Lens Advice for Songbirds

I realised yesterday while chasing around lots of NZ robins and tomtits that photographing songbirds is really my favourite kind of photography.
I think it would be a smart move on my part to get some gear that would allow me to do so!
I curently have a 70-200mm f4 and am looking for something longer.
An obvious choice for me (before yesterday) was the canon 400mm 5.6, but I got a bit worried yesterday that 5.6 might not be quite fast enough for song birds which are often in the dark understorey. I was wondering about the 300mm 2.8 (would have to aim for the non-IS version due to the cost)to be used with and without TCs might be better for songbirds. And then I started to wonder whether i might be better off going with the 400mm 5.6 and a flash as well......
Anyone who does plenty of songbird photography with canon that can offer some advice i would greatly appreciate it!

ps.i'll just add that have a 40D and that I have no interest in a supertelephoto. I don't intend to ever carry that much weight when taking photos. I'd rather work on getting closer to the birds.
thanks!

Edward, I think you would be happy with a canon 100-400 IS lens. I use nikon and use an 80-400 VR lens, which is similar, and I really like the size and the close focusing ability which is really good if you can get in close. I think the canon is f5.6, but you can shoot at 400 to 800 ISO to compensate. I also would reccomend that you get a better beamer and a good flash and learn to use them, particularly for fill. This setup is very mobile and can even be used handheld if you are steady (I use a shoulder stock with a monopod sometimes) so you can stay on the little songbirds. This is in my opinion of course.

Dan Brown

Hi Edward. Don't know about the non-IS 300 2.8, but the IS version is a substantial lens. The 100-400 and the 400 5.6 weigh much less in comparison. The 400 5.6 is sharp and totally usable wide open. Not so the 100-400 which needs to be stopped down for maximum sharpness. AF is much faster with the 400 5.6 than the 100-400. But the 100-400 has IS. I think that if you look at the good photos on Avian, Wild and Free, you'll see that most were shot at f/5.6 or smaller. Look in particular at Glenn Bartley's warbler photos. Fill flash is what makes the difference.

A lot people shoot song birds by setting up a blind with or w/o a feeder. You may want to look into this. If you are going to setup a blind, the the focal length depends on the distance of the blind to the perch and even your 70-200 may do. I have seen excellent images from 70-200 and 400 from blinds.

Eric.

Edward most of the songbirds are made with 600 f4.0 lenses Anything else is a handicap.

I understand cost is prohibitive so an alternative would be shorter focal length and working harder on getting close. The 400 5.6 with the camera crop factor is not a bad choice at all except for the minimum focusing distance (high) and you can even use a converter manually (would be an f 8.0) If you can get the 300 2.8 would be very tempting. Would stay away from the 100-400.

One other consideration for going after little birds is the maximum opening, not so much from the light gathering side but form the bg blurring ability. More often than not you would want to minimize the bg detail !!! Good luck and let us know what you end up buying !!!

You might also consider the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC. This combination is certainly not ideal for songbirds (see Alfred's comment regarding the 600mm f/4), but it has several strong points: very light compared to the big lenses, has IS, relatively affordable, great minimum focusing distance (I can focus it on my toes), and very sharp even with the 1.4x TC. The autofocus is not extremely fast and I don't like it that much for flight photography, but it can do that too. See my gallery if you want a few examples: http://www.juddpatterson.com/search.php?lens=300mm

Thanks guys. really great advice
at the moment i am leaning towards the 400mm 5.6. i think i'd be using the 300mm with the 1.4 most of the time so i might as well go for the 400mm.
As for the minimum focusing distance. does any one use extension tubes with that lens for small birds? How does that go? I've never used them before.
Also, what about flash? should i be just as concerned about getting a flash as a new lens for songbirds?
thanks again for all the advice so far.

I have not used any of these lenses, but this may be helpful to you:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...st=0&sk=t&sd=a

If your on a tight budget, get the 400 f/5.6, 1.4 TC and a flash. 430 EX at a minimum, 580 EX for more flash reach (with a Better beamer flash extender) and a tripod. You will need it at the slow shutter speeds for under canopy shooting.

I use both the 300 2.8 and the 100-400 with the 550 flash. I just bought a Gitzo tripod with Wimberley w2 head from Artie. The better tripod and head makes world of difference when imaging songbirds. I hand hold my 300 2.8 with the Canon brand 2x all the time. Both in my Kayak and out in the field. If choosing between the 100-400 and 300 2.8 with 2x, the 2x cannot be used on the 100-400, you definitely wan to go with the 300 2.8, by far, as Alfred noted.

I used the 300 2.8 and 2x on my Canon 5D for 2 years on songbirds. I usually needed a few more frames to get what I wanted, but the patience paid off. It made me think before clicking. I now use my MK2n with the 300 2.8 and the combo rocks! The 100-400 is good for larger birds with lots of light or for larger mammals. Not always the sharpest lens I might add. And sharp is the key for songbirds, as you know.

Lot's to consider. If I go larger prime it will be with the 500 or 600 on the tripod, one day!

Solid advice Grady Thanks for the feedback !!!! Also like the idea of brand lenses !!!

thanks everyone for the great detailed advice!
I think i will go for the 400mm 5.6, 430ex flash and some extension tubes.
thanks again

I have that lens and can say you'll be real happy with it. Trying to get closer can be a game in itself. Just remember, our ancestors made a living by sneaking up on other creatures.