How good is the 70-300 L lens for BiF images on a crop body?

<p>The question says it all, really.... I have a 500D with, among other lenses, a 55-250 IS lens. Sometimes this doesn't quite give me the reach to shoot the pictures I want to. Obviously therefore I need a longer range but the prices are high! What are other crop body users' views on the 70-300 L lens? If not that lens, which one for shots such BiF on a crop body?</p>

<p>50mm more at tele end is really negligible, you probably wouldn't even notice it.<br /> For good $$$/mm ratio try something like Sigma 150-500 OS or good old EF 100-400 L IS. There really isn't anything really cheap at 300mm+.</p>

<p>I have no idea what BiF means...</p>

<p>Perhaps "Bird in Flight"</p>

<p>The 70-300L is a great lens, if 300 mm is long enough for you (Kari is correct -- you might not notice much of a difference from your 55-250):<br>

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/</p>

<p>Keep in mind you can't put a Canon TC on the 70-300L, but the review says some 3rd party TC's will work.</p>

<p>Personally, I have a 70-200L f/4 IS, 300L f/4 IS, 500L mm f/4 IS, and Canon 1.4x and 2x tele-converters, but then, that's just me. All of these are superbly sharp. These lenses might not be the solution for you, depending on your budget, however. Of course, I bought these one lens at a time over many years. I just wish I could afford the Canon 800 mm f/5.6!</p>

<p>The Canon 100-400L IS has a good reputation too, but it is not likely as sharp as the 70-300L across the range of f-stops. Personally, I would choose the 100-400L lens just for its longer focal length, or you might also want to consider the older 400 mm f/5.6. It's an excellent BIF lens. But it has no IS, which is a show-stopper for me, although others have obtained superb images with it at higher shutter speeds, and many maintain IS is no help at high shutter speeds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've been shooting with a 50D, using the 100-300 USM lens and find 300mm to be marginal for BIF. It is okay for some of the larger birds like Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets on occasion, but usually requires cropping to get a decent image. Also, although I don't know how the 70-300 L is wide open, at 300 it is wide open at 5.6. My lens isn't even close to sharp until f8, so I lose a lot of light or sacrifice sharpness. I've been looking at one of two options, each of which is less costly than the 70-300L, I believe, and I hope sharper and faster focusing. My first choice is the 300L f4, with a 1.4 extender. I would shoot much of the time without the extender, and gain a lens that is sharp wide open at f4. The lens is focuses quickly from my understanding, and would give me a full f stop improvement in ISO or shutter speed over the 70-300 at 300mm. With the extender, I would be at 420mm, f5.6. I'm not sure how that would compare with the other lens I'm considering, which is the 400mm L f5.6, which has a great reputation for wildlife and BIF. A third potential choice, which a lot of people like, would be the 100-400 L zoom, which I don't believe to be quite as sharp as the 300 or the 400, but may be as good or better at 400 as the 300 with 1.4 is, and certainly would be versatile and convenient. For my money any of these options are my preference over the 70-300L, but I'm just in the research stage, while their are others who have real hands on experience with some or all of the options.</p>

<p>For birds in flight (if that's what BiF means), how about a mirror telephoto? I would think bokeh wouldn't matter much, as the background would probably be sky. (Right? Hey, this might be a dumb suggestion. I don't know. I don't shoot birds.) It would be a cheap solution. A mirror is never a fast lens, but the 70-300 isn't all that fast at the 300 end anyway. I think there are some f/6ish mirrors out there. Most are f/8, ranging between 500 and 1000 mm. Focus is touchy, so you'd need to pre-focus. There are good mirrors and not-so-good mirrors. Nobody knows more about mirror telephotos than JDM von Weinberg, so if you're interested, he could tell you what to look for.</p>

<p>I've not had much luck shooting birds in flight with the Nikon equivalent. It really isn't long enough in most situations; I can't comment on the use of a teleconverter. My friend Greg Homel is a professional wildlife photographer who gets stunningly good BiF photographs with Canon's 400L on a 7D. Based on what I have seen, my opinion is that unless you are photographing rather large birds that let you approach reasonably close, a 400mm is the way to go if you can afford one and if you are really serious about good flight shots.</p>

<p>Hi Tom,</p>

<p>Some further thoughts: I believe the 300 mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC would be a better option than the 70-300, assuming your budget is limited. Slightly more $, but ultimately more flexible, with the focal length giving you that extra 100 mm of reach. The 300 f/4 IS is super sharp by itelf, and very good even with the 1.4x. Since I have the 500, I never use the 2X TC with the 300, but it would be serviceable in an emergency (although somewhat dimmer viewfinder and no autofocus with other than 1-series Canon bodies).</p>

<p>This may sound somewhat contradictory to what I am arguing, but I actually think the 70-300L is a great lens, and I would consider it - except that I have the 70-200 and the 500. I actually have two 7D bodies, and I have one mounted with the 70-200, and the other with the 500, the latter often with the 1.4x TC, so I'm not faced with constantly changing lenses in the field under fast moving conditions.</p>

<p>However, I would not recommend a 500mm or 600 mm mirror lens for BiF. Two things would argue against that: slow f-stop (and hence dimmer viewfinder) and manual focus. Those are features you DON'T want in a BiF lens. You want fast autofocus and a brighter viewfinder if at all possible.</p>

<p>The attached was taken at Bosque with a 50D and the 70-200 mm f/4 L IS + 1.4X TC, at 280 mm, 1/800, f/10, ISO 400. Plenty sharp enough for me. I would have gotten it a tiny bit sharper at a higher shutter speed, perhaps 1/1000 or faster.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you for all the responses. I hadn't realised that the 70-300L can't be used with a converter - I had assumed that they were compatible with all the white lenses. That being so, I can see the advantage of a 70-200 + converter.</p>

<p>The Osprey shots in in my 500px or Flickr page (links should be on my profile page) were taken with a 400D and the Tamron 70-300 VC. Auto focus is sometimes to slow so I often manually focus it. There are some people using the Tamron with a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter as well, but I haven't personally tried it yet.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Tom,<br>

I've had some experience in getting "more reach" on a budget!</p>

<p>I've had my EF 100-400 for a few years now, and I really can't say I've ever been unhappy with it. Yes, I too long to own something like the Canon 500mm, 600mm or 800mm, . . . but would rather eat once in awhile, and envy those fortunate enough to own them.</p>

<p>I was however fortunate enough to get some good advice & answers passed on to me here within PN's Forums that I'd like to pass on, . . . </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you for all the responses. I hadn't realised that the 70-300L can't be used with a converter - I had assumed that they were compatible with all the white lenses. That being so, I can see the advantage of a 70-200 + converter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definately do the research as to what specific Teleconverter's are compatible with what specific lens before making any purchases. And, learn the "downsides" of the specific TC's such as loss of AF, metering effects, etc., etc..</p>

<p>I knew when I purchased my 100-400 that the 1.4X TC would be the only TC I would probably acquire. The general opinion's & reviews I had read about the sharpness of the 2X TC's also drove my decision for the 100-400 over the 70-200.<br>

I also knew beforehand that the 100-400 coupled with the 1.4X TC would usually give me the reach I was after, but at the time I was still shooting film. So, . . . when I made the anticipated move to digital, the 1.6 crop Field of View appeared to be an added bonus! Even though I knew I would lose AF when shooting with apertures larger than f/8.0. I will still be happy with the 100-400 & 1.4X TC setup when and if I get to upgrade to a Full Frame digital body in the future.</p>

<p>In short, . . . do the research, fill the "now needs," but also plan ahead!<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Jim j.</p>

 

<p>I have the 70-300L and use the Kenko 1.4X converter, which does autofocus at all focal lengths. I feel this lens is as sharp as the 70-200L 2.8 IS and sharper than the 100-400L IS. Great carry around lens. I use it on a 40D and 5D. Very satisfied with the lens even when paying $1350 for it. Should have come with a tripod bracket though. Perfect lens for 1.6 sensor camera.</p>