canon 100- 400mm L for birds

100-400mm L what do you think of it for birds on a rebel 350d xt ?

Chances are that you'll rarely - if ever - use it at anything other than 400mm, so if you're only thinking of birds, you might be better served by just the fixed 400mm f/5.6.

 

The only downside is that since the fixed lens lacks IS, you'd have to shoot from a nicely stable position. If that's not going to be the case, then you're probably better off with the 100-400.

 

steve

A lot of people favor the 300/4 IS + 1.4X over either the 100-400 or the 400/5.6. I have

the 100-400 and have used it for some bird photography, but mostly it's a landscape lens

for me -- my 'bird lens' is a 500/4 with converters. My copy of the 100-400 is not at its

best wide open above 300 mm; stopping down a bit helps considerably and it can yield

quite sharp images. Also, it focuses to roughly 6 feet (much closer than the 400/5.6),

which works well for small birds if you can approach them closely (as at feeders). Some

recent examples of Panamanian hummingbirds shot with

the 100-400 at about 300 mm at f10:<P>

 

<CENTER>

<img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/

bluechested1.jpg"><BR>

blue-chested hummingbird<P>

 

<img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/

jacobinfemale5.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/jacobin6.jpg"><BR>

white-naped jacobin, female and male<P>

 

<img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/Panama/rufoustail12.jpg"><BR>

rufous-tailed hummingbird<P>

</center>

 

It's not visible in these little Web JPEGS but the originals show very nice feather detail,

indicating good optical performance when stopped down to f8-f11 or so.

The 100-400 is a great compromise lens though it is a little slow.This is not a big problem for shutter speed since you can use high ISO on your 350XT - it just affects AF performance in very low light.

 

I had the 70-280 region covered by the combination of 70-200 and 1.4x. I went for the 300/4 + 1.4x TC instead.

 

This is again a compromise but get you superb optical performance at both 300 and 420 and IS. The downside is that AF is slower with the TC than you would get with 400/5.6 and probably the 100-400. I have used AI servo to track small birds in flight in good light but it can take a few moments before getting lock on (even with the focus limiter). AF accuracy is fine once it achieves lock (that is why Canon slows the AF) but it is not great for action shots where instant AF is important. I suspect that taping pins will restore the original AF speed (at the possible expense of AF accuracy) but haven't tried it.

 

The 100-400 has good optical performance though the 300/4 + 1.4x is supposed to be better. If you crop a lot (birds are surprisingly small even with a 300 + 1.4x + 1.6 crop factor body) then this may be important.

Mark,

 

Beautiful as usual. I presume you used a flash to (mostly) stop the hummingbirds (especially since you were at f10). Are these crops ?

 

You can of course use extension tubes to get some closer focusing (and consequently great magnification) on all these lenses.

 

The 300/4 IS focuses to 1.5 metres (an improvement over the older non-IS version), the 100-400 to 1.8 metres, and the 400/5.6 to 3.5 metres (poor).

Because I did not want a push-pull zoom and figured I'd be at the long end 90% of the time I chose the 300 f/4 IS and 400 f/5.6 and use both with Canon TCs when needed on my 10D and 20D

 

The close focus of the 300 cannot be matched by the 400 f/5.6 even when it is used with a 25mm extension. The 100-400 does focus close as mentioned.

 

If you do not mind the push-pull zoom, the 100-400 offers a reasonable image from 100 to 400 without need for a TC and the IS works well. If you plan on shooting small birds from a window or blind, the 100-400 should do the job well.

<I> I presume you used a flash to (mostly) stop the hummingbirds (especially since you

were at f10). Are these crops ?</i><P>

 

Yes, this was my first experiment with high-speed flash synch. Shutter speed was 1/1600

or 1/2000 and the flash (550EX with Better Beamer) was set on manual. For these birds

manual flash mode works better than ETTL because there is no preflash in manual --

hummingbirds react so quickly that nearly all of my ETTL shots showed birds flinching or

already departing from the frame. I tried to frame the birds against either the sky or a

brightly sunlit lawn, as anything shaded or dark generated a very black, unattractive

background. These are slight crops, but not much (the camera was a 30D so the 35 mm

equivalent focal length was about 450-500 mm).

Wade, I've had this lens for about 9 months now, and I'm very happy with it. With the IS, I've

even had very fine results hand holding when I want the flexibility (which, truthfully, is most

of the time). I don't regret choosing this lens over any of the others people have mentioned

here. It's true what one person wrote, that for wildlife you'll probably use it all the way out at

400mm most of the time, but I've also taken many shots at the short end. I believe I'll be

very happy with this one as my only telephoto lens for some time. On your 350D (the same

camera I use), you've effectively got a three pound, hand-holdable 160-640mm f/4.5-5.6

with Canon's L optics. Pretty nice!

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html</a> </p>

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html">http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html</a> </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

Those of us who are not in Mark C's fortunate position of owning a 500/4 have to find a way of rationalising our deprivation, and Mark's own superb photographs show just what can be achieved with the 100~400. Wade, I think that other posters have given you a very fair assessment both of the 100~400 and of some alternatives. I use the 100~400 on safari-type trips and on the 20D it is by no means always at 400mm, since many of the (mainly African) birds and mammals that I photograph are quite sizeable and reasonably approachable - within limits, the one time I saw a Black Rhino in the wild, the ranger would not go closer than about 100m, and that was in a vehicle! Equally, of course, there are plenty of small or hard-to-approach birds where you would need the 500/4 and maybe also Extenders, but it's just too much of a problem to carry to and use in game parks (rationalise, rationalise ...).

 

As between the 100~400 and 300/4IS optionally with Extender 1.4x, yes, there is some difference in quality in favour of the prime lens, even with the Extender, although an early Photozone test showed that this typical comparison could be swamped by sample variation. The question really is which combination you think is more likely to get the shot you want. For shooting hand-held from a vehicle I certainly prefer the zoom, but if you are going to work mainly in a more static way, or even off a tripod, the prime might be a better choice. I think you would have to value the last bit of image quality very highly over flexibility in use to prefer the non-IS 400/5.6 over the 300/4IS+Extender1.4x, but that's just my view. If Canon made the often-wished-for 400/5.6IS, that might be a differnt matter.

If you are after large prints the 100-400 may not be up to the job, often criticised for being soft at the long end, it is not exactly brilliant at 135mm end either - I did some comparisons against old 135mm primes when considering a travel set up for landscape work, here are my test shots;

 

http://www.bramblingphotos.com/lens%20tests/135%20shootout/mini_test_135mm_lenses.htm

 

Lens 1 = Olympus OM 135mm f3.5

 

Lens 2 = Zeiss C/Y 135mm f2.8

 

Lens 3 = Canon EF 28-135 IS at 135mm

 

Lens 4 = Canon EF 100-400 IS L at 135mm

 

However the XT's 1.6 crop will reduce the poor edge performance

 

Mike

It is a mystery to me why Canon didn't offer a 3 position limiter on the 300/4 or at least made the limit slightly longer. The limiter on the 100-400 switches between 1.8m and 6.5m while the 300/4 switches between 1.5m and 3m. The closer focusing is very useful for small birds and mammals.

 

Unfortunately Arthur Morris didn't address which he would choose between the 100-400 and 300 IS. He just points out he would choose the 400/5.6 over either if birds were the sole objective. Furthermore, though he doesn't make this distinction, the comments really refer to birds in flight. He does have reviews on both the 300/4 and 100-400 on his site.

 

As I pointed out above AF is the weak point of using the 300/4 IS + 1.4x converter. The 300/4 + 1.4x is a compromise; more flexible than the 400/4 and less flexible than the 100-400.

 

If you don't have the 100-300 range covered by something reasonable then your choice is clear.

I do not own a long canon lense. My long lens is an older Tamron manual focus 400mm f4 which I use with a 1.4 converter. I have considered getting a more modern lense, but for the amount of time I use it, it would probably not be worth the expense.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3068350

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3175794

Duane: from what I've read (no personal experience) the Tamron 400/4 is supposed to be

pretty good.

Mark, I neglected to mention, as you just stated; it is indeed an excellent lens. Optically and qualitatively, IMHO I have no need to change.

<I>IMHO I have no need to change.</i><P>

 

Not unless you feel a desperate need for autofocus, stabilzation, and a depleted bank

account.

This is handheld with my 100-400, this hawk is roughly 100yds away, or so, I'm no great judge of distance, shot at f8, 100% crop, minor USM

Ok what other then birds is this lens good for? I want something for birds and alittle bit more I am useing a canon 70-300mm 1: 4.5.5.6 DO IS USM Any Its a ok lens the photoshop that sold it to me said it was just as good but I Dont think its what I wanted. the man at the store told me its easyier to carry and just as good. and it cost me 1200.00 Not really know what I was buying my mistake :D

<I>Ok what other then birds is this lens good for?</i><P>

 

The 100-400 is enormously versatile. I use mine mainly for landscapes and flowers, or

occasionally for portraits of smallish things that I don't want to get real close to (see

below). Lots of people use

it for sports, and quite a few use it for birds and other wildlife. Compared to the 70-300

DO, the 100-400 has 33% more reach, may (?) focus faster, probably (?) has better

highlight rendition than the DO lens (which I understand can produce some very odd-

looking effects from the diffractive optics), and is likely more ruggedly built. On the other

hand, it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than the DO lens, and a little more expensive. The

choice is yours -- but for birds, the 100-400 is a lot better than the 70-300.<P>

<CENTER>

<img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/herps/ruber10.jpg"><BR>

red diamond rattlesnake (100-400 with fill-in flash)

</center>

Wade, great photos! I have that lens...I really love it, but I'm yet to explore more of it's possabilities...I'll have to take it to the wet lands in Huntington Beach some weekend...lots of birds there.

I meant Mark! Sorry....curved eyeballs, what can I say?

I been going to the bolsa chica wet lands alot latly buy most people i see there have these great big 8000.00 lens alittle bit over my buget

Wade, you as what else is the 100~400 good for. Well, on the natural history side, mammals. On my African trips I casually see mammals ranging in size from Elephant down to Pygmy Mongoose (smaller mammals require careful planning, and are seldom seen by chance). It's easy (if not always a good idea!) to get close to Elephant and you are often back at 100mm unless you want portraits or detailed shots. While you are watching the Elephants, a Pygmy Mongoose will run halfway across the road, look at you for five seconds, and run off into the grass. That's how long you have to zoom out, refocus, and shoot.

I own both the 300/4 + TC and the 100-400, and personally, I find the zoom is slightly sharper than the prime + TC.

 

As for it not being sharp enough for large prints - does a 20x30 qualify as a large print? I have a nice, sharp 20x30 from this lens, and to date, no photo from this lens has even been rejected by a buyer because it was too soft.

 

Like Mark, I use a 500/4 + TCs as my main bird lens, and the 100-400 is primarily used for mammals. The 500/4 is sharper, for sure... but the 100-400 is good enough. There are many reasons to get a lens other than the 100-400, but IMO, sharpness is the least compelling.

 

That being said, if someone is buying a lens just for birds, I'd second the idea of the 400/5.6 - faster AF than both the 100-400 and the 300/4+TC, and also the sharpest of the lot at 400mm.

 

Vandit