IMAGE STABILIZATION necessary on 400 EF??? (1 Viewer)

chrisduval · Jun 22, 2006

OK, here's my situation:

I'm a young-ish birder in the Pacific Northwest and am interested in birding while hiking and on family vacations to the coast and to the mountains. I have a Nikon digiscope setup (Fieldscope 82mm and CP 4500) but am interested in the versatility of a DSLR. My three year old daughter and I are starting to take walks together and I'd love to be able to photograph while we're out as well.

I am thinking of the following setups:

1. 400 EF 5.6 and the TC 1.4

2. 300 f/4 (with IS) and TC 1.4

I am concerned about lack of IS (#1). In your experience, is IS necessary - there will be definite times that I will be out in not directly bright sunlight. Early morning, late afternoon - but nothing too dark. I just want to try to get around without having to lug a tripod around with me.

A fellow Oregonian young birder and fantastic photographer, Noah Stryker, (see his pictures at www.noahstryker.com) uses the 300 f/4 lens (with IS) and a TC 1.4. His response is that IS has been very helpful in low light conditions and that the extra versatility has also been a positive factor as well.

Again, I don't mind occasionally needing to use a tripod but I primarily am interested in a set-up where I can be tripod-free.

Thanks for you advice!

Chris

chrisduval · Jun 22, 2006

web-site correction

A fellow Oregonian young birder and fantastic photographer, Noah Stryker, (see his pictures at www.noahstryker.com)

oops - That's www.noahstrycker.com

SimonG4ELI · Jun 22, 2006

Consider a monopod - much lighter and easy to set up. FWIW I have a Manfrotto and like it a lot.

I use a 400 f/5.6 and am very happy. With a bit of practise you'll be OK - unless it's windy in which case it can be difficult.

I moved from a 100-400mm IS USM to the 400mm USM and don't miss the IS when using the lens hand-held.

Pluvius · Jun 22, 2006

Another Bird Phoographer added to my site thanks for that Chris

macshark · Jun 22, 2006

With good technique and a bit of luck, it is possible to get decent pictures hand-holding the 400 f/5.6L at shutter speeds as low as 1/200, though your "hit-rate" under such conditions may be as low as 30%. Depending on the body you have, pushing the ISO up to 800 or even 1600 is typically feasible, when combined with a good noise reduction program such as NeatImage.

Otherwise, a monopod is your best friend with the 400mm f/5.6L when there isn't enough light. Bogen 680B combined with the Bogen 678 Universal Folding Base makes a great setup for the 400 f/5.6L which will let you use shutter speeds as low as 1/100.

Keith Reeder · Jun 22, 2006

chrisduval said:
IS has been very helpful in low light conditions and that the extra versatility has also been a positive factor as well.

That's the answer to your question in a nutshell.

I use (and have used) stabilised lenses for quite a while now, even though I have (I believe) pretty decent hand-holding technique with unstabilised lenses.

If you're shooting in "perfect" conditions - loads of light, calm air etc. - and always at 400mm, then you can probably do just fine without IS - the 400mm EF 5.6 is a great lens if you're good enough to get the best out of it, though the learning curve for using unstabilised long lenses handheld is far from trivial for many people.

But for much Real World shooting, IS can be invaluable: I've got usably sharp pictures from my Sigma 80-400mm OS at 1/15th of a second:
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/74851/sort/1/cat/500/page/6

Bearing in mind I've done my fair share of shooting with unstabilised lenses, I am in no doubt whatsoeverthat this would be impossible without stabilisation.

I've also taken sharp shots while being banged around by 30+ mph Winter winds coming straight in off the sea:
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/80532/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/80604/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/80605/sort/1/cat/500/page/5

One thing I'm going to say which I really hope you take to heart is there is no one right answer to your question.

Some people seem to be hell-bent on convincing the world that because they like a certain lens, it's unquestionably the only one worth considering.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are as many "right" answers to this question as there are people to ask it.

Weigh up your shooting conditions and - if it is likely that you're going to be in marginal situations on a regular basis - consider IS: it's not essential, but I know I wouldn't be without it (I'm using the Canon 100-400mm L USM IS now, which is at least as good optically, as the Sigma I used previously).

I don't suggest for a second that my pictures are anything special (I'm a newbie, having only owned a DSLR - my first SLR of any sort - for 14 months), but I think they're good enough to show that not only does IS never hurt, it can surely pull rabbits out of hats on a regular basis.

SMC2002 · Jun 22, 2006

Given the choices, I'd pick the non-IS 400 over the IS 300. Keith is spot on about IS being helpful in less than perfect lighting. Mac and Simon also are right about a monopod being a better solution than a tripod (or maybe even IS). Personally, I use a pod or brace against a fence or tree when using the 400mm at slow speeds.

The birder's lament is "never enough focal length". With this in mind, it would be prudent to get the longest high quality glass you can afford

Steve

paul goode · Jun 22, 2006

In threads like this, for me, the proof lies with people who are prepared to attach images, or link to their galleries so we can see what they are taking. And Keiths images show what a handheld IS lens can do - take good images!

