DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I have been toying with buying this (Canon) lens for a while. Now I have a little bit of extra cash I am thinking about it more seriously. It would be my only long glass and thus would be pressed into service for birding and wildlife.

1. Is 400mm still too short?
2. Is 5.6 too slow?

It has a very good rep as being very sharp, and very fast AF.

But I am concerned that 400 may be too short, and that at 5.6 maybe it won't be quite fast enough in fading light to give me high enough shutter speed for non-blurred photos (motion blur, not holding blur - I would use a monopod or tripod).

My current longest lens is 200 ( 70-200 2.8 ).

I don't want to get something that won't do what I want, this lens is fairly specialised application for me. It is an area I would like to get into (wildlife/birding) and I don't want to go in with the wrong tools.

Furthermore - I really don't have the budget for a 500 f4 or 600 lens, so I guess if this lens won't do it, then there is no point in me getting the lens. I suppose I could tee it with a 1.4x TC and get a 560 f8 lens - but that's even slower, and no AF. I would also maybe try and use it for motorsports, but I think it might be a tad too long?

The other option I might think about is the Sigma 120-300 2.8. With a 1.4x TC it gives me 400 at f4, and is also a little more flexible. Of course, it is also a lot bigger and about $600 more (going off eBay prices).

i agree that 400 maybe a bit short esp your wouldn't want to stack a tc on to it you'll end up with f/8 or more.
i heard most ppl want 500 - 600 range for birding wildlife may be ok i all depends on what you shoot. see Kipper about this.

or maybe a 500 f/4 manual focus, i seen nikon ais pconverted for under 2000$

I think you'd find 400mm too short... but that all depends on what sort of birds you want to shoot.

I've seen plenty of bird shots taken with a 300mm lens that look fantastic.

Personally though I couldn't do birds without my 500 f4. I'm looking at extending it's reach more with a TC.

There are plenty of (at a quick glance) nice bird shots with this lens on pbase http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_400_56u

Here's one example:

http://www.pbase.com/image/47293938

Of course it's hard to tell image quality with small samples like that but at least it gives you a starting point.

Good luck with your decision.

Hi,

I used to shoot birds in Singapore Jurong Bird Park with 80-400VR. In about 80% I used less then whole 400mm. f/5.6 might be bit slow but with ISO640 or ISO800 You'll be OK, I guess.
Examples:
http://www.hlop.net/gallery.new/v/Singa ... gBirdPark/

I recommend the AIM -7 Sparrow
Speed should not be a problem.

I don't think there would be much bird left after the first shot!

You will never have enough. Almost all those who have 500 and 600 primes still add a tc for more reach. If reach is what you want, consider the sigma 50 - 500 without tc or sigma 120 - 300 + 2x tc. For Nikon users use TC1.7 (a very good compromise). Either way, you still need the basics - such as knowledge of bird behaviour, stalking skills and long lens technique.

regards,

Arthur

Thanks all.

Sounds like 400 is definately too short.

yeocsa wrote:You will never have enough. Almost all those who have 500 and 600 primes still add a tc for more reach. If reach is what you want, consider the sigma 50 - 500 without tc or sigma 120 - 300 + 2x tc. For Nikon users use TC1.7 (a very good compromise). Either way, you still need the basics - such as knowledge of bird behaviour, stalking skills and long lens technique.

I don't think I would be happy with the 50-500 image quality. I want sharpness in my photos. You are right - 500 or 600 is the place to be. I thought about a 2x with the 120-300 which makes 600 f5.6 but generally 2x TCs end up affecting image quality a fair bit, don't they?

Apparently the 400 5.6 is good for flight shots but not really enough reach if you want to be serious about birds. Probably ok for wildlife. Another option is the 500mm f4.5 Sigma (Around $5500 AU). It is a little cheaper than the Canon 500 f4.

The other option is to get a 300 2.8 and a 2x converter. That is quite a good combo. Also a second hand lens may be something to consider. Others have mentioned some other options.

