Canon Nikon Dilemma (1 Viewer)

[ahood]

Hi,

Im currently using a Canon 30D with the 100-400 and Im now wanting to upgrade to a Canon 7D. However Ive also been looking at other lenses that both Canon and Nikon have to offer.

I photograph birds and the odd bit of other wildlife, and with my 100-400 im always at 400mm, which has made me want to go for a prime, as the IQ is much better. Having IS doesnt really bother me so the Canon 400 5.6 seems like a good choice for me, but the MFD seems a bit too big. As on some occasions when in my hide birds can come quite close. The other option would be to go 300mm f4 and have the 1.4 converter also to give me the option of 420mm 5.6 and the MFD of this lens is much closer. The only issue with this is the converter will be on most of the time and I dont think il be happy with the IQ.

Ive been looking at Nikon, which would mean swapping my equipment and maybe getting the D300s or the D7000. This is attractive as Nikon seem to be slightly better when using high ISO, but only 1 stop or so better. The Nikkor 80-400 doesnt look very sharp, so I started looking at the 300 f4 they have, which does look very sharp, maybe sharper than the Canon 300 f4? But I'd have the same problem of using a 1.4 converter on it most of the time. However the reviews of this setup are very positive, and I would have the option of a sharp 300 f4 and what sounds like a reasonably sharp 420 5.6. This setup wont have IS/VR but that doesnt bother me.

So id be looking at either:

Canon 7D with 400mm 5.6 OR 300mm f4 + 1.4tele
OR
Nikon D300s/D7000 with 300mm f4 + 1.4tele

So because of this im having trouble deciding what to do. Has anyone used any if these setups?

Sorry for the essay.

Alastiar

 

[dubaron]

The camera is just a lens and CCD holder. Do you want to change mount formats and have to start anew with new lenses? The costs can go crazy when you switch lens formats. I prefer the Nikkor glass over the Canon glass and thus my choice for Nikon all those years ago.

What it really comes down to is the glass you like and the features of the CCD. My first foray into the digital DSLR world is rather long in the tooth, but I still like the Nikkor glass so my next camera will be a Nikon.

As for you setup choices, I would suggest you rent them and see what works best for you. The rental fee might even be able to be applied toward a purchase. Try before you buy if you can.

Sometimes choice is a bad thing

 

[ahood]

If Nikon did a similar priced 400mm to the canons 400mm 5.6 the choice for me to move would be easy. In the long run, Nikon could prove cheaper, as their longer lenses are, at the moment, not as expensive as Canons. But as you said changing, the initial cost could be more.

 

[photodog25]

All the cameras you mentioned are slated for replacement soon. I would suggest to wait until September as there is a big photo show in Germany this year. The 7D is a good camera, but the sensor technology is indeed lagging behind the Sony sensors which are used in the Nikons.

 

[jourdaj]

Most reviews I've seen suggest that the 100-400mm is preferred, and sharper than the 400/5.6 prime. Plus, you get the VR. As a Nikon shooter I'd been disappointed at the complete lack of (good) options for the Nikon cameras. The 80-400 is optically very good, but extremely poor at focusing. I'd stick w/ the 100-400, get the 7D, and use a TC only for extremely cooperative birds. You'll get more sharp keepers w/o the TC and cropping will produce better results than the extra bit of magnification. Best of luck!

 

[lmans66]

Most reviews I've seen suggest that the 100-400mm is preferred, and sharper than the 400/5.6 prime. Plus, you get the VR. k!

Whoa dude.... What planet r you on? A prime is always better hands down although admittedly not by much. I have had the 300 f4, the 100-400 n now the 400 f 5.6. The latter plus the 7d is the best canon combo.

But in this case since you already have the 100-400, keep it.... It is excellent glass. Improve your camera to the 7d... A striking improvement u will find.

 

[Roy C]

Most reviews I've seen suggest that the 100-400mm is preferred, and sharper than the 400/5.6 prime.

The 100-400 is obviously better in the 100-399 range but sharper than the 400/5.6 :-O, you obviously have only been looking at a few selective and biased reviews or have completely misinterpreted the results.

 

[pppppvvvv]

The 100-400mm is also sharper than the 400/5.6 at 400mm.. in the range 6 foot to 11 foot from the subject!

Is the mfd of the 400/5.6 really 11.5 foot? I just googled it, so have no first hand proof

 

[Roy C]

The 100-400mm is also sharper than the 400/5.6 at 400mm.. in the range 6 foot to 11 foot from the subject!

Not if you use an extension tube
Besides which when shooting at anything other than infinity the 100-400 will not even get to 400mm !!!

 

[Roy C]

To the OP here are a few images taken with the 400/5.6 and 7D if it helps, maybe not up to everyone's standards but good enough for me.
I do not own the 400/5.6 now but having previously owned one and the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS (reputed to be one of Cannons sharpest ever lenses) I can tell you that the 400/5.6 glass is right up there with the super tele's in terms of IQ albeit it is slow at f5.6 and does not have IS.

The lens also takes a 1.4x tc very well considering you are at f8 to start with - I have some sample images I took last week if you wanted to see them.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Not if you use an extension tube
Besides which when shooting at anything other than infinity the 100-400 will not even get to 400mm !!!

LOL, good to know.

 

[lmans66]

The 100-400mm is also sharper than the 400/5.6 at 400mm.. in the range 6 foot to 11 foot from the subject!

