Small, woodland birds with EF 400 or 100-400 IS? (1 Viewer)

Question for all you 400 f5.6 users and 100-400 IS users:

How does this lens perform when trying to capture small, flighty, skittish birds in bright but wooded areas. I'm thinking of birds like nuthatches, junco's, wrens, kinglets, and the like.

I've seen some amazing and beautful flight shots of larger birds (gulls, terns, birds of prey, etc...) with this lens and so I'm just curious how it might perform with smaller birds. Would a Cannon 100-400 lens perhaps be a better choice for small birds (finding them first and then being able to zoom in a bit)? Or a Sigma 80 - 400? Is the fixed zoom a hindrance in this regard - ie; trying to find the bird and being able to zoom out when a kinglet, for instance, flits quickly from branch to branch?

I do want sharpness from my photos...

If $$$ were no object, both lenses would fit the bill nicely!

Chris

chrisduval said:

Question for all you 400 f5.6 users and 100-400 IS users:

How does this lens perform when trying to capture small, flighty, skittish birds in bright but wooded areas.

Is the fixed zoom a hindrance in this regard - ie; trying to find the bird and being able to zoom out when a kinglet, for instance, flits quickly from branch to branch?

Click to expand...

Can't coment on the 400, as I don't have it, but had the 100-400 for a month or so now and it performs well ...I would say very well. The IS aids hand holding which is obviously a big advantage for woodland stuff that is moving about to quick to get a tripod set up etc. It is also a relatively small size lens, so is easy to lug about.

Picture below I took up a tree! I had climbed the tree to check a nestbox of another species and this Spotted Flycatcher appeared, so I swung round a reeled a few shots off. Would not been able to do it any other way than hand held. Most time use it at 400, though this particular shot I think I had zoomed back to about 300, so the zoom is occasionally of value (I think more so when trying to get flight shots)

For small birds, choose the 100-400 for sure.

For very small birds, you have to get very close. with the 400 f/5.6 your minimum focusing distance is three metres - not close enough to fill the frame with the tiny ones. (OK, you can use extension tubes, but mucking about with tubes - lens off, tube on, lens on, snap, lens off, tube off, lens on again - gets very tedious very quickly, and you are always worrying about getting dirt on your sensor.) The 100-400, on the other hand, focuses down to 1.8 metres. That four foot advantage is the critical difference, as I see things.

Also in favour of the 100-400 is the image stabilisation, certainly a very valuable thing to have if you are hand-holding - and for never-still birds this size, hand-holding is definately the way to go. You will find the zoom ability of some use but not all that much. 90% or 95% of the time, you will be at 400mm anyway. (The "zoom out, find bird in viewfinder - zoom in, take picture" method is very useful, but primarily for flight shots, less so for birds in foliage or on the ground. In any case, you will find that, with practice, you don't need to use it as much as you do when you first start out.)

In favour of the 400 f/5.6, it is slightly lighter, slightly longer (the 100-400 is actually something like 105-385mm), focuses slightly faster, slightly less expensive, and is slightly sharper if you don't have a camera movement problem (which you usually do without a tripod or fantastic light). Each one of these 400 prime advantages is a small one, however.

To summarise:

Big differences:
100-400 focuses much closer
100-400 has image stabilisation
Small differences:
100-400 can zoom
400 prime is lighter (not enough to worry about)
400 prime is longer (small but worthwhile difference)
400 prime focuses faster (or so 400 owners tell me)
400 prime costs less (about 10-20%)
400 prime is sharper (but only under ideal conditions)

For all uses, the 100-400 vs 400 prime question is a perennial favourite debating topic, with opinions split about 60-40 in favour of the prime. But for small birds, I think the 100-400 is clearly the better choice.

Lately I have been using the 500 prime for tiny birds, with a 1.4 converter to make it effectively a 700 f/5.6. I'm still experimenting, but at this stage I am leaning to the view that this is a very good tool for the job - but I pay for the reach and image quality with enormous cost and massive weight for a hand-holder. (And focus distance can be a problem, even with tubes.) In open country, it's worth it, but in thicker, well-vegetated country where you can get closer to your quarry, and often can't see a bird clearly until you are very close, the 100-400 is much more practical.

100-400:

100-400:

500 & 1.4TC:

Hi Chris,

I think Tannin has given an excellent, unbiased summary on the 2 lenses.

Excellent lens as it is I do wonder if, in the current 'rush' towards the 400 f5.6, that minimum focussing distance gets overlooked. I've just come up against it with a 500mm prime and it has caused a major rethink in how I 'work' my favourite feeding station.
With patience it's easy to get much, much closer to woodland birds than 3 metres and then any advantage the 400 f5.6 has goes straight out of the window. In woodland the last thing you need is to lose light using extension tubes.

All the best

Paul

I have and use both of these lenses.The 100-400 is so versatile and smaller and easier to carry to places where you may need shorter focussing distances.I must admit ,I use the 400 lens on a regualr basis here at home and in an area where I know a max zoom is needed,also it performs better with a 1x4 extender,but if I am going out of my area where I know I would perhaps need a smaller zoom,then the 100-400 is the lens to take.

http://www.birdsasart.com/bn192.htm

I just ran into this site by Morris - shows some amazing shots of 100-400.

I love this from Art on that page:

"On-line reports that the 100-400 lens is not sharp at the long end are greatly exaggerated..."

Good point above about close focussing too: this is how big a stonechat gets when you're within 9 feet of him..!

I am very much a beginner!

I have both, at the moment I prefer the 400mm due to faster AF with the 350D. The faster AF makes following a moving bird such as a swallow or swift much easier. I find the 400mm is sharper with more distant subjects such a buzzards.

