Recommended First Tele for Birds

[Jeff Barton]

I am looking for recommendations for telephoto lenses for shooting birds with the 7D. I'm not ready to leap into the high cost range of the Canon 500 or 600's.

I've been considering the Canon 400L 5.6 without IS or most likely the Canon 100-400L. I like the versatility of the 100-400 and the IS, but the 400 reportedly is a little sharper.

I've also been reading about the Sigma 50-500, 150-500 and 120-400. However, the reviews all downgrade them on the long end which is what I will use most.

Am I missing any options in the sub $2000 range? Is the Canon 100-400L the best overall choice?

[Harshad Barve]

What about 300/F4 + 1.4x , should come under 2000$ with IS, Right now I am using it and lens is fantastic with or without 1.4X

[Roger Clark]

I agree with Harshad. I have the 300 f/4 and like it a lot. Very sharp both with and without a 1.4x TC. The 400f/5.6 is probably similar sharpness (I do not have one). The 300 f//4 is my telephoto of choice when I want to travel light, otherwise I take a 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4.

Roger

[Hal Everett]

The 400 mmf5.6 is very sharp and VERY fast to focus. I have a big tele, but this is always on a camera body and close by for BIF shots.
Hal

[Peter Coskun]

I own a 400 f5.6 lens and it has not let me down, its lightweight, accurate and has speedy autofocus and produces very sharp images. I too have thought about getting a 300 f4 and 1.4x extender or even the 100-400mm but once i started shooting with the 400 f5.6 prime i haven't had any second thoughts. It is a great lens for BIF

[arash_hazeghi]

I recommend 400 f/5.6L, it is the best for flight shots and only second to 500 f/4. Checkout my galley dozens of flight shots made with this lens with various cameras. 2nd Choice should be 100-400 if you need IS and versatile range.

[Jeff Barton]

Thanks for the quick responses. I have the 70-200 f4 IS so I was looking for more reach and thus was looking in the 400mm range. The 400 sounds very good, I worry a little about the lack of IS but I suppose most good shots will be done in bright sun and/or at a higher ISO to compensate. Any problems with the lack of IS on the 400?

[Peter Coskun]

Thanks for the quick responses. I have the 70-200 f4 IS so I was looking for more reach and thus was looking in the 400mm range. The 400 sounds very good, I worry a little about the lack of IS but I suppose most good shots will be done in bright sun and/or at a higher ISO to compensate. Any problems with the lack of IS on the 400?

I have not found the lack of IS to be a problem for me with the 400 f5.6L. It is not intended for very low light but with a camera capable of high iso speeds with little noise that should not be a problem.

[Melchor Berona]

I had the 300 F4 Is + 1.4x combo for awhile, until I tried the 400 5.6. I went and got a 400 for three reasons. I always found myself using the 300 +1.4 combo alot, I found that the 400 AF was quicker and more accurate and I the 400 was sharper at 5.6.

I can live w/o IS, just need to be wary of the camera speed.



cheers

[Ed Cordes]

My wife and I have both the 100-400 as well as the 300 F4 IS and 1.4 TC. Gail usually shoots with the 300/ TC combination. She finds it light weight and easy to HH. However, she many times does miss the versatility of the zoom for non bird things. The closest focus distance of the 400 F 5.6 is often a problem for our conditions.

So, as always, it is a trade off. If you are only shooting birds and since you already have a medium zoom, I might get the 400 F 5.6. If you need closer focus for butterflies, flowers and such get the 300 F4 IS with the 1.4. If you need ultimate versatility consider the 100-400.

Choices and choices.

[Julie Brown]

Hi Jeff. I posted a similar question on this forum when I joined BPN. Like you, I am not ready to spend $6100 on the 500mm f4L IS. I have the 300mm f4L IS and love it! It was my first L lens and it is very versatile. If you get the 1.4x TC, you still have AF. This makes it a little heavier, but still easy to carry around. After reading all of the discussions and reviews I am now thinking of getting the 400mm f5.6L and the 7D as well.

