Which long lens for Nature Photography?

[hugo_lopes]

I'm a Canon EOS user and recently a good deal showed up: a 400mm

f/2.8L USM (non IS) lens in mint conditon for a good price. It's

primary use would be nature photography. However, before I invest

that much money on a lens, I wanted to ask other people's opinion on

this lens vs 600mm f/4L USM or 500mm f4.5L USM (both non IS). I'm

using a film body (EOS 3). I'd like to know things like pros & cons

of each focal lenght, to which kind of subjects are they most suited

for and actual experiences using these lenses. I'm currently using a

Canon EF 100-400/4-5.6L USM IS zoom + 1.4x and 2.0x Canon TCs. My

main nature subjects are birds and small animals. Even if you're not

a Canon user, input from people who use this kind of long lenses is

greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[abrepsom1]

Hello Hugo,

 

as you are trying to photograph birds, i strongly advise you not to use a 400mm lens, especially not in your case when using a film body. You sure have noticed in the past that your 100-400 zoom is not long enough. Am I right? The 2.8/400 is as bulky and heavy as the 4.0/600 mm. You will be using it almost permanently with an extender to get a 4.0/560 mm. Then why not go for the 4.0/600 immediately?

I must confess that I sold my 4.0/600 two weeks ago, but it is THE most fantastic lens for bird and wildlife photography. I sold it, because I tend to use the 4.0/500 IS more often, especially in combination with a digital SLR.

Both the 2.8/400 and the 4.0/600 are excellent in terms of optical and built quality (and hard to beat), but a 4.5/500 or even a 4.0/500 IS might just be the best possible compromise between focal length, weight and price.

Imagine a 500mm lens on an EOS 20D, giving you "700mm" with almost half the weight of the 2.8/400 or the 4.0/600!

In terms of optical quality, you won't see any difference between the two monsters and the 4.5/500 L!

There is one in mint condition on sale at www.isarfoto.com (a very recommendable german store).

 

Best wishes

[hugo_lopes]

Thanks for the answer and thanks for the link! Having read you opinion and another opinions I found on the net, I got the feeling that some people may actually hand-hold a 500mm. I'm I correct? If so, isn't IS a very valuable feature? I can't see much point in having IS on a lens that is so heavy that you have to use a monopod or tripod, like the 600/4, but correct me if I'm wrong.In the shop you mentioned, they have both lenses. However they are much more expensive than the price I'm being asked for the 400/2.8 (3000 Euros). Does anyone know any more second hand shops in Europe that may have this kind of gear?

[beauh44]

Hi Hugo, I'm with Ander on this - I have a 20D and a 500mm f/4L IS and it just keeps blowing me away about every time I use them together. With the 1.4x TC you won't lose autofocus on the 20D either. The 20D + 500mm f/4L IS is an awesome pair. Good luck!

[greg s]

"My main nature subjects are birds and small animals"

 

Recommendation = 500mm f/4 << most popular long lens type & with good reason

[awahlster]

I recomend Canon FD I have a

 

400mm f4.5 nFD

 

500mm f4.5L S.S.C.

 

600mm f4.5 nFD

 

1.4X-A and 2X-A extenders

 

 

for less then any one of the lenses you are talking about in cost I think I could even throw in a nice F-1N body to boot.

[mike_broderick]

There are two versions of the Canon 400/2.8, the Mark I and Mark II. Allegedly, the Mark I is not as sharp as the Mark II version. The Mark II version is very, very sharp. I don't know the minimum focus distance on the 400/2.8 non-IS, but I'd be sure it is close enough on this lens to meet your needs for small animals.

 

If the lens is a Mark I version and it meets your needs, it still may be a good buy if you pay an appropriate price. I believe if you search the archives here a bit, you'll find some discussion of the Mark I vs. Mark II. You'll also find tons of discussion of which big lens to buy. Here's a couple of links to start you off:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/500L

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/telefoto.htm

[pete_biro]

First, do a proper search as this kind of Q has been asked many times. Second, 400mm is never enough for small things - if you are gonna go to the trouble of lugging a large lens it should be 5 or 600mm. Hand holding a 500 is a bad idea ... go to a store that has one and try. Definately go for the 500 4.5L as it is much cheaper than the new one and lighter.

[mark_chappell]

If you are mainly interested in birds and small animals, forget the 400/2.8. The 600 is

probably the best lens but the problem with it is that it weighs about 12-13 pounds and

requires a huge tripod (since the one you mention is not IS and even if it is a 600 you will

be using your 2X very often). The 500/4.5 is a much easier lens to carry around.

 

As at least one other person said, probably the best lens you can get is the 500/4 IS, or if

you are very strong, the 600/4 IS. Don't understimate the importance of stabilization on

a lens this long -- even on a firm tripod it's a big help.

 

Look at lots of other recent threads about gimbal tripod heads -- with any of these lenses,

a gimbal head is almost a necessity.

[herman_hiel]

Hugo,

I agree with most of the posters; I have a 600f4 which I use mainly for birds and often I add a 1.4 or a 2x converter. Anyway,

as the saying goes: in case of doubt, don't. Why not try to rent a 400f2.8 and say a 600f4 and then compare? I know a second hand shop that (used) to rent a 400f2.8.

[doug herr]

Whether this lens is long enough depends on you. If you have good field skills and are able to approach wild birds and animals closely without alarming them even a <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html" target="_blank">300mm lens</A> will get many photos. Also consider how willing you are to carry such a beast into the field. I don't carry a 400mm f/2.8 (and it's requisite heavy tripod) more than a mile or so but I'll hike nearly anywhere with a 300mm f/4 with shoulder stock & monopod.

[c.j.magson]

I like the 300 IS-I have an older one. 1.4 teleconverter as needed..

http://www.photo.net/photo/2354459

[william_rohr2]

I am crazy enough to have them all ... if I had to keep only one it would be the 500f4IS. I

agree with those that say the 600 is really needed for small bird photography and except

for that you won't want to be carrying it around. The 400 is best for large animal or

sports/auto racing photography (hard to follow fast moving objects with the others narrow

field of view ... maybe I'm just getting old). Best combination for all around (and cost) ...

500f4IS and 1.4XTC. Spend any money left over on a really rigid tripod. The higher

resolution of this lens/combination will be VERY noticable compared to the 100-400. One

man's opinion.

[hugo_lopes]

A friend recently sugested that with the money of an EF 500/4 L IS I could get an FD 500/4.5L for general use and a FD 800/5.6L when I really needed the longest posible lens for those samll birds, + a Canon T90. The only drawbacks would be losing AF and not having IS. Any one here used these lenses before they moved to the EOS system? Thanks

[mark_chappell]

<I> The only drawbacks would be losing AF and not having IS. </i><P>

 

Those are <I><B>mighty</b></i> big drawbacks in my opinion, plus you would have to

haul around two lenses instead of one, plus you would need a considerably larger tripod

without IS, plus the 800 mm doesn't focus very close (the 500 IS focuses to 14 feet but the

800 to 4 <I><B>meters</b></i> -- W a a a a a y to far to get good images of small

birds). I don't know about the image quality of the 800 mm but I doubt if it's as good as

that of the 500 IS, even if the latter has a converter attached. On the other hand the 500/

4.5 is quite good.<P>

 

My advice: bite the bullet and get the 500 IS. I think you would be <I><B>much</I>

</B> happier with it than with the older lenses.

[mark_chappell]

Oops. I meant to say that the 800 mm focuses to 14 meters (not 4 meters). Changes the

perspective a bit....