• 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 Bird Photography (1 Viewer)

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.

Who are you kidding?
Those are some fantastic images!
:t:


It looks like the 400 5.6 would be best for me.
I already have the 55-250mm to cover insects and mammals that are close.
 
Somehow I have a feeling though that I will be using 400mm most of the time anyway.

Stefanie
That is one reason why the push-pull on the 100-400 would never bother me Stefanie, I would always be at 400mm :-O lol

On a serious note we do not want to get carried away with all this gear talk as most DSLR cameras and certainly any Canon 'L' lens are capable of great images in the right hands. Getting near to the bird, photographic knowledge and processing ability all come above the gear IMHO.
 
On a serious note we do not want to get carried away with all this gear talk as most DSLR cameras and certainly any Canon 'L' lens are capable of great images in the right hands. Getting near to the bird, photographic knowledge and processing ability all come above the gear IMHO.

That's true, however I am a bit of a pixelpeeper because I have sold photos in the past and those always needed to look near-perfect even when viewed in original size... I don't want to spend some ~1300EUR just to keep asking myself if I made the right choice and if I wouldn't perhaps have gotten that little bit more sharpness I want with a different lens.

I guess you can't really go wrong with any of those L lenses though.

Stefanie
 
I'll chip in with my experience .
After much deliberation and advice (cheers Roy) , I got the 400 5.6 .
The IQ is shockingly good , much better than my 70-200 f4 .
Got a picture of a least weasel with it ( animal is 5 inches long) . Magnifying in Photoshop goes right down to pixel level detail within the hairs (550d) .
 
I'll chip in with my experience .
After much deliberation and advice (cheers Roy) , I got the 400 5.6 .
The IQ is shockingly good , much better than my 70-200 f4 .
Got a picture of a least weasel with it ( animal is 5 inches long) . Magnifying in Photoshop goes right down to pixel level detail within the hairs (550d) .

Congrats on a great purchase!
 
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. :)

I just got the grip myself a week ago from Vello!
Great purchase and I saved a 150 dollars from the Canon one.

What's the difference between the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders?
 
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.

Oh snap, I totally missed your reply yesterday because I posted
almost at the same time!

Thanks for you input, I suppose if the difference is THAT minimal I should really go with the 100-400, simply because I do not have any other long lenses yet and it would cover a huge range for me.

And if I get totally hooked on photographing birds I'll probably want a different lens sooner or later anyway, no matter what I buy now haha.

Steefanie
 
What's the difference between the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders?
The 1.4x loses one stop of light and increases the focal length by 1.4x and the 2x loses two stops of light and increases the focal length by 2x.
Note, neither will AF on a non one series Camera with either the 400/5.6 or the 100-400. You can get extenders that will attempt to AF but at the end of the day non 1 series cameras are only built to AF up to f5.6 so anything over that is very hit or miss with AF especially if using the central AF point.
A 2x tc is just about a non starter for these slow lenses as you are at f11 before you start, the image in the viewfinder will be very dull and even manual focus will be difficult. Also IQ can take a big hit. A 1.4x tc is a better bet but even then thing like BIF will be almost impossible.
The 400/5.6 takes a 1.4x quite well in terms of IQ but if I were you I would forget all about a tc until you have mastered the bare lens.

p.s You can get AF via live view AF on certain cameras like the 7D but for that you need a tripod and good light.
 
The 1.4x loses one stop of light and increases the focal length by 1.4x and the 2x loses two stops of light and increases the focal length by 2x.
Note, neither will AF on a non one series Camera with either the 400/5.6 or the 100-400. You can get extenders that will attempt to AF but at the end of the day non 1 series cameras are only built to AF up to f5.6 so anything over that is very hit or miss with AF especially if using the central AF point.
A 2x tc is just about a non starter for these slow lenses as you are at f11 before you start, the image in the viewfinder will be very dull and even manual focus will be difficult. Also IQ can take a big hit. A 1.4x tc is a better bet but even then thing like BIF will be almost impossible.
The 400/5.6 takes a 1.4x quite well in terms of IQ but if I were you I would forget all about a tc until you have mastered the bare lens.

p.s You can get AF via live view AF on certain cameras like the 7D but for that you need a tripod and good light.

That's a good point. I should worry about extenders after I'm adjusted with the lens. Now I just actually got to get the lens.

Thanks for everyone's help and replies!
 
