Bird Photography Lens Choice

[dimitaretch]

Hi everyone,

 

 

I am contemplating adding a new lens to my arsenal specifically for bird photography.

Here is a list of my current equipment:

 

 

Body: Canon 30D

 

Lens:

10-22mm

 

24-70mm F2.8 L

 

70-200mm F2.8 L IS

 

Canon TC 1.4x II

 

 

My budget for the new lens is about $1400.

 

 

I plan to take shots of birds in flight and my current combo 30D 1.6 x 1.4 x 200mm is simply not long enough.

 

 

Given my budget and existing arsenal, and based on your own experience, which lens would you buy?

 

 

Also, I believe the existing Canon lens has been on the market for quite a while. Do you expect newer and improved version

coming out soon? In your opinion, would it make sense to wait for couple of months.

 

 

Thanks for your help!

 

 

Regards,

Dimitare

[ferensen]

I use Canon's 300mm f/4 IS for birds, most often with the 1.4 extender attached. Sharp lens, good price.

[Dieter Schaefer]

With this budget you only have two choices - 300/4 or 400/5.6. You would likely use the former with the 1.4x all the time - attaching the 1.4x to the latter will have you loose AF. Personally, I would go with the 400/5.6 - lightweight and fast focusing. Plus, you've got the 30mm covered with the 70-200/1.4x combo already.

[DickArnold]

In addition to a 70-200 2.8L I have a 100-400 4.5-5.6L. I Paid about 1300 for it a year an a half ago. I like it because I

found a zoom very helpful stalking birds. Sometimes I get pretty close and the ability to retract to 100 or points between

has been very useful. I will not get into the debate about sharpness. There are plenty of threads that address this that you

can research along with Bob Atkins evaluations. For my purposes it is sharp enough at 400. There is a swan flapping its

wings in my gallery shot at 100mm that I would never have gotten had I had a straight 400mm lens mounted. There is also,

in the gallery, an Oriole on a shepherds hook that was shot at 400mm that blew up very well.

[nhut-nguyen]

EF 400 f/5.6L USM, the best lens for the money for bird in flight. I own one and love it. When you shoot bird, get the longer lens over the faster lens. Just be careful because once you get the 400, you'll want the 500, then 600, then 800

[derrickdehaan]

If third party is an option, you can look at Sigma glass. I bird with the 50-500mm myself. I am happy with the results on my 40D. The only downside is in post. In my opinion, Sigma glass needs a boost in saturation and contrast. They tend to be a tad warmer than my Canon counterparts. My lens set is split nearly 50/50 Canon and Sigma glass. Just another option to think about. I find the extreme zoom range useful.

 

Derrick

[photodiscoveries]

As an avid bird photographer who has tried to use a number of different lenses, I concur with the idea that you

must have at least 400mm to get close to the shots you want. I have used both the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400. I

felt that the 400 was a bit sharper, but that is very relative. How sharp is sharp? I think that given your

budget, I would go with the 100-400, as the versatility of the zoom is really helpful. Just last week I was on

the river taking pictures of sandhill cranes. I was using my 400mm F4 DO lens (not the one I usually take in the

kayak,) and missed a number of flying crane pictures because I could not get the entire bird in the frame. The

100-400 would have been much better. Even shooting smaller birds, I find the composition that a zoom offers to

be valuable. One last note...all 400 mm glass is not the same. Last year I found a used 400mm f4 DO and the

pictures from it are superior to either the 400mm 5.6 or the 100-400. Plus with the f4 you can add the 1.4

extender and still retain autofocus. Happy birding.

 

John

[jamie_robertson2]

I would also recommend the 100-400. The zoom is useful and you also get IS. The 400mm f5.6 doesn't have IS.

[hawkman]

below $2000 = 400 f/5.6 or 100-400 (very portable)

above $2000 = 500 f/4 IS (you need a good tripod, less portable)

[eric merrill]

Dimitare:

 

I'm happy with a 300/4 IS + 2x on a 40D. This works out to be the equivalent of a 960/8. If you want

autofocus, stick with the 1.4x for a 670/5.6.

 

One advantage of the 300/4 IS over the 400/5.6 is the IS. I'd have gone with the 400 when I was buying

if it had IS. I'm glad I went the 300 route.

 

 

Eric

[photohns]

I only have the 70-200 now but I would like to buy the 100-400. I think DeLoyd is right that a zoom is useful. Sometimes I am able to get a nice shot with my shorter lens and I think if I had a 400mm fixed lenght I would miss these shots. I think maybe switching lenses would spook them if they were close. Also would you miss a shot switching lenses? I am only a good birder though and not a good bird photographer yet. Just my 2 cents.

[keith reeder]

The 100-400mm, no question.

 

I'm an avid bird photographer, and use my 100-400mm at less than 400mm almost as much as I use it at 400mm - it's just *the* most versatile, high IQ lens out there, regardless of manufacturer.

[dimitaretch]

Thank you all for you helpful comments and advise. I did small research, went to the store and got the 400 f5.6. I have 2 weeks and plan to test it as much as I can and make a decision if it will stay or go back to the store.

 

I will let you know how the testing go. Know lets go shooting! :)

[dimitaretch]

Sorry for the typo! I meant NOW lets go shooting! :)

[dimitaretch]

So far – two days of testing and I am soooooo EXTREMLY IMPRESED by the sharpness and IQ that this lens produces! It is just unbelievable!

The only problem so far is that with 1.4x the AF does not work, but that was expected.

 

The tests continue…. Lets go shooting!

[naturetrek]

I also have the 400mm f/5.6 lens and I'm very happy with it. How do you find the shots when using the 1.4X on it

? Is the image quality "compromised" ? Did you try taping the pins to see if the AF works ?

[dimitaretch]

Hi Diana,

 

Sorry for the delay with my reply! lately, I haven't been able to spend as much time as I would like here.

 

I did try the lens with the extender, however the autophocus does not work (I haven't tried to tape the pins yet). The images that came out with the extender were little softer. I wear glasses that are little behind in terms of power, so I heavily rely on autofocus and the softness might be the result of a manual focusing of the subjects.

 

Here is a sample image of the moon that was part of my tests (no extender).

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00R8YY&photo_id=7997074&photo_sel_index=0

 

 

As you can see the sharpnes is very, very good. I might try the taping trick this weekend.

 

Best Regards,

Dimitare