Lens selection and technique for birds

[tc1]

Hi,

 

I'm thinking of jumping into the world of bird photography and would

like some advice and opinions on a few things. I've read through the

archives but haven't really found an answer, so I hope my post won't

be addressing something thats been discussed a gazillion times.

 

First tho, I have an EOS3, EF28-135IS and a EF50/1.8. I also own a

Manfrotto 190B tripod. In relation to my questions regarding

equipment, renting to try it out or returning purchases are not in

practice in my country (I SO wish it was!)

 

My questions are as follows:

 

1. I have read here that the PB-E2 reduces the shutter noise of the

EOS3. Is this a significant reduction or something that is not worth

investing in. I've been trying to take some reptile pictures and

everytime I hit the shutter, everything close by slithers away. Kinda

defeats the purpose of me moving really stealthily and acting non-

aggro.

 

2. I am considering getting a 300/4 lens - not a longer one due to

budget constraints. I will be planning to use it mainly with a 2xTC

even tho I understand that a 1.4xTC would yield better images. Its

been said that the non-IS version is slightly sharper than its IS

brethren. But I also understand that at 300mm, a shutterspeed of

1/125 won't guarantee me a sharp image, much less 420 or 600mm. As I

will be taking mostly in tropical rainforests where the tree canopy

will obstruct most of the light anyways, it be tough for me to obtain

speeds fast enough with a max aperture of f8. I have only ever gotten

an average of 1/60 at f7.1 with my 28-135. Therefore, I am wondering

how useful/needed the IS is, and whether its a needed tradeoff. I

don't know how often I'd use the tripod or any of those things as I

haven't yet taken any bird pics. Therefore, I don't know what the

tried and tested techniques are and what WILL actually happen in the

field yet, so I am kinda bummed trying to make a decision assessing

the tradeoff. I'm hoping existing birders will be able to advice

based on their experience and techniques. What I do know is that

 

a. I would like to take pics of birds (doing everything they do),

animals, insects(macro capability with extension tubes or diopters?)

and basically everything and anything in the jungle.

 

b. I'm quite skeptical as to the durability of the IS version in the

harsh humid conditions that I am planning on taking it - my 28-135

rattles sometimes like there's something loose in a tin can. I

daren't even move fast with it slapping my side. Coming from a Nikon

system before, this is worrying me. (I have taken a F80/MB-16 with a

20/2.8 out on a 5 day kayak trip in a zip-lock bag and gotten water

in the bag once for a good 10mins and it still works fine).

 

c. I would like the 300mm to be also suited to other types of

photography . . . even tho I don;t know how that would fare.

 

Well, thats about it I guess . . . sorry for the long post.

 

Thanks in advance and hope I didn't ask too many stupid questions. :)

[craig_bridge]

1) In a forest situation, a PB-E2 isn't where I'd spend money.

2) A 300 f/4 is a good choice plus a 1.4x TC. Doubt anything longer or heavier or slower would be benificial. IMO: They aren't in less dense old growth North American forests that I've hiked.

a) Short extension tubes on a 300 f/4 are fine to get you a closer minimum focus distance, but for macro work the 500D diopter would be my choice.

b) IS is benificial hand holding. In that environment, you need to take steps to prevent fungus issues for any lens/camera.

c) a 300mm f/4 prime is a nice light weight medium telephoto.

[gannet___]

Not a direct answer, but I think anyone who is getting serious about bird photography should read "The Art of Bird Photography" by Arthur Morris. Much good advice about what lens to use where, etc. Also incredible photos that will either inspire or depress you, or both. This is the "John Shaw" book for bird photogs. :) I have no connection other than a satisfied customer. Link here:

<p>

<a href='http://www.birdsasart.com/'>Birds As Art</a>

[bob stewart jacksonville]

1)I'd second the birds as art reccomendation. 2) there are a lot better ways to spend a limited budget than the power booster. (I've never noticed a problem with the EOS 3 shutter bothering birds)I would add a 1.4 tc before I bought a power booster. 3) A 300 f/4 is a great choice. Its sharp, well built, and about the minimum you're going to get away with trying to do birds. Another possibilty would be the 400 5.6 L, but it is less flexible than the 300 with a 1.4 and 2x tc.

4) If your going to use the 300 f/4 on a tripod, the IS doesn't help. (unlike the 500 and 600 IS, the IS feature on the 300 is not designed to work on a tripod. It is nice for handholding for flight photography.(mode II). As for the durability of the 300 f/4 IS, it definitely feels better put together than the 28-135 IS. I've been using my 300 f/4 IS for 5 years photographing out of a kayak without incident. For what its worth a number of the bird photos in my portfolio are done with the 300 f/4 IS.

[david_goldfarb]

I find that whenever I go out with a 300mm lens for bird photography, unless I'm in a situation where I can use a blind or approach on water, I'm probably using a teleconverter. I'd seriously consider looking at a 400mm lens, if you're not using a blind or a boat.

[yuri_huta]

A few weeks ago I returned from a trip to Ecuador. My wife and I spent five weeks in the Amazon, taking turns shooting with a Canon EF 300/2.8 with a matched 2-X converter attached for every shot. While the effective focal length (600mm) was adequate for a lot of subjects, the effective speed of the lens (f/5.6) was in many cases not. We shot Fuji Provia 100. We did not push the film, because in many cases it would not have made a difference for us. We did have rain every single day and it we were told that it was unusually cloudy the entire time we were there.

 

You may consider getting a powerful flash and a fresnel lens set up for it (concentrates the light when shooting with telephoto lenses).I hope to try the 300 with 2-x and this flash and fresnel lens set up in a few months on a follow up trip there.

[tc1]

Appreciate the replies so far. Thanks to all!

 

Craig, will be using the 500D for macro work and tubes for closer focusing like you suggested.

 

Gannet. Have briefly read through some faqs on Arthur Morris's site - will have to read more in-depth.

 

Thanks Bob, my concern regarding the noise of the shutter was more in regards to taking photos of reptiles, animals etc when I'm as close as about 1-1.5m from them. Sometimes there's a more than one frog or lizard and by the time I get off one shot, the rest would have gone because of the shutter going off. I know its been mentioned that they don't react to sound as much as movement but it seems to scare them. Vibrational movement translated through the ground (air???) somehow??? I dunno . . . will prolly be too slight but it does affect them as far as I've observed. My skeptism on the built was more in comparison to the non IS 300. I get the impression that when hard pressed, the original would last through a whole lot more of sh*t than the IS. The reference to the 28-135 was because I felt that the rattling was somehow due to the IS unit inside. Again, all these are just IMPRESSIONS and I don't have facts to back it up - hence why I'm asking. Sorry for not being clear on the IS/durability/28-135 question.

 

David, I don't think I can afford a 400mm. Thanks for the suggestion tho.

 

Yuri, thanks for sharing the xperience. Wanted to get the 300/2.8 myself until I found out the price. Will have to read up on the fresnel.

 

Another question. Would using the diopter on the 28-135 be better or the 300? ie. macro with the 28-135 or 300?

 

Thanks again! Hope to hear more.

 

Regards.

[marcus_erne]

Hello TC!

 

I can give you no particular advice for Canon equipment (I use Minolta AF), so my advice will be more generic.

 

I also use a 300mm f/4 with the 2 dedicated TC's for nature & wildlife work. It makes a high quality "budget" set-up for general wildlife. As for birds I find it is useful mainly for larger birds (ducks, egrets, pelikans, swans etc.). But as you seem to be an expert for stalking, you may have more success! ;^)

 

At 600mm f/8 I must focus manually which I find at times (depending on subject and light) very uncomfortable. The quality still seems to be alright, although I am sure that it can not stand a comparison to a 600mm prime.

Be aware that any lens larger & heavier than a 300mm f/4 may require a new tripod!