Another Trick I have learned with the 400mm is just to step back a bit. It works.

not too many times you need to have to use that 6-11 foot range, sadly...would love to have more opps but again, I just step back a foot or two and viola, the bird comes in focus. Given the ease of that fix, not sure if the price difference warrants it.

 

[Roy C]

Another Trick I have learned with the 400mm is just to step back a bit. It works.

not too many times you need to have to use that 6-11 foot range, sadly...would love to have more opps but again, I just step back a foot or two and viola, the bird comes in focus. Given the ease of that fix, not sure if the price difference warrants it.

I agree Jim, I wish I could get within 6 foot or so to wild birds but my normal shooting range is more like 60 foot + :-O - even if I had a 800/5.6 I would mostly be looking for more focal length not less.

In all seriousness though if I could get really near to birds I would certainly prefer the 300/4 to the 100-400 that's for sure - the 300/4 is also a superb lens for the likes of butterflies, especially when used with an extension tube.

 

[Bob58]

In all seriousness though if I could get really near to birds I would certainly prefer the 300/4 to the 100-400 that's for sure - the 300/4 is also a superb lens for the likes of butterflies, especially when used with an extension tube.

How much closer can you get Roy with an extension tube

 

[Roy C]

How much closer can you get Roy with an extension tube

Depends on the size of the tube Bob but having never owned a 300/4 I would not know the exact distances
To give you some idea with the 400/5.6 the MFD is 3.5 mtrs but with :-
13mm tube = 2.55 mtrs
31mm tube = 2.05 mtrs
65mm tube = 1.55 mtrs
So you can see that tubes can substantially alter the MFD - of course the trade off is that the max focus distance also shortens when using tubes.

With the 300/4 having a MFD of 1.5 mtrs I would have though it would be very easy to get under 1 mtr with tubes.

 

[tjsimonsen]

Another Trick I have learned with the 400mm is just to step back a bit. It works.

not too many times you need to have to use that 6-11 foot range, sadly...would love to have more opps but again, I just step back a foot or two and viola, the bird comes in focus. Given the ease of that fix, not sure if the price difference warrants it.

Sometimes it may and sometimes not. The 100-400 is also a very good lens for butterflies and dragonflies. If you take a step or two back all that happens is that the subject gets smaller on the sensor. I certainly couldn't have got this with the 400 prime: http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/126568751
I've also been in a few situations where taking a step backwards would have seen me drop off a cliff, or a bridge, or into a bog.

The zoom suffers a bit in AF speed, and - perhaps - in sharpness. Although I've seen test that indicate the latter may not be the case (or marginal at most). But the zoom is much more versatile. If versatility is important, go for the zoom – if not, go for the prime.

Thomas

 

[Roy C]

The 100-400 is also a very good lens for butterflies and dragonflies. If you take a step or two back all that happens is that the subject gets smaller on the sensor. I certainly couldn't have got this with the 400 prime: http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/126568751

Thomas

Hi Thomas, I have had a look at your images and if you are satisfied with them then that is all that really matters - they are very good but to me they are just a compromise compared to a real macro lens. Horses for courses springs to mind.

I have also got loads semi macro shots (attached) taken years ago with the 400/5.6 but I admit all garbage compared to a macro lens (or even the 300/4 with tubes).

 

[pppppvvvv]

I guess it comes down to how you go about your business when birding. Someone who casually rambles round the countryside or sits in your Nature Reserve hide is probably never going to get particularly close to birds and would need every mm of focal length they can afford.
Others with patience and a degree of ingenuity may sometimes find themselves magically close to wildlife that is un-concerned by their presence. I'm not talking here of walking up to them slowly, dressed in camo until they fly off, or creeping up to their nest by the way!

Sounds like original poster is fortunate enough to have these magical experiences, so I would recommend go for the Canon and 300mm, if 300mm can't cope, (and modern cameras can take a crop much better these days for stuff that is a bit further afield), then consider a TC, or at least with Canon you have the 400mm option to fallback to.

Hope this helps, you realise on here we are all taking photos of birds, but all very different in our environment and approach,

Peter

 

[tjsimonsen]

Hi Thomas, I have had a look at your images and if you are satisfied with them then that is all that really matters - they are very good but to me they are just a compromise compared to a real macro lens. Horses for courses springs to mind.

I have also got loads semi macro shots (attached) taken years ago with the 400/5.6 but I admit all garbage compared to a macro lens (or even the 300/4 with tubes).

Agree 100% Roy. I use a true macro whenever possible. However, the pic I linked to was taken from a broadwalk in a pitcher-plant bog. If I had tried to get close enough to get a similar shot with my 100mm macro, three things would have happened: 1) the dragon would have flown away; 2) I would have got stuck in the bog; and 3) I would likely have been fined for disturbing the habitat of a federally protected species (the pitcher-plant which grew thick in that area). As you say, horses for courses.

Thomas

 

[Bob58]

Depends on the size of the tube Bob but having never owned a 300/4 I would not know the exact distances
To give you some idea with the 400/5.6 the MFD is 3.5 mtrs but with :-
13mm tube = 2.55 mtrs
31mm tube = 2.05 mtrs
65mm tube = 1.55 mtrs
So you can see that tubes can substantially alter the MFD - of course the trade off is that the max focus distance also shortens when using tubes.

With the 300/4 having a MFD of 1.5 mtrs I would have though it would be very easy to get under 1 mtr with tubes.

Will have to do bit of experimenting I think Roy :t: