Lens Suggestions

[DennyKyser]

I am new here and from what I see this is a great place to learn. I am wanting to do some bird photography this winter and am figuring I need a little more glass. I really don't want to go over 2K, unless I am really missing something. I can not go the 5k for the longgggg lenses.

Here is what I have now,
Canon 1D Mk III & 5D
50 1.4, 85 1.2L, 16-35 2.8L, 24-70 2.8L, 24-105L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS, 1.4 II extender.

Would you suggest the 300 mm 4.0, or the 400 5.6 or something totally different.

Thanks, Denny

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Denny,
You have got some good glass at the wide and medium range. And you have the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
I have the 300f4 IS. You can use your 1.4 TC with it to get 420mm at f5.6. The 300mm would be cheaper than the 400f5.6. The 400f5.6 is a nice lens. You can see some of the postings in the bird photography forum by Doug Brown with this lens. There are few others who use this lens as well. With the 400f5.6 L lens, you can use the 1.4 TC and you can still have the auto focus at the centre point using your Mark III. The 300mm would be closer in focal length to your 70-200 f2.8 L IS combo with 1.4 Tc. So if I were you, I would avoid that and go for the 400f5.6L.

Without spending much, you can just buy a 2x II TC and use it with the 70-200 f2.8 IS. That will give you 140-400 f5.6 L IS. It is not as good as the 300f4+1.4 TC combo at f5.6. But at f8 the sharpness is good.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Mike Tracy]

I would either go with the 400 f/5,6, 100-400 IS zoom, or Sigmas 50-500. The 400 is quicker to achieve to focus and is generally regarded as sharper then the zoom. The 100-400 is more versatile of course and is equipped with Canons first generation IS. Some claim it's a crap shot whether you will get a good copy or one that's soft. The zoom at least for me doesn't give consistently good results used with a TC. Never personally used the Sigma but those I know who own it like it and it seems to give good results. It's also the least expensive of the 3 I mentioned.

[Paul Lagasi]

My first lens was a 50-500, sold it, swore I'd never buy a 3rd party lens again. Now after changing lenses from Nikon 80-400 (slow), then Nikon 200-400 VR (heavy). I have now bought a Nikon 300 2.8 VR ED II all I can say is wow..works well with tc 1.4x, 1.7x haven't tried it yet with 2x

All that is great but getting back to 50-500 it is a great economical lens costs about $1200, looking back now, its very good for the cost, weighs in at 4 pounds. I just wish it was OS (VR, IS).

Another lens which I havent tried is is Sigma 170-500 which doesn't have the range of the 50-500 but does have OS, about the same price and weight.

As I said above personally won't buy a third party lens again, unless your in a hurry, use your 70-200 buy the 3 teleconverters as suggested by Sabyasachi, which would give you a wide range, save your money and invest in a good 300 or 400 2.8 is lens. I know its expensive, but well worth the money.

I am just a recreational photographer who has learned you get what you pay for.

This is just my opinion, Denny

Paul

[DennyKyser]

Thanks everyone, I am not really leaning to the 300 2.8 IS, This lens I can justify because I can use it at night football games. It is suppose to be pretty fast, any thoughts?

[Alfred Forns]

Would go with the 400 5.6 Great performer and can use with converter with the Mk3. Even if you get a Super Tele later is one lens you will be keeping !!

[Grady Weed]

Denny,

I shoot the Canon 5D and the MK2n. I have the 300 2.8, 100-400, 100 macro and the 28-135. I love my 300 2.8, it has IS, which I need. I use it on the Gitzo 5540LS with Wimberley 2 Head, hand held too. I bird about 50% of my time and that lens with the 2x teleconverter is very nice, or without it. Alfred's suggestion of the 400 5.6 is good too if money is the issue. But if you can swing the bucks, go for the 300 2.8. And I too will not but 3rd party lens. Stay with the maker's mate! You can't go wrong. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Joseph Martines]

Go for the 400 mm 5.6.

You won't be sorry.

It is an absolutely great lens.

A 300 mm 2.8 would be nice but, if you are birding and are going to spend that kind of money then you have to stretch for the 500.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[DennyKyser]

I went with the 300 2.8, every bit of glass I have is 2.8 so figured why change now, with the 1D Mk III and the 1.4 II I feel I can get as close as I need till I get the 500.