most of your shooting at, say, woodlands birds in dark and dingy places then a lens like the 100-400 would make more sense as you would need all the help you could get as far as light goes.It would also be better if you get very close to birds and need to shoot at under 400mm.Having said that I would prefer a 'faster' lens for this type of shooting myself (f4 or better still f2.8).
'Horses for courses' comes to mind and the 400/5.6 is ideally suited to BIF shooting. BTW you do not say what Camera you have! shooting BIF with a camera like the 7D and the 400/5.6 is ridiculously easy, not so easy with a Camera like the 40D though.

 

[Bird_Enthusiast]

There are three things to remember when handholding the 400/5.6 :-
Shutter speed
Shutter speed
Shutter speed.

There is nothing magical about IS, it just enables one to handhold at a slower shutter speed than you could with a non IS lens when shooting near stationary birds. If you do most of your shooting at, say, woodlands birds in dark and dingy places then a lens like the 100-400 would make more sense as you would need all the help you could get as far as light goes.It would also be better if you get very close to birds and need to shoot at under 400mm.Having said that I would prefer a 'faster' lens for this type of shooting myself (f4 or better still f2.8).
'Horses for courses' comes to mind and the 400/5.6 is ideally suited to BIF shooting. BTW you do not say what Camera you have! shooting BIF with a camera like the 7D and the 400/5.6 is ridiculously easy, not so easy with a Camera like the 40D though.

I have the Rebel T1i.

 

[Scyza]

Hello,

I have been pondering which tele lens to buy over the last two months.. I feel I have read just about every single review on the net about the lenses I am considering and I still cannot decide...

I have a 60D and until now, my most used lens was my beloved 100mm 2.8 macro. I intend to shoot mostly small singing birds, those interest me most. I am not particularly interested in shooting birds in flight.

So, the lenses I am considering are:

Canon 100-400
+ versatility
+ IS
+ long reach
- image quality & bokeh not as nice as a prime

Canon 300mm 4.0
+ IS
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
- possibly too short?

Canon 400mm 5.6
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
+ long reach
- no IS

I am currently leaning toward the 100-400, although I have borrowed the lens before and I wasn't actually completely convinced. I suppose I may simply be spoiled from my 100mm lens...?

Oh one more thing.. I don't have the steadiest hands, so whenever I can I carry a tripod with me. BUT I would still like to have a chance to get at least somewhat decent photos without a tripod, too.

Any thoughts?

Stefanie


P.S.: I hope it's ok for me to post in this thread since my question is almost exactly the same the OP has!

 

[jimthomson]

Bird_Enthusiast
Go for the 400mm f5.6L and a Kenko 300 DGX 1.4 extender. This will give you the reach you want for the birds in trees. It also works well with the T1i. I've added a 3rd party grip to my T1i and it really improves the weight distribution and handling of the long lens.

Scyza
You have identified the three options, the 300mm F4 is frequently used with a 1.4x extender to give a 420mm focal length.
Which one to choose depends on your personal preferences. The 100-400mm is the most verasatile, the 400mm F5.6L is the fastest focusing, but it also has a fairly long minimum focusing disttance. The 300mm has the IS that the 400mm lacks.

People can get great shots with any of the lenses there is some difference in IQ but it is not really significant. So pick the features that appeal to you and go shoot some birds.

 

[Scyza]

Thanks for your input, Jim! I guess I'll go with the 100-400 unless someone brings up an argument I totally haven't considered yet.

Stefanie

 

[Steve Babbs]

If you look at the OP requirement it is primarily for BIF,for a start in case you did not know IS is useless for flyers!. The 400/5.6 is faster focusing,lighter,better balanced and pin sharp wide opening making it the ideal BIF lens. Also the prime holds it value just as well as the zoom.

The 300/4 + 1.4x tc would certainly be quite a lot slower focusing for flyers than the prime (even slower than the 100-400) and the IQ loss with the tc makes the IQ a fair way behind the bare 400/5.6.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the 400/5.6 IQ is right up there with supertele's. BTW I have tried a 100-400 and also currently own a couple of 4 stop IS lenses (not like the very old first generation IS found on the 100-400 and 300/4 ) so I do know what IS is all about. For Birds in flight there is no way the 100-400 or 300/4 + 1.4x tc is as suitable as the 400/5.6 IMHO.

Yes I am aware that IS is 'useless for flyers' and I did read the OP, especially the bit that said: 'Mostly high up in the trees' rather than BIF as the main requirement.

 

[Roy C]

Hello,

I have been pondering which tele lens to buy over the last two months.. I feel I have read just about every single review on the net about the lenses I am considering and I still cannot decide...

I have a 60D and until now, my most used lens was my beloved 100mm 2.8 macro. I intend to shoot mostly small singing birds, those interest me most. I am not particularly interested in shooting birds in flight.

So, the lenses I am considering are:

Canon 100-400
+ versatility
+ IS
+ long reach
- image quality & bokeh not as nice as a prime

Canon 300mm 4.0
+ IS
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
- possibly too short?

Canon 400mm 5.6
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
+ long reach
- no IS

I am currently leaning toward the 100-400, although I have borrowed the lens before and I wasn't actually completely convinced. I suppose I may simply be spoiled from my 100mm lens...?

Oh one more thing.. I don't have the steadiest hands, so whenever I can I carry a tripod with me. BUT I would still like to have a chance to get at least somewhat decent photos without a tripod, too.

Any thoughts?

Stefanie


P.S.: I hope it's ok for me to post in this thread since my question is almost exactly the same the OP has!

You would not be disappointing with any of them.
The 300/4 is a cracking lens for the likes of butterflies (especially if used with an ext tube) but is to short for birds for most folks - add a 1.4x tc and the focal length is OK but IQ and AF speed drops.

The 100-400 is a good all rounder especially if you do not have other lenses like the 70-200 and would like to use it for things other than birds at times.

The 400/5.6 is a good choice for just shooting birds (and is most definitely my preference of the three). The lack of IS poses no problem whatsoever for me and I am a weakling old age pensioner - it is just a matter of developing a good hand holding technique and using a shutter speed that's fast enough for your ability.

Attached are a few shots taken hand held by a weakling OAP with the 400/5.6 recently BTW a wood pigeon is a very fast bird and not easy to nail IMO.

 

[Roy C]

Another good test of a lens for a lot of folks if your are reach limited is the crop-ability factor, especially for web shots - to this end I have always found the 400/5.6 to be very good. Attached are a couple of shots showing the full frame and a very heavy crop (again handheld of course). Nothing that good I admit but reasonable for web shots IMHO.

 

[postcardcv]

Canon 100-400
+ versatility
+ IS
+ long reach
- image quality & bokeh not as nice as a prime

Canon 300mm 4.0
+ IS
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
- possibly too short?

Canon 400mm 5.6
+ excellent image quality / bokeh
+ long reach
- no IS

I have owned all three of these lenses and can honestly say that any difference in IQ is so small as to be irrelevant. The 400 has the fastest AF but it also has the longest minimum focus distance. The 300 has edge in low light but only when used without a 1.4x (which is often we'd to increase the reach) it also has the shorted MFD which makes it a good insect lens. The 100-400 cuts the middle ground, a slightly longer MFD than the 300 and slightly slower focusing than the 400 but it's an excellent all rounder. Personally I'd be happy to shoot with any of these set ups, so as advised work out which feature is most important to you and go for that lens.

 

[Scyza]

Thanks for your answer and the sample images, Roy!

I do not own any other long lenses so far, my 100mm is the longest. So the 100-400 would cover a good range for me. Somehow I have a feeling though that I will be using 400mm most of the time anyway.

Your images are really stunning! All taken with the 400mm? I really doubt that I could ever get shots like that handheld, even with an IS lens haha. I really shake a lot, don't even know why, I'm not even THAT old ||

Stefanie