• 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.

Lens for flight photography (1 Viewer)

Clive Watson

Clive Watson

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit ampheta
So, I'm thinking about getting a smaller, hand-holdable lens to compliment my 600mm, particularly for taking flight shots. Obvious choice is the 100-400mm I would think, but does anyone have any opinions about any other lenses I should look at?
 
two other lenses to consider would be the 300 f4 IS (works nicely with a 1.4x) and teh 400 f5.6, which is often said to be the best flight shot lens available.
 
I agree entirely with Peter. Please however be aware that the 400 prime is said to be faster than the 100-400 zoom. Having said that , getting on the bird is probably the biggest cause of missing shots and a micro second of speed won't make much difference. I have done flight shots of peregrines and they are pretty fast and had no trouble with speed! However the other lenses are easier to manage and both wickedly sharp.

I have found the use of IS for hand held shots invaluable and the hit rate in poorer light increases. The prime is said to be THE flight shot lens and I agree with that, but do you just want flight shots?

I am off out now with my Prime 500 and 100-400 for flight shots:t:
 
a.dancy said:
I agree entirely with Peter. Please however be aware that the 400 prime is said to be faster than the 100-400 zoom. Having said that , getting on the bird is probably the biggest cause of missing shots and a micro second of speed won't make much difference.
Click to expand...

I agree that getting onto the bird is the key to getting flight shots and that takes practice (probably why I'm trash at flight shots)... having owned both the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6 I can attest that the prime focuses noticely quicker than the zoom.
 
Thanks for the replies so far. I should perhaps have added that my budget is not endless and may well affect my final choice. I'm intending to take my 40D to the Bird Fair and try a few lenses out.
 
Hi Clive,
I found that the 100-400 is easier to use for flight shots than the 400 or 500 f4.
I try to lock on to the bird with the lens at the 100 end and with the camera on AI servo. Follow the bird and zoom in as required. I tried to photograph hunting Ospreys with the 500 F4 lens but quickly discovered that the 100-400 was the tool for the job.
Trying to find the bird in the 400 end is often hard to do. I was initialy sceptical of the pull push zoom of the 100-400 but soon found out that this is the best for me.
My opinion only as I am sure there will be better advice from others.
 
I have not had the 400 prime long, but I had some lessons with my 70-300 zoom for BIF,
and there's a lot of advantage, to pre-focus at the distance you think the birds will be.
If I cant get them 6ft wingspan Gannets in focus (Brempton Cliffs to-morrow)
I will have to commit Harry Curry you know what I mean.
 
I've been recently having a go with BIF's after getting one of the 400 primes: the weight, handling and AF speed make it very well suited to this job.

In my opinion, zooms make it worse! I used to use a sigma 135-400mm, and - although it is very slow AF-wise - found that deciding whether to zoom in/out or not slowed me down just as much as the focussing. Just my opinion though.
 
Last edited:
AC/DC said:
In my opinion, zooms make it worse! I used to use a sigma 135-400mm, and - although it is very slow AF-wise - found that deciding whether to zoom in/out or not slowed me down just as much as the focussing. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...


It may be your opinion and it is one I agree with. I find that deciding on what zoom ratio to use does slow me down, too. Among other things, my new 400 prime will take that decision away from me!
 
Hi Clive,

I use the 400 5.6 specifically for flight shots, it's very fast at locking on compared to my 100-400 IS lens.
 
My choice would be the Canon 300 f4 IS. Since getting this lens my 100-400 is hardly used. The IQ of the 300 is much better than that of the 100-400 (IMHO).
I also have the 1.4 extender and this works really well on the 300. Also the AF on the 300 is quicker than that of the 100-400.
As you already have the beast of a 600 I think the 300f4 would make a good addition :)
 
I have both 100-400mm and 400mm f5,6 and I take quite a few flight photos using the 40D. I would never ever advise the 100-400 over the 400mm f5,6 for flight photos - the autofocus is way too slow in comparison. The zoom is okay for larger slower movers but not the small and medium sized species.

It's not just a question of getting on the birds it's mostly a question of the autofocus reacting quickly enough to stay with them as you pan.

I had both lenses out with me today and despite being a bright sunny day the focus on the zoom couldn't keep up, but the prime had no problem.
 
Interesting stuff. It's beginning to look like I might need to save up for another prime. I was wondering about the 300 myself, I already have a 1.4x so that's not a problem. Now to check the prices....
 
I have the 100-400mm and manage to do flight shots not only of birds but also dragonflies and find my biggest problem is me keeping up with birds and if i can the af certanley does its job IMHO although the 400mm 5.6 is faster the zoom is no slouch.
 
Unfortunately, the bigger part of capturing birds in flight really isn't as much about the lens or your ability to follow the bird, but has A LOT to do with the body driving the autofocus. For years I'd found capturing birds in flight difficult with a decent ~$1000 body (no brands mentioned to protect the innocent) until I found myself standing with a buddy who makes his living taking bird images. We had the exact same lens and were tracking Gull-billed Terns flying back and forth along the channel in front of us. Each pass, I'd be lucky to get one shot while my buddy was rattling off dozens! He'd laid out ~$3500 but I wanted to believe he was far better than I and it wasn't that simple. By the third time, I asked him to let me see his camera. I tracked the next bird that passed and found that the instafocus was able to instantly track the bird and lock at the slightest touch of my finger. I depressed the shutter release and a burst of 6 images zapped off like a flash.... beauties. That was a derpressing realization. ;p
 
I have read many thousands of post on loads of different sites regarding the old 100-400 v 400 5.6 debate and opinions are divided, with both camps claiming their lens is best but when it comes to which one is best for BIF it has been widely accepted by both camps that the prime is superior. This is one of the few thread where I have seen people claiming otherwise although I note that those users who have both lenses all come out for the prime for BIF. I would advise Clive to ask the same question on a few different sites to get a balanced view.
 
Last edited:
Clive Watson said:
Interesting stuff. It's beginning to look like I might need to save up for another prime. I was wondering about the 300 myself, I already have a 1.4x so that's not a problem. Now to check the prices....
Click to expand...

Clive, if you are thinking about the 300 f4 then this is Art Morris's take on it.

"If you want a lens primarily to photograph birds in flight, the 400mm f/5.6 is better by far than either the 300mm IS alone or the 300 IS with a 1.4X tele-converter"
 
Thanks again for the replies. Not fully conclusive, but I never expected that. At least I know the lenses I need to be looking at now. The main message seems to be 'get the 400mm if you can afford it'. Funnily enough, I'm not in a major rush to part with a considerable sum of money though.
 
I've just been re-reading this thread and I've just realised you've been talking about the 400mm f5.6 whereas I've been checking prices of the 400mm f4. I'm off to hospital now for some heart resuscitation.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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

C
I've got a Canon R7 and need to update my lenses
Replies
15
Views
1K
Barred Wobbler
Barred Wobbler
M
Sigma 150-600 Lens Alternatives
Replies
4
Views
1K
mike nesbitt
M
Clive Watson
Lens repair
Replies
10
Views
770
Clive Watson
Clive Watson
M
Canon 1300D
Replies
0
Views
415
MattG
M
Arbu
EOS RP with EF 100-400mm lens
Replies
3
Views
774
pdwinter
pdwinter

Users who are viewing this thread

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