 

You can make up for the loss of aperture speed (@ f/5.6 & f/8)in 2 ways:

 

1) Push Sensia (Provia) ISO 100 to ISO 200 for the "little" extra.

 

2) Use Sensia 400 (F), as there is only minimal increase in grain. You will notice a difference only as a direct comparison to a finer emulsion! I have heard of several published images with this film that was pushed to 800!

 

I am not sure about the diameter of the Canon lens, but Canon makes this close-up element (500D) in larger diameters such as 72mm (and perhaps larger?).

 

I hope this helps!?

 

Cheers,

Marcus

[yakim_peled1]

How about a s/h 400/5.6 L or 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS and a 1.4X ? Does your budget allows them ?

[greg s]

Yuri is correct in regards to the use of a flash. If you're planning on photographing birds in the forest (or in many other locations), use of fill flash will be important. I have been experimenting a lot lately with flash and different film speeds and am about ready to upgrade to a more powerful flash unit and a 'better beamer'. In order to get the feather detail and colors, you've got to get some light on the subject. Enjoy!

[robert_p._boner]

The IS feature is definitely worth it. The 300 f/4 IS is an excellent lens, and seems to be quite durable. I have had mine about 3 years, and I bought it used. It will focus to 5 feet. It works well with both the 1.4 and 2x tc's, but I think the new 2x is much better than the old one. It is an excellent lens for photographing large birds, or photographing from a blind. If you plan to photograph small birds from your car (one of the easiest ways to approach them), you will be frustrated with anything smaller than 500mm.

 

If critical sharpness is important to you, I would not get the 100-400. At 400mm, wide open, they are a little soft, and that worsens with teleconverters.

[jay_horton]

I would agree with a lot of what has already been said.

 

FYI the Canon 400 f5.6 can be had for around $ 600 used, and is a tack sharp lens, although a bit slow.

 

I feel that you have been misinformed with regards to the 300 f4 IS. It is an extremely sharp lens, and the IS is quite useful. It also focuses much closer than the old non-IS. This is important when you are trying to fill a 35mm frame with a bird! It also functions very well with both Tc's.

 

With regards to the durability issue, I think that you may be mistaken. The 300 IS is an, ' L,' lens with superior build quality to the consumer grade 28-135. Pros are lugging these lenses all over the globe, and I have not seen or heard anything negative about their durability.

 

As has been previously stated, whatever you buy, you are always going to wish that it was at least 500mm!

[craig_andrew_yuill]

<p>Using an IS lens would be a good idea. I'm not sure whether a 300mm lens will be long enough for your needs. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the behaviour of the birds. Some are gregarious, and others are shy. You might try to find articles/books/internet sites that give info re birds in the area you will be shooting. That should help you to decide which focal length(s) will best work for you.</p>

<p>Although I own Art Morris' book, and like it very much, most of his shooting is done in broad daylight, with sunlight directly striking his subjects. This isn't quite the same as shooting in a forest canopy.</p>

<p>One thing that you might want to consider using is a reasonably-powerful flash unit, one with a fairly-high number at a telephoto-zoom setting. You could use this in conjunction with a flash-rotating bracket such as the Stroboframe Press T. I found that the only decent shots I could get with a similar (300mm f/4.5) rig and venue (a forest of tall Douglas firs) were with a flash unit. The vertical shots, however, looked odd because of the positioning of the flash (on the left side), which is why I suggest using a bracket that will allow you to keep the flash above the lens.</p>

[tc1]

Marcus, Yakim, Greg, Robert, Jay and Craig. Thanks for the replies.

 

Will have to try Sensia 400(F) and see how it works out - sounds promising. ;P The 500D does come in a 77mm thread size.

 

Would stretching my budget to accomodate a 400/5.6L be worth it? (I don't think I would be happy with the 100-400IS at the 400 end, which will be mostly where I'm planning to use it) And I do mean stretching it. Would I miss the IS on the 300? Would 400 be too unwieldy in focal range and size/weight? At the end of the day, I want to be able to maximise the number of keepers in a roll of film. I know for birding, more range is needed! :)

 

I will have to try and find a used 400/5.6. Used prime lenses of this range is difficult to come by in my country. Or should I say 'L' series lenses in general :).

 

I get the impression that the IS version is as durable as the non-IS version. And so I will take that as 'fact'?? Since no one's inclined to disagree . . .

 

About the flash units - I think they're gonna have to wait a bit. All of it sounds really expensive and I'm not even a 'certified-beginner' in bird photography. I think I'll try and use existing light for a while until I get the basics right before introducing artificial light into the equation. Trying to take it a step at a time. ;P

 

I've been doing the math and the cost of a 300/4IS, 500D, 1.4TC and 25mm extension tube cost about as much as 2 300/4 non IS!!! Any other lens worth considering for that price then?

 

Thanks again!!

[clivecc]

FYI...

 

This shot is with the 300mm F4 IS lens with the new Canon 2x TC II:

 

http://www.clivecc.com/Random_Favorites/Rnd_3.htm

 

Just to give an idea of the image quality. It was shot at F16 and 1/30 sec hand held, and I don't have too much trouble hand holding down to 1/15 sec.

 

I have a lots of images from many different lenses + equipment reviews on my web site:

 

http://www.clivecc.com

 

Hope this helps.

Clive

[jay_horton]

Clive, that is a beautiful head shot of the kestrel.

 

Good enough to convince me to go out and buy a 2x TC II.

 

Any extension, or just the lens & TC?

 

Have you tried stacking it with the 1.4 on the 300 f4?

[andrey_mikhaylov]

TC,<p>

 

I own and use a 300mm/4.0 L IS for more than a year for bird photography. While I am happy with it regarding image quality, AF performance etc., I do NOT find IS that useful. It is designed to overcome the influence of handholding the lens, but you can do it much better avoiding handholding at all. With this focal length, I always use it either on a tripod or on a gunstock anyway. The gunstock is very useful and versatile accesory for a 300mm or 400mm lens, it allows approximately the same shutter speeds with a 300/4 as the IS is supposed to allow. And finally, for birds I use the 300/4 more than 90% of the cases with 2.0x, if only the light allows. The low speed of the resulting combination 600/8 is the main obstacle. <p>

So, if the birds are the main target, I would support the idea of a 400/5.6.<p>

Be prepared to learn the additional techniques that are necessary to maintain the sharpness beyond 300mm, especially with slow lenses. First experiences may be disappointing, as it was in my case. Now I always use an additional bar which links the camera body to the tripod to minimise vibrations.<p>

While modern L lenses are said to be well protected agains rain, at least the 300/4.0L IS develops horrifying scratching noise if small sand particles enter the focusing ring, and this happens very easily, it can be enough to touch the lend barrel with a hand after touching the ground.

[jay_horton]

I use my 300 f4 IS primarily on windswept sandy beaches, and so far no, ' Horrifying scratching noises,' for me.

 

I think it is fairly obvious that if you are only going to shoot from a tripod, there is no benefit to IS, but there is still benefit to close focus.

 

IS allos you to shoot sharp pictures hand-held at 1/125, sometimes even 1/60.

[tc1]

Thanks for the answers again.

 

This just crossed my mind tho. If I were to put 2 25mm extension tubes for a total of 50mm on a 400/5.6, how bad would the resulting image be, what f-stop am I looking at and how close would that allow me to focus? The lens min focuses at 3.5m which is a little bit too far. I remember reading an article in Pop Photography by Tim Fitzharris(prolly got it wrong) about using 400mm with 50mm xtension for macro and his images were quite good still.

 

I am only thinking about this because the 300IS is actually more expensive than the 400/5.6. And I AM buying the lens to specifically do wildlife. So, I figured more reach is better . . . altho I hear what you guys are saying with the IS . . .

 

cheers.

[david_goldfarb]

I've use a much earlier Canon 400/4.5 with 25mm and 50mm extension tubes as well as both combined, and the results have been fine, so I suspect they will only be better with the new 400/5.6. Here's an example--<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/252331&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/252331&size=lg</a>. I've even put labels with distance markings on the focusing scale on the lens, so that I can quickly decide whether to use 25, 50, or 75mm of extension. On an autofocus lens, you might just mark the near and far limit.

[david_goldfarb]

Oops, that one was with a 1.4x extender, not an extension tube. This one was with a 25mm tube, if I remember correctly: <a href="http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/wtspar.jpg">http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/wtspar.jpg</a>.

[jess]

I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents since some of it is a little different from what you have already read. Not to say any of the above is wrong this is just my experiance. First I would just carry 100 provia, it easly pushes to 200 and produces very usable (saleable) images pushed 2 stops to 400. I switched from Nikon in the fall of 99 with the 600,100-400 and 28-135 IS, I have had no trouble with the durability on any of thes lens including many miles on horse back and snowmobile Of course sometimes the squirreles sound like they want to be fed in the non L 28-135 :-).

 

As far as the sharpness of the 100-400. Well I have read alot about this on the web and it is not really as sharp as the 300 wide open but it is as sharp as the 300 w/1.4 and at 400 it produces saleable images. I use this lens second only to the 600 F4 and I also have the 300 f2.8 IS and the 200 f 1.8 both of which are the 2 sharpest lens ever made. 100-400 is just very handy. I believe Artie has switch to using it for much of his flight shooting as do many working photographers.

 

That said if you want to use the lens for macro or with converters I wouldn't go that way. for this I would go with the 300 f4 and if you will be hand holding get the IS you be sorry if you don't. The 500 D is really nice but it gives very narrow depth of field and a big surface for flare. The 300 IS which is close focusing with a couple of extention tubes is the way to go but you might not get good results with any of this without a flash and better beamer flash extender.

This last 2 items would be the most critical pieces of gear for me if I were doing what you are interested in doing.

 

Good luck and let us know how it is going.

[chas]

-TC Lee,

 

IS lenses are as durable as any other, and the big telephotos even

more so due to O-rings. Additionally, IS will prove a major advantage

in the limited light of the forest canopy. My suggestion is not to go

with the straight 400 5.6L lacking the IS capability. You will have

far more images ruined by camera shake than anything else will. Get a

Wimberley flash bracket and a better beamer, as these will prove

indispensable in the low light environment. For your budget, and

secondary macro/close-up concerns I would opt for the 300 f/4 IS w/

converters.

 

See you in the field,

 

Chas NPN/STL

[isaac sibson]

My own birding kit is an EOS 3 with 300 F4L IS and 1.4X TC. More and more I find myself in awe of this combo, with the EOS 3 doing great justice to the lenses (where the EOS 5 was a little lacking). This is a superb set-up for low-light hand-holding, as the IS makes 1/100th or so usable hand-held at 420mm (I have a reasonably steady hand also), and when light really drops off, you can lose the teleconverter to gain two stops (1 stop of light, 1 stop of reciprocal rule), and shoot down to 1/60th @ F4.

 

I love this combo, and I wouldn't swap it for anything now.

[tc1]

A big thanks to all that have taken the time to post a reply.

 

I've placed an order for a 300/4IS and a 1.4TC and will be collecting it tonite.

 

I was going to get the 400/5.6 solely for the fact that it would give me a more comfortable reach from the outset and that someone did a comparison and concluded that the pictures were slightly warmer. Also, the MTF charts in Canon's brochure showed that it was more consistent throughout when compared to the other 2 300mm lenses.

 

I went for the 300IS instead because I had to wait for 2 months for the 400 to ship from Japan!! Also, I had a look at how bad my hands were shaking (too much coffee!!!) and figured they wouldn't hold up to stabilizing appr.2kg worth of gear when it really counted. Was also hoping that they would come out with a 400/4 or 5.6 IS. grin.

 

Well, thanks again!