Canon 100-400mm IS for birds/wildlife?

I've had the 70-200 f/2.8L since it came out. I am considering

trading it in for a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS incarnation which I would use

with my existing 1.4x and 2x for a variety ofshots, including birds

in flight.

 

I'm also considering getting the 100-400L and keeping my 70-200

f/2.8L. Does anyone have "hands on" experience with the 100-400L on

and off the tripod, especially birds in flight?

 

Thanks!

I think, 70-200/2.8L IS would be better choice, unless you plan to use 2x TC most of the time and still OK if you can afford to stop down a bit.<br>

<A href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml"> head to head comparison.</a>

However, if you wish to put the 1.4X TC onto the 100-400, it will perform rather better than the 70-200 + stacked TCs. My father has used the 100-400 + TC combo with some good results on his EOS 1V.

 

Personally I'd suggest complimenting your 70-200 with a longer prime, such as 300 F4L IS or 400 F5.6, as these are better flight lenses (and the 300 F4L IS works brilliantly well with the 1.4X TC for 420mm).

I think a lens like the 100-400 zoom is ideal of birds in flight. When the birds are flying, their distance from you can be constantly changing, and a wide-range zoom lets you adjust to the appropriate focal length quickly.

 

As far as I can tell, the main problem with Canon's 100-400 L is that the quality varies quite a bit from sample to sample. This issues has been discussed thoroughly in previous threads a couple of years back, as some people tested multiple samples and find drastically different performances. Not sure whether the quality control has been tightened or not. So it may depend on your luck.

Dick,

 

I own both the 70-200 IS and the 100-400 IS. I love both and have no intention to give either up. But if I did have go let one go, it would be the 70-200. Like you, I shoot mostly Nature and Outdoor photography. Also, like you, I use a tripod almost all the time. I can tell no difference in the image quality of either lens when printed on 13"x19" paper on my Epson 1270 printer. I find the 100-400 far more versitle than the shorter zoom. You only give up 30mm on the short side and gain 200mm on the long side. After using the 100-400 a couple hours, the push-pull on the 100-400 becomes a non issue.

 

Knowing how much you travel, you will welcome the extended range on your D60 (160-640). It will be much easier to carry than your 300 f/2.8. The main reason to use your 70-200 f/2.8 or your 300 f/2.8 would be background blur.

 

Your friend,

Ray Amos

Unless the birds are really big and really close, I can't see too many occasions for zooming below 400mm for flight shots. Why not keep the 70-200 and add a 400/5.6 or thereabouts to extend your range for more static shots and to use for flight shots?

Unless you really want the IS feature, the 400/5.6 is a hell of a nice lens and it works well with Canon's extenders. With the 2x extender, you already have a 140-400/5.6 zoom.

 

By the way, the Luminous Landscape comparison convinced me to buy the 2x extender for my 70-200/2.8. While the 100-400 was obviously better in the test, the results with the 70-200 were better than I expected.

Dick,

I have both lens and if I had to choose between them I would stick with the 100-400. In my examples the 70-200 is the sharper of the two, but the sharpness of the 100-400 does not limit its use. The 100-400 is my main flight lens and produces about 40% of my published images over the past 2 years. The 70-200 IS nearly rivals my 200 f1.8 for sharpness but it is not as flexable as the 100-400.

I can see a lot of occasions to zoom below 400mm for flight shots. Just a couple of days ago I was in Santa Cruz on the California coast. There were a lot of brown pelicans flying near the pier. They were no more than 30 feet/10 meters away from where I was standing, and I could have easily photograph them with a 80-200 zoom. Unfortunately, it was foggy in that afternoon and the light was very poor. It would have been pretty difficult to keep enough of the bird within the depth of field though.

 

At least when I approach flight shots, I usually don't shoot full frame. The birds are moving fast and can easily get out of the frame. That is why usually I leave some room in front of the birds "for them to fly into," and the 100-400 would be ideal. In any case, except for the added cost for the zoom, you are no worse off than using a fixed 400mm/f5.6. But you get a much more versatile lens.

Dick, I find the 100-400 an excellent flight/wildlife lens. If you are getting a lens for that purpose specifically, I think it or the 300/4 or 400/5.6 makes a lot more sense than using a 70-200 + TCs for this purpose... and a lot *LOT* more sense than trading in your 70-200 for a new 70-200 with IS.

There are some occasions, and brown pelicans are indeed large birds who will come close enough to a spot like a pier where there are people (especially if those people are fishing off said pier), where you can use a relatively short lens for a flight shot, but in my experience, those occasions are few, and if you're after that shot, just switch to the 70-200 or maybe the 70-200 with a 1.4x.

David, I guess our experiences differ. I have done a fair amount of birds in flight shots with either a 300mm or a 80-200mm lens, sometimes with a 1.4x TC attached, and I am very happy with those set ups. In particular, a 80-200 w/ 1.4xTC gives me the flexability of a zoom, which works very well for me. A 100-400 (or 80-400) zoom simply extends the flexability to the longer end and would be even better. A fixed 400mm would be too restrictive to me. Just yesterday I was reviewing a recent slide in which the bird's wings were cut off because the 300mm was just too long at that very moment.

 

As usual, your mileage may vary.

I have used 100-400 shooting birds a few months. My experience, you won't never need to use 100-399. You will only use 400. The big problem for 100-400 imo is its small F5.6. Most condition you need to adjust your ISO (if you are using digital) to obtain enough speed. So if you just wanna shoot the birds, especially small birds, you won't like 100-400. A 400/5.6 or 300/4 with 1.4X might be a better solution.

I don't understand this last posting. You mention that F5.6 is on this zoom is too small. This in itself could be a valid remark. But then you suggest that a better solution would be a fixed 400/5.6 or a 300/4 with 1.4x (making it a 420/5.6). But this is exactly the same. So, what is the difference?

 

P.s. I do have the 100-400 IS (and the non-is 70-200/2.8) but over here in Holland it is often too short for flying birds. You either can not get close enough to them, or they are too small for 400mm. Often in wildlife reserves here, you are kept rather far away from

the birds.

Just to clarify, generally speaking, a 400mm is not long enough for most bird photography, especially if we are talking about small song bird on a tree. However, for birds in flight, IMO a 100-400 AF (or 80-400 type) is ideal. Obviously you need to be somewhat close and the birds are of a larger size. What I have in mind is hand holding tracking the flying birds. Anything bigger such as a 500mm/f4 won't be hand holdable for most people. I have shot birds in flight with a 500mm/f4 on a tripod and got lucky, but a tripod really restricts your mobility to track those fast flying birds.

 

Like Hans, I too have a hard time understanding why a 400mm/f5.6 is superior to a 100-400mm/f5.6. Both of them have the restriction of a relatively small f5.6 max aperture. The zoom is more expensive, bigger, and optically maybe slightly inferior, but you gain a lot of flexability as a trade off. You may or may not like that trade off, but I happen to think it is well worth it.

 

While we are on this topic, why do people upgrade from a 70-200mm/f2.8 non-IS to IS? Is Image Stabilization that useful in the 70-200mm range?

It's interesting how this thread has developed and the different challenges faced by my fellow photographers.

 

I opted to get the 100-400L and keep my old 70-200mm f/2.8L. With a 300 f/2.8 in the main bag, I will have to decide in advance which of the other "L" lenses to carry based on the particular destination.

 

I chose the 100-400L because it should still be sharper at 400 f/5.6 than the 70-200 f/2.8L would be with a 2x. On my D60 this gives me a 160-640mm coverage range without teleconverters and while retaining full AF capability.

 

The difficulty I faced is that I really like the 70-200 f/2.8L. It's probably the most versatile lens Canon makes. It's actually my favorite macro lens! On balance, though, most of my macro work is done at f/8 to f/16 so having f/2.8 is not the critical issue.

 

I am thinking that the 100-400L will be ideal for situations where I want to "pack light" and retain maximum flexibility. For example, next week I am going to be on a family vacation at Sea World and the San Diego Zoo/Wild Animal Park. Believe it or not, there is some great close-up bird photography at Sea World-California! Not only would a 300 f.2.8 be too bulky, but it's also way too powerful. On the other hand, there's also a great raptor demonstration at the Wild Animal Park and the 100-400L would allow the flexibility to get good head shots. (Ironically, you're actually closer to the noncaptive visitors at Sea World than the wounded resident raptors at the Wild Animal Park!) On this tripI should be able to take my 100-400L, a Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 ATX Pro, extension tubes and 500D and be able to shoot most anything except wide angle scenics (of which there are none to be had). If I used the 70-200 f/2.8L, I would need both teleconverters, too. The 1.4x is great but the loss of resolution with the 2x is really noticeable with digital, so the 100-400 seems to be the appropriate compromise.

From my experience (I have played with the above mentioned combinations-I

own the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS but no 2x TC, nor do I own the 100-400), I thought

autofocus with the 70-200 f2.8 w/ 2x TC was FASTER than it was with the

100-400, even with the 100-400's IS turned off. I have to experience with the

image quality diferences however. Those of you with both have you noticed

the same or were my impressions wrong?

Odd you should ask... I use this lens almost exclusively now for birds<BR>

in flight and am generally very happy with it (although I am thinking<BR> of adding the 300 F4 IS also). I wrote an article on it here:

<BR><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.mkwphotography.com/Canon100400.htm">http://www.mkwphotography.com/Canon100400.htm</A>

<BR><BR>

Hope this helps!<BR>

Matthew<div></div>