• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Lens. Someone tell me what to buy! (1 Viewer)

M

mhooper

Member
Hello All,

I have the usual dilemma about what new lens to buy. And I've read too many fora and too many opinions. And now I don't know what I want :)
I'm in Sydney, and you can see what my style is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhooper/
(Perhaps I don't have a style?!)

I currently have a 600d and my longest lens is the 55-250. Since buying a Sigma 35 I have some understanding of just how much I need to upgrade to a better bird lens.
If I lived out of Sydney, I'd be buying a 400 5.6, since there are lots of opportunities for birds of prey and other birds in relatively good light. But around Sydney I mostly find myself in fairly dark locations (Royal NP, Heathcote NP).
I'm not really a sit-still-and-wait person, since I like walking as much as looking at birds. Either the 100-400 or 400 5.6 would be ok for me to carry around. I can't imagine not handholding...

The final consideration is $$$. I see 100-400s exchanging second hand in the $1300 range, which is about my limit. I see very few second hand 400s second hand anywhere near me. Almost none.

What do I buy?
M
 
you say sometimes in dark locations so you may be better of with a 300f4isL + 1.4 tc

you can then get f4 at 300 with IS for the darker area's

Rob.
 
My 400 5.6 is my second favorite lens (behind my 50mm 1.4). Not sure how "dark" your dark is, but it looks like you've got a great beach in Sydney. I live on the beach and have 300 days of sunshine per year, so the 400 does well here, it's more than light enough for hand holding and carrying, and it's affordable for me. Even on overcast days, there's still plenty of light for it. It only struggles at dusk. My vote is the 400. I think you'll be very happy with it.

Bill
 
the 400 f5.6 gets my vote to ,robs suggestion is valid to but could entail a bigger cash outlay .the reason you don't see many used 400's is there that good
 
Hmm, as I remember Royal NP from a 2-day visit some years ago, I'd say go for the 300/4 + a 1.4xTC. Sunny as the beaches, open land and outback in your nick of the woods may be, the sclerophyl forests can definitly be gloomy. Especially if you shoot in the morning or late afternoon. Should you find your self in the rainforets of Queensland, the cool forests of Tas, or the amazing forest in the Perth-Albany arch, you are certainly going to appreciate that extra stop of light. In fact you may well long for a 300/2.8.

Thomas
 
Michael,
The 400/5.6L is a great lens, though since I live in Sydney too and shoot a lot in forests etc out in the Hawkesbury areas I ended up with a 300/4L IS and converters. I had no problems using even 2x converter with it, or 1.4x and 2x stacked. Though as with any bird photography, in my opinion, the closer you get the better your image quality becomes. I have taken tens of thousands of shots with my trusty old 300/4L IS lens over about five years and it is now sitting in a draw since I got a 500 two years ago.

The IS is very handy when hand holding, which is what I do about 80% of the time with all my birds. Plenty raptors out in the western suburbs where I live. :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/105582591@N02/
 
mhooper, why did you not go for the 100-400mm lens that you were considering in your first post? It seems to be about the same price and you get image stabilisation which I don't think you get with the lens you bought.

I'm in a similar situation to you. I have a Canon 400D that I use with a (black) Canon 70-300mm lens and I'd like to upgrade to something more powerful. I understand that using an extender with my current lens won't work well. I'm thinking of getting the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM with a 2* extender, budget around £1200. Any opinions anyone has on the wisdom of this choice would be appreciated. I do landscape photography as well as birds so a zoom lens is rather useful to me.
 
Arbu, I have not used the Canon zoom but do you mean 2x extender or mkii ? If the prior I think you'd be best not bothering as the 2x on anything other than the most very recent Canon primes will not give results that you would do anything with - other than delete.

Paul
 
Paul - Herts said:
Arbu, I have not used the Canon zoom but do you mean 2x extender or mkii ? If the prior I think you'd be best not bothering as the 2x on anything other than the most very recent Canon primes will not give results that you would do anything with - other than delete.

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks. I meant this. I'm not sure what the mkii is - when I google this I get camera bodies. Are the most recent Canon primes the ones that cost £5000 or so? If so, that's too much money for me.
 
Arbu said:
Thanks. I meant this. I'm not sure what the mkii is - when I google this I get camera bodies. Are the most recent Canon primes the ones that cost £5000 or so? If so, that's too much money for me.
Click to expand...

that is a mkiii 2x extender that you have linked to - mkiii is the current generation but 2x of any generation is not advisable except on those £5000 + lenses
 
Paul - Herts said:
that is a mkiii 2x extender that you have linked to - mkiii is the current generation but 2x of any generation is not advisable except on those £5000 + lenses
Click to expand...

Thanks. Looks like the 100-400mm lens is what I should get. Is a 1.4X extender advisable with that? 1.4X doesn't sound that much of an enhancement so perhaps I shouldn't bother.
 