Paul

bpw · Jun 22, 2006

I would go for the 400mm lens without hesitation, because of my experience with it, and also because I went down the IS Zoom plus teleconverter route when I first started, and I didn’t like it. I accept that may have been my lack of experience at the time.

But (the bit you won’t like), I would use a tripod unless it is impossible to do so (flight shots, no room in the hide, crawling on the floor, etc). I’ve tried handholding and using a monopod, but I have a much higher success rate with the tripod.

I know others will disagree with this, and that’s fine. I don’t mind lugging a heavy tripod around on my shoulder, others will. Some can handhold a 400mm lens and get an acceptable hit rate, I can’t. Some are happy with the lower hit rate that macshark refers to, but I’m not.

I am hesitant about submitting this post, as I know that people can be very sensitive about the length of their lenses and how rigid they are (yes, I was watching that thread!).

Adey Baker · Jun 22, 2006

You'll certainly need to practice your technique whichever option you choose. It's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that IS will do the job for you and become sloppy in your technique.

It's often possible to find something to lean on or against to help support your lens-holding arm or by squatting down on one knee you can support your elbow on the other knee. So, I'd say that IS isn't essential but one advantage that the 300mm F4 lens does have is a much closer focussing distance which may be enough to sway your choice if you're into butterflies, dragonflies and the like.

paul goode · Jun 22, 2006

bpw said:
I would go for the 400mm lens without hesitation, because of my experience with it, and also because I went down the IS Zoom plus teleconverter route when I first started, and I didn’t like it. I accept that may have been my lack of experience at the time.

But (the bit you won’t like), I would use a tripod unless it is impossible to do so (flight shots, no room in the hide, crawling on the floor, etc). I’ve tried handholding and using a monopod, but I have a much higher success rate with the tripod.

I know others will disagree with this, and that’s fine. I don’t mind lugging a heavy tripod around on my shoulder, others will. Some can handhold a 400mm lens and get an acceptable hit rate, I can’t. Some are happy with the lower hit rate that macshark refers to, but I’m not.

I am hesitant about submitting this post, as I know that people can be very sensitive about the length of their lenses and how rigid they are (yes, I was watching that thread!).

But your website shows what great images the 400 f5.6 can take, albeit, I imagine from your comment, mainly taken with a tripod. That should help the OP

Paul

macshark · Jun 22, 2006

Since I am not a good enough long-lens user (yet) here is a link to a set of excellent bird photos taken with the 400 f/5.6L:

=> http://www.pbase.com/zylen/birds

Daniella was nice enough to put a lot of 400mm f/5.6L test images (including some with 1.4x and 2x TC) on her pbase site as well:

=> http://www.pbase.com/zylen/tests

graham catley · Jun 22, 2006

you can see a lot of recent images taken with the 300f4 with and without the 1.4 converter on my blog at http://pewit.blogspot.com/ all are hand held--if you get as far down as the Quail the lens was on my camera bag on the floor with me laying down behind it!---the 300f4 has an excellent close focus at 1.5m a real plus point for tame birds (which you get in the states) and also if you plan to do any insects, flowers etc) --people harp on about extra focal length but the difference between a 300 and 400 is only a few feet, its just a question of a bit more patience and good field craft---

compa · Jun 23, 2006

OK ... first a bit of background. I own the 100-400 f/5.6 IS and the 300 f/4 IS lenses as well as 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. I prefer images from the 300 f/4 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter to those from the 100-400 f/5.6 IS at the 400 position.

Shutter speed is all important for a sharp photo - a 300 at f/4 compared to a 400 at f/5.6 is double the shutter speed. That combined with the 300's IS make for a really great combination of features. That extra 100mm of reach is simply not as important. You can generally get 25% closer to your subjects if you are carrying just a camera and lens than you can with a tripod, camera and lens. In my book that more than overcomes the 100mm benefit (no extra weight and quick to be ready).

The closer focus of the 300mm is not to be scoffed at. You can point the lens almost straight down and take an in-focus photo. Sure can't do that with the 400 f/5.6!

Also the f/4 provides for more blur of those distracting things outside your subjects focus area.

On a trip last month I used the 300mm + 1.4x teleconverter most of the time. Photos are here:
http://www.jseaman.com/ee/list.php?exhibition=16&pass=public

SMC2002 · Jun 23, 2006

Granted the 100 extra mms doesn't mean much to some folks. Although it is really 160mms extra on a 1.6X camera and about 225mms extra if using a 1.4X TC (896mm FOV versus a 672mm FOV). To me that's substantial.

I seldom shoot birds at speeds I cannot handhold at. Which is about 1/200 with the TC attached to my 400mm F5.6. Not very slow, I know.....lol I wouldn't get much use out of IS I guess. Speeds too slow? I just bump the ISO to 800.

Besides 2 of my 400mm + 1.4TC fairly heavily cropped pics below, I'd add another link to the excellent link provided by Mac.

http://hawkman.smugmug.com/gallery/1415049

Steve

SimonG4ELI · Jun 23, 2006

SMC2002 said:
Given the choices, I'd pick the non-IS 400 over the IS 300. Keith is spot on about IS being helpful in less than perfect lighting. Mac and Simon also are right about a monopod being a better solution than a tripod (or maybe even IS). Personally, I use a pod or brace against a fence or tree when using the 400mm at slow speeds.

