Printable View
Hello All,
I'm a new memeber to the BPN, but not to photography. I have a burning question. If given the option between the 300mm F4L IS & the 400mm F5.6L which one would be better suited for bird photography? I'm leaning on the 300mm F4L IS because of the added f-stop on top of the IS.
Regards
Norm
Hi Norman,
Neither lens is ideal for bird photography, but I think the 400mm is the better choice. Reach is very important and the longer focal length of the 400mm is a plus when compared to the 300mm F4. If it was the 300mm F2.8, then I would choose the 300mm and combine it with teleconverters. The best choice, imo, is the 500mm F4, but they are way more expensive.
norman -
there's another thread about this very issue:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=1016
i own a 500mm F4 and the 300mm F4. Not being the "jock" Jim is, i find the 500mm far too heavy for hand held BIF. I much prefer the 300mm with a x1.4 teleconverter. i've passed on the 300mm F2.8 again because of weight and cost
the other Canon L lens often discussed is the 100-400mm zoom
a suggestion would be to try both lenses at a local camera shop
good luck
Hi Peter,
I currently have the 100-400mm lense, but I think the 300mm or the 400mm prime would be better. Don't know for sure. I would entertain the possible purchase of the 500mm F4 if it's that much better than the 300 or 400mm.
Thanks
norman -
if you're serious about bird photography and can afford it - - BUY THE 500MM F4.
just look at the number of post here at BPN which have been made with the lens
i doubt very much you'll ever regret it
Norman,Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Pyett
If you can afford the 500mm, that is a way better choice than the 300mm F4 or the 400mm F5.6. If you already have the 100-400mm, then neither the 300mm or 400mm will buy you much improvement. If you have a sharp copy of the 100-400mm, I think it has many advantages over either the straight 400mm or the 300mm F4. I also own the 100-400mm. I have a very sharp copy of it. I tried the 400mmF5.6 for a while, but it's only advantage was the lighter weight. I ended up selling the 400mm and buying the 300mmF2.8. Now I have the 500mmF4, 300mm2.8, and the 100-400mmF5.6. I use the 500mm almost all of the time. The 300mm F2.8 is my backup lens or lens to use when 500mm is too much. I only use the 100-400mm when I need the flexibility of the zoom.
Peter,
I'm not a jock at all. I'm not particularly large or strong or in good shape. The secret to hand holding the big lenses isn't strength, it's technique. That is what I teach people during my workshops.
Ummm, gotta agree with Jim on this one. I have a 100-400L IS on a 20D (EFL640mm) and while it is light, for birds 99% of my shots are at full focal lenght. Rarely do I use it at 1 or 200. Between 8 Mpx and having to crop at 100% or better to get tight there are allot of problems. Check out the MTF's at the Canon site, the 100-400 and the 500 will surprise you compared to the F400. I am getting ready to get the 500mm and am trying to figure out if I want 10MPX or 16. I think I know the answer but still undecided. You can't get too big for birds and with the IS you would be surprised what you can handhold.
To start with: Stay away from zooms like the Black Plague. They just don't offer the sharpness needed for bird photography. (They're great for flocks and blurs--and they beat the snot out of a prime when it comes to a zoom-blur!!)
I used the 300 and 1.4 for over a year and it's a great lens and a good combo---served me well until I made the investment in big glass. I recently purchased a 400 f5.6 for a travel/BIF lens and it's flatly a terrific lens. Stands right up there with the 500 and 600 for sharp, sharp, sharp. Wish they'd add IS to that lens!!
My advice: Get the 400 f5.6--and a tripod. You'll get images that you'll be proud of.
Regards,
John
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=154 MTF 500 is the winner and does come in an IS version. Nuff said.
400mm 5.6 without a doubt. It is a great lens for hand holding.
It also holds up well when using converters.
James
Yeah, right. I guess I should just throw all of my 100-400 zoom pictures away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo
Thanks for the laugh.
Doug
400 f/5.6 is all I have for now (500mm next moth I hope) and the results are simply amazing. Check out my website. 90% of images in the avain gallery are with the 400 f/5.6 L.
Thanks!
Bill, What is "MTF"?
The poster was looking for advice on a 'first lens' aka his 'primary' lens for bird photography. In those cases, I'm firmly of the opinion that the 100-400 is a very poor choice--aka 'the Black Plague'. Dropping 1600 on that lens, and then suffering through the disappointments of trying to use it as a primary birding lens isn't a great way to start this hobby. For several hundred less he can pick up a prime and get superb results--hitting the delete key a lot less for sharpness issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug West
The MTF charts tell the tale, as do user ratings on lenses--primes are the way to go for long telephotos. Zooms are a compromise with flexibility as the key delervable, at the cost of sharpness across apertures.
For a long zoom the 100-400 is a fine lens. It just doesn't deliver like a prime. (Hence the long lines of long primes one sees at sporting events.)
Modulation Transfer Function :) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-mtf.shtml . It is a distortion measurement of a sort. What goes in as opposed as what comes out. I do not have a problem with ANY of these fine L series lens BUT as a matter of fact the 500 does out perform the 300, 400 and 400/.56. For general ed. the 100-400 edges out the 400/5.6 at 400mm as well. I think it more a matter of practicality and useability than a small sharpness factor for you. If you already have a 400 (100-400), the 500 is the next logical step IF you wanna be closer, and isn't that the whole point. As far as the 4.5/400 and BIF I can't imagine more blurred shots than one with no IS.
Johnny,Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo
I started with a 100-400mm lens as my primary birding lens. I was lucky and got a very sharp copy. My 100-400mm makes very sharp images at 400mm wide open. I even used it with a 1.4xTC on a non-pro body. I used to tape the pins on the tc just to get it to autofocus. It made sharp pictures wide open at full zoom even with the TC. I have had several images made with this lens get published, so it works well for professional use too. In 2004 I won the NSN avian image of the year with an image made with the100-400mm lens and a 10D. I bought into the hype about the 400mm F.6 being sharper and lighter than the 100-400mm, so I went out and bought a 400mm F5.6. After using it for a while and comparing to my 100-400mm, I sold it. There just wasn't any real difference in sharpness and I wanted the flexibility of the zoom. Now I have the 300mm F2.8, the 100-400mm, and the 500mm F4 as my long lenses. I think there is some issues with some 100-400mm lenses not being sharp, but there are sharp ones out there and a sharp 100-400mm is a great lens for bird photography. It would be my bird photography lens of choice for under 2K. The flexibility of the zoom makes it a great choice if you can't spend the money for the big primes and a bunch of other lenses.
Opps, sorry just one more thing. Jim just touched on it. A 400mm f/5.6 will not take (without a Jerry rig) a TCX which would limit you down the road and push you into that 500 anyway which with a 40D will give EFL800mm and with a 1.4TCX 1120mm. If you can afford $$$ wise get it over with and buy the 5. :)
If you can afford it, I would get the 500f4IS. It hardly ever leaves my camera body, most of the time I also use a 1.4x TC. With a little practice you can handhold it and the image quality is as good as it gets.
Jim, You have mentioned, “I was lucky and got a very sharp copy” speaking of the 100-400mm. What exactly are you referring to? Are not all 100-400L made the same. If not how can I tell if I have the “very sharp copy”. I will say that what I think is sharp, isn’t.
After doing a preview in canons digital workflow @ 50 or 100% view. It shows how far off I am. Is there a test that I can do to verify if it’s me or the lense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Pyett
I have heard from other photographers that the sharpness of images produced with 100-400mm lens varies greatly from one copy of the lens top another.
You could try visualy comparing similar images from another lens at 100% size.
BTW: The 100-400mm is an L class lens. You can purchase a new one for $1310 from B&H, not $1600 as mentioned above.
Some can be a "little" soft wide open. Other than that it is an L series lens from head to toe. f/8-f/11 is a sweet spot.
Thank all of you for the wealth of information. I've learn quite a bit in a short period of time. Of all the money spend to date (a lot) this has been the most productive purchase.
Again, thanks for all the input.
Maxis, I've enjoyed photog. with you, thanks for all you've enformed me off. It's great making photo-friends.
Best to All
Norm
The same applies to the 400 f/5.6. I'm lucky to have a very sharp copy even wide open. In my opinion the 400 f/5.6 blows away the 100-400. In fact I would say my 400 is a hair less sharper than my friend's 300 f/2.8 wide open but if you step down the 300 to f/8, my 400 is less sharper.