Nicole wrote:Apparently the 400 5.6 is good for flight shots but not really enough reach if you want to be serious about birds. Probably ok for wildlife. Another option is the 500mm f4.5 Sigma (Around $5500 AU). It is a little cheaper than the Canon 500 f4.

The other option is to get a 300 2.8 and a 2x converter. That is quite a good combo. Also a second hand lens may be something to consider. Others have mentioned some other options.

Thanks Nicole. I was just looking up the 500 f4.5 Sigma - and it does seem a touch expensive.

How does the 300 2.8 go with a 2x TC though? I would seriously consider the Sigma 120-300 2.8 with a 2x TC if I knew the quality was there.

I have been spending a lot of time birding these last few months.
I have the 80-400 vr nikon lens and personally feel that it is enough glass for the task.

Having said that I have captured a few shots that I am quite happy with.
I posted a few birds here last week
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=9795
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=9628
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=9615

All the above were taken @400mm

I find that this lens is a little slow in focussing for flight shots.

I spend quite a while hiding in wet grass getting the wren shots and was fairly close in order to get them

I would recommend a nice fast prime lens for the job maybe even the fasted you can afford. you see the pros with 500, 600mm. Sometimes with a TC
It will depend on what sort of birds you wish to get also.

When I started out at this, I figured that I had a nice camera and a 400 lens, how can I fail?? I will just walk around and get good shots of birds.
WRONG!!
you need to learn about your intended targets, learn their habits and where they may be expected to be and then put in the time to get the shots too.
If flight shots are what you want to get, I recommend going somewhere where there are plenty of seagulls and practice on them because you will learn what your equipment will do for you so that you will be able to get the money shots when you are out after more elusive quarry.
Dont underestimate the use of flash when shooting birds also, it can help a lot with bringing out colours in the plumage as well as adding highlights to eyes.
If you get real serious, you could look at a flash extender such as the
Better beamer, to give you more range on the flash.
Steve.

You'd be better off with the 300 2.8 Canon rather than the 120-300 (unless you really want the zoom). Check out this site. Her and her husband are keen bird photographers in China and she uses the 300 2.8. http://www.pbase.com/alibenn/juanlis_birds

I've seen some awesome shots with the 300 2.8 and 2x combo.

Is this sharp enough? taken with 20d and 50-500.

Sigma 120 - 300 f2.8 is even better.

regards,

Arthur

DionM wrote:Thanks all.

Sounds like 400 is definately too short.

yeocsa wrote:You will never have enough. Almost all those who have 500 and 600 primes still add a tc for more reach. If reach is what you want, consider the sigma 50 - 500 without tc or sigma 120 - 300 + 2x tc. For Nikon users use TC1.7 (a very good compromise). Either way, you still need the basics - such as knowledge of bird behaviour, stalking skills and long lens technique.

I don't think I would be happy with the 50-500 image quality. I want sharpness in my photos. You are right - 500 or 600 is the place to be. I thought about a 2x with the 120-300 which makes 600 f5.6 but generally 2x TCs end up affecting image quality a fair bit, don't they?

Arthur - that's not too bad, but not quite sharp enough.

Nicole - the 300 2.8 is not cheap ($6k) but damn it does seem like a great lens. If only I had more money

DionM wrote:Arthur - that's not too bad, but not quite sharp enough.

Nicole - the 300 2.8 is not cheap ($6k) but damn it does seem like a great lens. If only I had more money

Good luck, mate.

regards,

Arthur

Dion the Sigma 50 - 500 not sharp Have you owned one?

I call my 400 5.6 telemacro a "tweener". It seems to be between just a bit short and about right. There are birds you can approach and birds you can't. 400mm is right on the edge of the range it takes to get good shots of smaller birds. It is quite good for larger birds if you use good technique.

Arthur Morris, my favorite bird photographer, just raves about his handholdable Canon 400L.

I have his excellent book "The Art of Bird Photography". 400 5.6 is his favourite lens. Light enough for flight shots and not to heavy. The shortcoming is the mfd which needs extension tude and has no IS.

With better sensors that can take acceptable images at high ISO, you get away with using TCs. 1.4X TC is acceptable with most lens but 2X TC must go with the sharpest prime you can afford.

regards,

Arthur

I have "the art of bird photography" also and can recommend it.
he is a canon only shooter and this book is slide/film days but the principles still apply and well worth a look.

Steve

As Nicole said the 400mm F5.6 is a great walkaround lens for the day. Arthur Morris, renowned nature photographer endorses this lens and says it's his everyday lens. Then again it might of been written pre-300MM F2.8 IS.

For the price range of $1-1.5k it's either this lens or the 100-400MM zoom which is a bit more expensive.

Just on a final note, Arthur said if you can only have one lens in your arsenal for bird photography make sure it's a 600MM F4 It all comes down to how much you want to spend, and how happy you will be with the shots that you'll get with 400MM. You can get decent shots but most times you'll be cropping a big portion of the image out. Which is fine for posting on the web, not so good for printing.

Here's a discussion on depreview on bigma, 120 - 300, 100 - 400 and 300 f2.8

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=15207845

Hope these help.

regards

Arthur

avkomp wrote:I have "the art of bird photography" also and can recommend it.
he is a canon only shooter and this book is slide/film days but the principles still apply and well worth a look.

Steve

For Nikon users, I highly recommend John Shaw. I have 2 of his books. My favourite is his book on macro.

regards,

Arthur

It all comes down to money and what will be the primary use for the lens.
All the pros seem to be using 500, 600 fast primes but they are pro nature/bird photographers who make their living that way.
They probably arent going to carry that around with the family on a day out for some snap shots.

My 400 is a zoom lens which I can zoom down to 80mm if required so is an ok walk around lens for nature. I constantly find it not to be enough glass for birding use. As stated before you can get shots at times, but often you finish up with a frame which needs heavy cropping.
But, I am just a guy who likes to go out on weekends trying to take bird pix and right now it will have to do.

I still recommend prime 500 or bigger.

Steve

Oneputt wrote:Dion the Sigma 50 - 500 not sharp Have you owned one?

No; but seen enough posts to see that I wouldn't be happy with it.

Thanks all.

Sounds the 400 "might" be okay. In bright sunlight, tripod mounted, MF with a 1.4x TC it will probably reach where I want, and then without the TC should be okay for flight as has been posted.

Am also seriously thinking about the 120-300 (thanks for the link) ... hmm.

More research required

I agree that most birders prefer 600mm or more and I have the Sigma 800 on my short list.

I also have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4 to extend my 400 but I think a better solution for both speed and quality might be the Nikkor 300/4 and TC-17e II, both of which I have had about a month or so.

Ok u guys, later when i get organised i shot my bike meet today with my 300m f2.8 with a 2x tc so f5.6, now these machines are not going slow but i am very happy with it, will post some pics later.

Cameraguy have you tried the 800MM (or the 300-800MM) in person. Apparently they're very very heavy and the balance of the lens isn't very good (eg. long and weight not distributed evenly). It is definately a tripod only lens from what I've heard. From what I heard the Sigma 800MM F5.6 is as expensive as the Nikon 500MM F4 AFS-II. I'd go for the latter if you were in the market to buy a big prime.

At an open house last spring my favorite dealer brought in a lot of reps from many companies and I was able to use a Sigma 800 (using a Canon body) on a 1548 with a Wimberly head. It is a monster lens but seems to be very similar in size and weight to the Nikkor 600 the store keeps on display all the time.

the 800 sounds like the sort of thing you would need the wimberly to use.
I couldnt imaging handholding that beast, having said that I havent personally seen one or tried it, but still seems a beast.

Steve