[Paul Burgess]

If you have, and are keeping, the 70-200; then I think that the 400mm f5.6 would be an excellent companion lens. You have the short end of the range with the 70-200, and the long end with the 400. With a 1.4x TC, you also have a 98-280mm lens. So you have pretty much all the focal lengths that you would have with a 100-400, but in a reportedly faster and sharper package. Only draw backs are that you don't have IS at 400mm, and you have to switch lenses to get the full range.

[Bill Jobes]

The 400 5.6 is amazing. You won't regret it if it's your first choice.

[Jeff Barton]

It is certainly sounding like a good move would be the 400 f5.6 and the 1.4 converter. I hadn't really thought out the option of using the 1.4 converter with the 70-200 but that would give me the the coverage of the shorter end of the 100-400. The 400 5.6 I could use for Birds and surfing where the emphasis is on the long end usually in good light. Thanks again.

[Bruce Miller]

I have the 100-400 and love it. However, I suffer from Lens envey. I have decided that hand holding even with IS does not yeld me great results. However on a tripod I get good results with the 100-400. Since I am moving toward the tripod I have also been thinking that I should get a 400 f5.6 (to be used on tripod) and then maybe carry the 70-200 f4 with or without the 1.4x.

Since I can't quite get myself to buy a 400 5.6, I think I might rent one for a month and see how I like it compared to my 100-400.

Oh, I have also considered the 300 f4+1.4x. I can see situations where all three of these would have their nitch. Maybe 10 years from now,I'll own all three. But then again, if I buy all three, I could almost afford a 500 f4...

I'm not sure if this is the part of photography (trying to decide on equipment) that I hate or love...

Bruce

[John Haig]

I have the 300/4 IS and 1.4...I often shoot wildflowers and like the close focus. I frequently work from a blind so I don't always need the 1.4 but love it for distant/small subjects and flight. I also photograph deer and other large animals and love it for that as well, both with and without the 1.4.

[Roger Clark]

Regarding the 300 f/4 IS +1.4x TC versus 400 f/5.6 no IS:

See my post on AF systems at:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...45764#poststop

There is more to IS than stabilization for taking the picture; it also helps stabilize the image for the AF systems during tracking. So depending on your tracking ability and how steady your hands are, IS might make a big difference in ones ability to get good BIF.

Roger

[Jeff Barton]

Thanks. It gets harder and more complex the more you study it.

[john jackson]

Hi Jeff

Three great lenses. All have lots of pluses and few minuses. Any one will get you good results. I recommend you go into a shop to handle them and see which one you have most fun playing with.

[Glenn Nevill]

When I was considering which long lens to start with, I too had trouble deciding between the 100-400 and the 400 f5.6.

I came across this review at luminous-landscape.com comparing the two which helped me decide.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

It has some side by side comparison shots from the two lenses.

Note the full crop blowups in particular.

So I went with the sharper lens. I've since added the 500 f4 and I like to carry both whenever possible, but when I want to travel light, the 400 f5.6 is my favorite. It also works well with the 1.4x teleconverter, but you will need a 1 series body to autofocus with it attached.

[Hal Everett]

With regard to the 400mm f5.6 and it's lack of IS: If you are shooting BIF, your shutter speed will be faster than 1/1000th. At this exposure, IS is almost irrelevant unless you have a very severe tremor. The lack of IS makes it a lighter lens to travel with, carry, and swing around. With a tripod and cable release, your still life shots will be as good as any IF lens. I use a tripod and cable release or timer delay whenever the situation allows with my IS lenses.

Hal

[John Haig]

I've read a number of posts on the Canon Digital Photography Forums and elsewhere that claim IS mode 2 is helpful when panning with moving birds, and I have found this to be the case in my experience...it smooths out the panning action, even at higher shutter speeds, when hand-holding.