Adding a converter is going to slow the auto-focus (if it works at all), reduce the widest aperture available and degrade the image.

You haven't actually said what you are intending on photographing but if it's just birds then you too might want to consider the 400 f5.6 as you will want to be shooting at 400mm with the zoom most of the time anyway - lack of IS isn't the end of the world as you can hand hold in good light and use a monopod as and when nedded. There's plenty of threads on both lenses and you can google sample images so before you spend your budget do some real research. I understand exactly how hard it is to make a decision when a limited budget is available - don't rush it is the best advice I can give and choose a solution that fits best with your needs.
 
Birds and landscapes. Sometimes in the forest, sometimes in the mountains. I suppose I could carry my existing 70-300mm lens with me and change it over as needed, but it would all be a bit cumbersome.

This guy here says that the image quality with the zoom lens is only very slightly worse than the fixed focal length one. So it seems the zoom lens would be a better choice for me.
 
Sounds about right. Then you could think about covering the gap from 100mm down. I have used a cheap sigma 70-300 zoom for landscapes and within limitations of the lens been happy with the results so there are plenty of options for you, maybe even a cheap secondhand body in the future to avoid all the lens swapping too
 
I decided to get the 400mm because I realised a) I wanted a prime and b) I found a second-hand 400 5.6 for 1/2 the price of a new 100-400, and it was in mint condition.
I struggle enough to get a bird in focus and vaguely exposed correctly, so then adding a zoom seemed too much for my head. The 400 is light enough for me to walk around all day with it in my hand, and thin enough for my hand to hold it easily, which is also useful.
The final reason was that I thought hard and realised that I) photography is about light, and II) I live in one of the sunniest places on the planet, so complaining about a lack of light and the need for IS seemed ridiculous. But I do remember living in the UK, and I do remember how dark it can be!
Anyway, I'm super pleased with it. I've learnt so much about taking photos since buying it.
I just uploaded a photo I took at dusk, about 10 mins before sunset, with the sun dipping into cloud/trees, and although I can imagine IS being very useful in that situation, it's amazing how much light there is.

Feeding at dusk by M Hooper, on Flickr



Arbu said:
mhooper, why did you not go for the 100-400mm lens that you were considering in your first post? It seems to be about the same price and you get image stabilisation which I don't think you get with the lens you bought.

I'm in a similar situation to you. I have a Canon 400D that I use with a (black) Canon 70-300mm lens and I'd like to upgrade to something more powerful. I understand that using an extender with my current lens won't work well. I'm thinking of getting the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM with a 2* extender, budget around £1200. Any opinions anyone has on the wisdom of this choice would be appreciated. I do landscape photography as well as birds so a zoom lens is rather useful to me.
Click to expand...
 
mhooper said:
I decided to get the 400mm because I realised a) I wanted a prime and b) I found a second-hand 400 5.6 for 1/2 the price of a new 100-400, and it was in mint condition.
I struggle enough to get a bird in focus and vaguely exposed correctly, so then adding a zoom seemed too much for my head. The 400 is light enough for me to walk around all day with it in my hand, and thin enough for my hand to hold it easily, which is also useful.
The final reason was that I thought hard and realised that I) photography is about light, and II) I live in one of the sunniest places on the planet, so complaining about a lack of light and the need for IS seemed ridiculous. But I do remember living in the UK, and I do remember how dark it can be!
Anyway, I'm super pleased with it. I've learnt so much about taking photos since buying it.
I just uploaded a photo I took at dusk, about 10 mins before sunset, with the sun dipping into cloud/trees, and although I can imagine IS being very useful in that situation, it's amazing how much light there is.

Feeding at dusk by M Hooper, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don't actually do a lot of photography in the UK, but a lot of bird photography that I would do with a new lens would be in forest, plus I photograph landscapes as well, so it seems the 100-400mm lens with IS is the one for me.
 
If you're taking pictures of birds only the 400 is definitely a better option than the 100-400. As long as the shutter speed is fast enough you don't need IS. And in a forest and shooting a small bird that moves a lot you need fast shutter speed anyway...

The only reason to choose a 100-400 for me would be if you want to take pics of insects or anything else other than birds, which is admittedly a pain with the 400.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Andy Hall
Sony FE 300mm f2.8 OSS G Master Lens
Replies
10
Views
2K
dakuan
dakuan
Evan Atkinson
Choosing between 2 lenses.
Replies
9
Views
1K
mav12
M
J
New birder in GA trying to figure out where to buy binoculars where I can try them out.
Replies
11
Views
474
Trinovid
T
O
New Lens vs Digiscoping
Replies
9
Views
1K
Mikbul
Mikbul
E
Best Lenses for Busy City Bird Photography?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Rolosama
Rolosama

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top