I don't stalk on purpose (I have a dog that takes care of nearby subjects), so the 3.5m minimum focal length isn't an issue. It's hit me once with a coot who was being too friendly .

I would not want to get rid of either lens, for me the 100-400mm advantage is smaller size when travelling by plane (important) and the IS (maybe). I'm yet to take photos in the evening or in poor light when IS would help more. There are owls here which I will soon start to photograph.

Were they the same price I would buy the 400mm, but I am not selling the 100-400mm, I plan to take it on holiday in October.

My ideal would be the 400mm IS!

chrisduval said:

http://www.birdsasart.com/bn192.htm

I just ran into this site by Morris - shows some amazing shots of 100-400.

Click to expand...

Arthur Morris also wrote an article on the 400 v 100-400 debate. Not sure how old the article is though.

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

He also did a comparison between the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 at 400, the prime gave far better results but this test must be a couple of years old now and i cant seem to find it on his web site.

Very nice shot Keith. Good to see that Canon are not letting you down. The bird is almost as big from 3.5 metres, i.e. one step back. I believe the term is LOL.

christineredgate said:

I have and use both of these lenses.The 100-400 is so versatile and smaller and easier to carry to places where you may need shorter focussing distances.I must admit ,I use the 400 lens on a regualr basis here at home and in an area where I know a max zoom is needed,also it performs better with a 1x4 extender,but if I am going out of my area where I know I would perhaps need a smaller zoom,then the 100-400 is the lens to take.

Click to expand...

Can someone clear up for me if the 100-400 is lens works at all with a 1.4x convertor. I know the IS still works but will it autofocus?
I assume the 400mm f5.6 works fine with convertors?
Have just been reading another thread and i think the answer is no on my 350d body.


Cheers
Richard

Richard Ford said:

Can someone clear up for me if the 100-400 is lens works at all with a 1.4x convertor. I know the IS still works but will it autofocus?
I assume the 400mm f5.6 works fine with convertors?

Cheers
Richard

Click to expand...

neither lens will AF with a 1.4x tc unless you tape thre of the pins, which tricks tha camera and stops it from being able to 'see' the tc.

Richard Ford said:

Can someone clear up for me if the 100-400 is lens works at all with a 1.4x convertor. I know the IS still works but will it autofocus?
I assume the 400mm f5.6 works fine with convertors?
Have just been reading another thread and i think the answer is no on my 350d body.


Cheers
Richard

Click to expand...

When taped the 400mm f5.6 is OK-ish in decent light.

Simon HB9DRV said:

When taped the 400mm f5.6 is OK-ish in decent light.

Click to expand...

Ok, i have the 100-400 is so i assume its not very good at all, focus not sharp etc. I have a kenko pro convertor. I will give it a go. Which pins do i tape? There is a group of three and a group of five?

Cheers guys

Richard

Richard Ford said:

Ok, i have the 100-400 is so i assume its not very good at all, focus not sharp etc. I have a kenko pro convertor. I will give it a go. Which pins do i tape? There is a group of three and a group of five?

Cheers guys

Richard

Click to expand...

On the other side of the tc (the side that attaches to the lens) there are more pins. Its the left hand 3 of these.

Paul

paul goode said:

On the other side of the tc (the side that attaches to the lens) there are more pins. Its the left hand 3 of these.

Paul

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul
It works
That will give me something to play with.
I have not been 100% happy with the IS lens though and this thread has me leaning towards the the 400mm prime. Key points for me being that it sounds better at the high end and can be used with Teleconvertor more successfully. I almost allways use the IS at 400mm anyway and am happy to use it on a mono/tripod particularly if its lighter.
Are the result with this lens and 1.4x convertor sharp given good light etc?
I mean sharp/very good. And would you say the Canon convertors are in anyway better than the cheaper options?

Thanks
Richard

Richard Ford said:

Thanks Paul
It works
That will give me something to play with.
I have not been 100% happy with the IS lens though and this thread has me leaning towards the the 400mm prime. Key points for me being that it sounds better at the high end and can be used with Teleconvertor more successfully. I almost allways use the IS at 400mm anyway and am happy to use it on a mono/tripod particularly if its lighter.
Are the result with this lens and 1.4x convertor sharp given good light etc?
I mean sharp/very good. And would you say the Canon convertors are in anyway better than the cheaper options?

Thanks
Richard

Click to expand...

Hi Richard,

Can't help you with your other questions as I use a Sigma lens. However the 400 prime/zoom debate is very popular at the moment and there are plenty of prime users out there so I'm sure someone else can help out.

Paul

Richard Ford said:

Thanks Paul
It works
That will give me something to play with.
I have not been 100% happy with the IS lens though and this thread has me leaning towards the the 400mm prime. Key points for me being that it sounds better at the high end and can be used with Teleconvertor more successfully. I almost allways use the IS at 400mm anyway and am happy to use it on a mono/tripod particularly if its lighter.
Are the result with this lens and 1.4x convertor sharp given good light etc?
I mean sharp/very good. And would you say the Canon convertors are in anyway better than the cheaper options?

Thanks
Richard

Click to expand...

Hi Richard,
I use the 400mm f/5.6 + Canon Extender 1.4x (pin-taped) since a month or so and I'm very satisfied with the results ... you need to learn its pros and cons (still doing it), but this kit works really well with good light with a minimum loss in quality/sharpness; as far as bad light is concerned, yesterday evening I was able to shoot at f/8 in a range of 1/6s - 1/30s at still birds with fairly decent results (on a tripod!)

Of interest to readers of this thread is this review on the net
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

I would agree that image quality is the one thing that i don't want to sacrifice.
The findings seem remarkably clear cut.
Anyone want to buy a Canon 100-400mm IS lens ;-)

Rich