Long lens decision (1 Viewer)

amelius

New member

• May 5, 2009

• #1

I currently own a 20D with 24-70mm f2.8L and 70-200 mm f2.8 IS L lenses. I would like to get more into bird photography but my current budget is limited. I see my options as follows:

1. 1.4 TC w/current lens
2. 400 mm f5.6 L w/ monopod
3. 300 mm f4 IS L

If I am using current setup, I am thinking that a hide and "camo" may help with getting bird shots. Since I don't have tons of money I might just have to work harder at it.

What do you guys think?

cheers

 

Overread

Hunting birds with a canon

• May 5, 2009

• #2

I regularly use the 70-200mm f2.8 IS with a 1.4TC and find it a great setup for zoos and the like where you can get closer to the animals - for birds its going to be hides and tame robins - otherwise your just not going to get close enough to them.
I have used a 2* teleconverter on the lens and got reasonable results: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/sets/72157613520763508/

though a hide would be ideal to get closer still (and that is at 400mm) - and it needs good lighting so that you can shoot at f8 so as to preserve as much image quality as possible.

As for the 400mm and 300mm its a debate many have. If you go for the 300mm you will likley need a 1.4TC for birds otherwise its a bit short - but it does have the bonus of having IS which the straight 400mm f5.6 lacks

 

Neil-T

Moorlands Macro: Close up and personal....with bug

• May 5, 2009

• #3

In my opinion I would go for the 400mm f/5.6L, as this is the prefered lens for most bird photographers on a budget. I have got the 40D with the 400L and it works great. I also use a Kenko 1.5 and the Canon 1.4 TCs with it in really good light and have got reasonable results. There are a lot places around which have a feeding station for birds, you could even create one in your own garden, this is where you need to practise as trying to get close to really wild birds is very tricky indeed. I use a cammo net which is very light and easy to carry around, which I use to throw over myself, you will be surprised at how close they will come, patience is needed for this. You could even sell the 70-200 to fund the 400L if thats what you want to do. Best of luck with the bird photography. Neil.

 

lmans66

Out Birding....

Supporter

• May 5, 2009

• #4

I am still learning but I picked up a 300mm with a tele and it works fine...many times I do not use the tele but I do have it when needed. I think both the 300 and 400 would be safe bets from what I read. You can't go wrong....

 

Nikon Kid

Love them Sula Bassana

• May 5, 2009

• #5

I will say the 400mm f5.6 because I have one, its just a really good sharp lens and the best for BIF.

 

M

macshark

Electron Chaser

• May 5, 2009

• #6

Get the 400mm f/5.6L, especially if you already own a good tripod or monopod...

 

M

mrmarklin

Well-known member

• May 7, 2009

• #7

My 70-200 is my sharpest lens! A 2x TC = 400mm f/5.6, so why spend the extra? And AF will still work.

If I were to get one of the larger primes, I think more aperture would be in order, because with a TC on the 400 f/5.6 one loses AF. And more aperture means much more $$$$$$$$.

 

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

• May 7, 2009

• #8

mrmarklin said:

My 70-200 is my sharpest lens! A 2x TC = 400mm f/5.6, so why spend the extra? And AF will still work.

If I were to get one of the larger primes, I think more aperture would be in order, because with a TC on the 400 f/5.6 one loses AF. And more aperture means much more $$$$$$$$.

Click to expand...

I have seen several posts in different forums where users have compared the 70-200/2.8 + 2xtc with the 400/5.6 (and 100-400) and it does not even come close in IQ terms and AF is a lot slower than the 400/5.6 as well.

Here is a link to just one of several reviews I have seen regarding the 70-200/2.8 + 2xtc http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

 

Last edited: May 7, 2009

JohnZ

Well-known member

• May 7, 2009

• #9

What Roy said !