Out of interest as I'm trying to slowly save up for an L series lens, how much can one expect to pay either new or second hand for a Canon prime 400 5.6L in Uk?
 
Out of interest as I'm trying to slowly save up for an L series lens, how much can one expect to pay either new or second hand for a Canon prime 400 5.6L in Uk?
Used 400/5.6 tend to go for between £700-£800 depending on condition and age. Cheapest price for a new one on Camera price buster is £1089 but I believe Kerso (flash Cameras) are doing it for £945.
 
Cheers for the replies, I'd snap up Jos's one in a flash if I had the money now but alas not! should be getting an 'influx' of 500 quid or so in a month or two so I'll very likely add my savings to that and get a second hand one of them from somewhere :)
 
Maybe Canon 100-400 mm. Many years ago it had the best MTF results available in the internet among telezooms. Slightly better then analogical Nikon lens, and cheaper, however Nikon cameras were more popular among proffessional photoreporters. And I could not afford to buy Nikon.

Very good was also Minolta mirror 500 mm (currently probably Sony, discontinued), rare example of mirror lens with autofocus those times. Or rather the only one. Without image stabilization, but very small and light and making very sharp images. But like most of mirror lenses without possibility to change aperture, and like all of them generating images getting darker from center towards corners and with characteristical blur points, like bagels, what is a little disturbing.

I had also Sigma from about 100-200 to 500mm zoom before, but images were not very sharp. And sold that lens and bought not budget one, Canon. Costs were finally higher then buying only Canon lens ...

Canon 100-400 mm has very small minimal focusing distance (something about 2 m, probably only a little more then that Sigma), what allows to shot small animals like frogs, small birds or even large butterflies. You can also change focal length (what is obvious, because this is zoom), when something is approaching your hidding, to catch entire animal in a field of view. This is extremaly important. And this feature allows also to shot squirrels in a park ...
But if are not going to go below 400 mm, buy 400 mm, because lenses with fixed focal length are usually better then analogical zoom lenses.

However to take pictures of birds without hidding you need digiscoping equipment (I don' have). At least in areas like Europe, full of hungry humans, where all animals not being afraid of people were shot from arches in the past thousands years. Survived only those keeping themselves away from humans at a distance of arch shot (about 50m ?). Obviously those more precious for culinary purposes or as trophys.

(images attached below were shot very approx 7-12 years ago, picture of prarie dog with blurred flowers in the background looking like bagels and with dark corners is a little unsharp because of me, not the lens)
 

Attachments

  • white-winged tern-Canon100400.jpg
    white-winged tern-Canon100400.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 79
  • american-avocet-Minolta500.jpg
    american-avocet-Minolta500.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 88
  • greenshank-Canon100400.jpg
    greenshank-Canon100400.jpg
    31 KB · Views: 115
  • parie-dog-Minolta500-bagels.jpg
    parie-dog-Minolta500-bagels.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
Does anyone have any input for the Canon 300mm?

This was my basic lens a few years past with the 1.4tc... I preferred it over the 400 prime because I could use it with or without the tc and get 300 or 420 magnification.

But, I can really think of only one time where I needed to take the TC off and use strictly the 300. So in that sense, I am also not a fan of Canon 100-400 zoom as I know I would never go below 400, so why not just have a 400.

After trading in my 300 (very light, great hand held).... I played with a 150-500 Sigma before taking Roy's advice and trying the 400 prime, which I should have done in the beginning. The 400 is just as light and the lack of IS is not an issue.

Long and short of it...the Sigma was lowest quality, the 300 was great but not as great as the 400 for BIF or just plain birds anywhere, anytime.
 
This was my basic lens a few years past with the 1.4tc... I preferred it over the 400 prime because I could use it with or without the tc and get 300 or 420 magnification.

But, I can really think of only one time where I needed to take the TC off and use strictly the 300. So in that sense, I am also not a fan of Canon 100-400 zoom as I know I would never go below 400, so why not just have a 400.

After trading in my 300 (very light, great hand held).... I played with a 150-500 Sigma before taking Roy's advice and trying the 400 prime, which I should have done in the beginning. The 400 is just as light and the lack of IS is not an issue.

Long and short of it...the Sigma was lowest quality, the 300 was great but not as great as the 400 for BIF or just plain birds anywhere, anytime.


Thanks for the input!
Looks like the 400 is the way to go!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top