The birder's lament is "never enough focal length". With this in mind, it would be prudent to get the longest high quality glass you can afford

Steve

Note: I'm not an expert, some more rambiling thoughts.

I have rarely found myself in the situation where I could not find support - if the bird is overhead then (obviously) the camera rests on my face to an extent. Otherwise there's a post or my knee or ...

A friend has a minor genetic problem where he has a small shake while holding a camera, so for him IS or monopod is essential.

I read some where that IS is worth about two f stops, I can't comment on this. No doubt the info is in the canon lens specs. (Comment anyone ?)

If you buy 300mm IS you *will* want more focal length as others have said. I am now playing with the 400mm and 1.4x converter, this sun has just come out so I'll see what I can do this lunchtime using it both hand-held and with the monopod.

Not exactly addressing your question: I have the 100-400mm IS USM but decided to buy the 400mm as it's sharper and the AF is very quick. In good light I am very happy, I'm OK down to 1/200 of a second or so when hand-held without IS. I still have a lot to learn.

Despite the IS attraction I don't see me using the 100-400mm IS USM again for wildlife although I may possibly use it for dragonflies etc.

Added: at the moment I'm not trying to be the world's greatest photographer, just get half-way decent images of the birds in my commune here in Switzerland for my own amusement.

chrisduval · Jun 24, 2006

would love to see your comparison shots...

Thanks all for your great comments. I've also been reading back on previous posts from folks with similar questions and have been learning alot.

I've enjoyed digiscoping a tremendous amount - went out today - and continue to think that the huge reach that is possible is fantastic. However the time factor involved in digiscoping, hoping that the bird will sit in one place for 15 seconds or more, can be frustrating...

Simon: I'd love to see any comparison shots of hand-holding and monopod usage from your afternoon shots!

SimonG4ELI · Jun 24, 2006

chrisduval said:
Simon: I'd love to see any comparison shots of hand-holding and monopod usage from your afternoon shots!

Hi - was using a monopod all the time I'm afraid. I was able to use ISO 100 as a result.

SimonG4ELI · Jun 25, 2006

Trying to think things through, were I to have to replace my 400mm f/5.6 today I would buy the same, not the 300mm IS (they cost +/- the same here).

Why the 400mm? The extra focal length and fact that it is very sharp. I'm OK using this hand-held as long as I have my wits in the ON position. My main failing at the moment is relying of AF when I should use MF to get a distant subject in focus rather than the twig it's sitting on. This happened with a woodpecker this morning - his support twig was OK, he was a tadette out of focus, but with MF I may not have had a better result.

I would not like to have my birds reduced in size. OK - with the 300mm you could use an extender, but that's increasing the price and fiddle factor.

I've settled down on 400mm hand-held or 400mm and 1.4x using a monopod or some support.

Use Google - another camera site has great reviews of lenses and the 400mm f/5.6 scores about as good as anything out there.

So far I've only used the 1.4x with the local herons, nothing else poses for very long. I may try walking around with the 1.4x mounted and try manual focus on the 'usual suspects' to see how it goes.

If it's getting dark I'll use my 580ex flash or go for a beer.

Note: I use the 350D, I have read that the 30D may has better AF when it gets darker but don't know at all.

Ugly Heron Children, 400mm, 1.4x, monopod

Heron Parent with Ducking, 400mm AF hand-held :-(

chrisduval · Jun 25, 2006

Thanks for your replies and thoughts - looks like 400 with a monopod might be the way to go... Both pic's look terrific to me!

Chris

Simon HB9DRV said:
Trying to think things through, were I to have to replace my 400mm f/5.6 today I would buy the same, not the 300mm IS (they cost +/- the same here).

Why the 400mm? The extra focal length and fact that it is very sharp. I'm OK using this hand-held as long as I have my wits in the ON position. My main failing at the moment is relying of AF when I should use MF to get a distant subject in focus rather than the twig it's sitting on. This happened with a woodpecker this morning - his support twig was OK, he was a tadette out of focus, but with MF I may not have had a better result.

I would not like to have my birds reduced in size. OK - with the 300mm you could use an extender, but that's increasing the price and fiddle factor.

I've settled down on 400mm hand-held or 400mm and 1.4x using a monopod or some support.

Use Google - another camera site has great reviews of lenses and the 400mm f/5.6 scores about as good as anything out there.

So far I've only used the 1.4x with the local herons, nothing else poses for very long. I may try walking around with the 1.4x mounted and try manual focus on the 'usual suspects' to see how it goes.

If it's getting dark I'll use my 580ex flash or go for a beer.

Note: I use the 350D, I have read that the 30D may has better AF when it gets darker but don't know at all.

Ugly Heron Children, 400mm, 1.4x, monopod

Heron Parent with Ducking, 400mm AF hand-held :-(

IMAGE STABILIZATION necessary on 400 EF??? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Electron Chaser

Watch the birdie...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Electron Chaser

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread