Long Lens for Backyard Birds

[jay a. frew]

Hello:

 

I am trying to sort-out my apparent "lens magnification factor" confusion. I

hope someone will bear with me (and answer my questions)as I work through this.

 

I shoot backyard birds from a blind using an EF70-200 2.8 + EF1.4 TC, a 3pod and

normally at least one flash. My subjects vary in size from small finches to

grackles. They are quick little devils and I need AF. I use both film (EOS3)and

a 10D (1.6 crop).

 

This kit gives me very good results, but, I still need to do some post-process

cropping to increase the relative size of the bird, and, the birds do get a

little wary when I move my blind to distances (objective to subj) approaching 2

meters. So, I am thinking of buying a longer lens to increase the size of the

bird in the frame while giving me a little more working distance.

 

I have read, many times, that one should select the longest affordable lens for

birds. This seems to make sense to me. My $$ limit is in the "EF400 f5.6 -

EF300 f4.0" range. I am not interested in non-canon glass.

 

My 70-200 min focus is 1.5 meters and the magnification factor is 1:6 (0.17 x

life size) without the TC. Am I correct in assuming that the mag factor, with

the 1.4 TC, (1.4 x 0.17) is 0.238x?

 

The 300 f4.0 min focus is 1.5 meters and mag is 1:4 (0.25x). If my thinking is

correct, the 300 f4.0 + TC mag factor should be (1.4 x 0.25) 0.35x. According

to the specs, the 10D will AF with the 300 f4.0 + the 1.4 TC (f5.6).

 

I noticed that the 400 5.6 minimum focus is "on the long side" @3.5 meters and

that the magnification factor is 1:9 (0.11x). According the the specs, the 10D

won't AF with the 400 f5.6 + TC (f8.0) but the EOS3 will.

 

I do have a set of extension tubes that I could use with the 400 to reduce the

min focus distance, but, I would likely loose AF on the 10D.

 

It seems counter-intuitive (to me), but, it looks like I end-up with a smaller

image of the bird in the frame, using the 400 5.6 from 3.5 meters, than I am

currently getting at approx 2 meters with the 70-200 2.8 + TC. Is this correct?

 

I know the 300 f4.0 has IS and that the image quality (without the TC) should be

better than my 70-200 f2.8 + TC, but, how much actual image size would I gain if

I bought the 300 f4.0?

 

Maybe in this case, longer isn't better.

 

Thanks for your patience/endurance. Cheers! Jay

[buck_rogers1]

I think you've already come to your own conclusion, the 300, since you already have the 1.4 TC. If I were you, I would rent the 300 for a day and shoot as much as possible on you 10D and compare shots from the same distance with your other lens as well as all the permutations that you can get from the lenses and TC. Any good shop should then apply your rental fee toward the purchase of the lens if you decide to buy.

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"how much actual image size would I gain if I bought the 300 f4.0?"</i></p>

<p>If you go to this <a href="http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm">link</a>, you'll see a comaprison of all the focal lengths, which should help you see how much you gain over your current setup at 300 or 400mm. Given how magnification is important to you, I think you would only gain anything with the 300f4, since the long min focus distance of the 400f5.6 would limit you to larger subjects.

[buck_rogers1]

Sorry, in answer to your last question, at the same distance you should only get a slightly larger image from the 300 alone versus the 70-200+TC. However, it will be even bigger with the TC on the 300 but it still won't knock your socks off. Again, rent.

[jay a. frew]

Buck:

Thanks for the help. I did consider renting and I will do so before I buy. However, in my location the only rental available is by mail and it will cost me 160.00/week (no shorter term) and this is not a rent to buy deal, so, I don't want to rent more than one lens if I can avoid it.

 

Leopold:

Thanks for the link, it was somewhat helpful, but, it does not tell the story @ min focus dist. Well, it seems like my thinking wasn't "out to lunch" and looks like I won't gain much image size with the 400 5.6.

 

Cheers! Jay

[mark u]

Maximum magnification data are irrelevant if you can't get that close to the bird. The effective focal length more or less determines the size of the image area at any given focus distance, although there can be some slight variations at closer focus distances. Therefore, in theory you would get marginally higher magnification from the 300 f/4 and 1.4xTC (=420mm) than from the 400mm f/5.6 at the same focus distance. However, you should take note that the 300 +TC combination focusses rather slower than the 400, which may be an important consideration for you. If you used the 400 with an EF 25 tube you should still have AF with both your cameras (the change in effective aperture due to the tube is too slight to affect AF), and you will have a working distance of about 2.1 metres (focus distance of 2.45m) - right on your limit - and a magnification of about 0.21. See the table here:

 

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

 

I don't think it's clear cut that you should go for the 300 + TC - I'd recommend trying the 400 + tube as an alternative. The 400 is generally reckoned to be the better choice for birds in flight, precisely because of the AF speed issue.

[robin_sibson1]

Jay, your analysis looks faultless to me, but I agree with Mark U that what you also need to do is to throw extension tubes into the melting-pot. The calculations are pretty easy anyhow (thin-lens approximations are good enough) but Canon publish quite a lot of figures for the focused distance and magnification range for lenses used with their own tubes.

 

One option you have not considered is to get an Extender 2x for use with your 70~200. The resultant aperture is f/5.6, so the combination will AF on any EOS body. AF may be a bit slow, however. This combination is generally agreed to be optically not as good as some of the alternatives you are looking at, but it is VERY much cheaper than buying another high-end lens, and would give you a feel for working at 400mm.

 

Another option to consider is the 100~400, a lens that I use a lot myself. On your 10D it will give you the angle of view of a 640mm lens on FF, and on your EOS-3 it is useable with the Extender 1.4x, retaining AF, to give a focal length of 560mm. Of course, it's also true that the 400/5.6+Extender1.4x and 300/4+Extender2x will retain AF on the EOS-3. Image quality of the 100~400+Extender1.4x is quite good if you stop down a bit.

[gib robinson]

Jay,

 

As I see it, there are lots of variables in lens choice. Some haven't been explored yet in this thread: quality of lens, value of image stabilization, lens weight, lens speed, future plans. For example, if you are happy with the quality of images from the 10D AND you don't plan on upgrading your camera, say to a 40D, then lens quality is not a big issue. Personally, I have chosen to use a 300 f/2.8 IS lens for my backyard birding mostly with a 20D. It was a choice based on lens availability (used). I didn't think about many important issues. Fortunately, the choice was the right one for me. I value the speed and the optical quality. I love the IS. It means I can often get excellent results at 125th of a second hand held. I also find the weight acceptable. It's just a superb lens, for me.

 

What to do? Well, if you can't rent lenses in your area, how about going to a dealer and trying out a few lenses in the store to see what appeals to you. Or how about seeking out one or two other Canon shooters who might have the lenses you are considering. I was lucky my choice worked out, but there are so many options, it seems worth while to do a little hands-on research.

[jay a. frew]

Mark Rob and Gib:

Thanks for your help and suggestions.

 

I always had it in the back of my mind that when I needed a longer lens for birds I would just get the 400 5.6 and so I was surprised when I finally had a good look at the specs and discovered that it might not be suitable for my use.

 

I thought about a 2.0 TC but have read too many reviews about the degraded image quality.

 

I really wish I could afford a lens like the 300 2.8 or the 100-400 ...this is just my hobby and I am retired.

 

I wasn't keen on the 300 4.0 to begin with because I don't need IS (although it certainly sounds appealing) and my current kit goes to 280 mm @ f4.

 

I think I will rent a 400 5.6 for a week and see how it works-out with my extension tubes.

 

Thanks! Jay

[lester_wareham]

The 300/4 IS is a great lens, I use mine with tubes for closeup work with dragonflies etc (the close focus is great for this as it gives you a larger magnification range for any given tube combination) and 1.4X and 2X for birds and wildlife.

 

But if my main application was working from a hide on a tripod I would choose the 400/5.6 and use a tube if close focus was an issue.

This seems to be by far the best solution.

[images_in_light_north_west]

http://www.lensrentals.com/item/canon-300mm-f%241-is?utm_source=tdp&utm_medium=cpc

 

 

1 Week rental 300 f4 $60

[kin_lau]

I've used my 350D + 400/5.6 (Sigma, but same focal length) with warblers, and it worked just fine. The Sigma focuses to 1m, but I rarely get that close. Most shots are in the 2-4m range.

 

If I'm close enough for a full-frame shot, DOF is also usually extremely shallow.

[pturton]

With my 10D and the 70-200f/2.8 L IS + EFG 1.4 I thought I had it made in the shade until I got both the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Since then I never use the TC with the zoom. For backyard birds I prefer the 300 because I can focus close without extension tubes which are needed for the 400 f/5.6. But for those birds that don't want to come close, the 400 sure fills the bill. I shoot birds in my backyard with 135mm to 800mm using the 135L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 300 f/4 L IS and 400 f/5.6 L with/without EF 1.4 and EF 2 TCs.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=567433

[jay a. frew]

Thanks Ross:

They do not ship to Canada.

Cheers! Jay

[jay a. frew]

Thanks Kin

Cheers! Jay

[jay a. frew]

Hello Paul:

 

That's quite the tool bag you have there! Your bird pictures are Very Good!

 

I guess the million (or at least $1200.00) question for me is:

If you could only have one of your long lenses, which one would you keep for backyard birds, the 300 f4.0 or the 400 f5.6?

 

Cheers! Jay Frew

 

Cambridge, On

[rayyeager]

Jay, you can rent the 300mm F4 for $41.00 a week plus shipping at: http://www.rentglass.com located in Florida.