5dmk3 or 7D and 5dmk2

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks for the follow up Christina.</p>

<p>Since you already have the 100-400mm, consider using the 300mm f/4L IS with and without the 1.4X TC. On the 5D MkIII, it's almost as fast to AF as the 400/5.6 and it's more versatile. With more OT and maybe selling the 100-400mm, then you might have budget for a 300/f2.8, which has fast AF with a 2X TC. Fill in the short end with a used 70-200/f4IS.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>@David Stephens you really think I should go with one of the 300mm and that will be enough reach on the 5dmkIII, even with the TC? I have never thought of that. I would be hesitant to get rid of my 100-400mm because I use it so much for wildlife. I heard that 400 5.6 was really good for BIF. The 300 f4 w/TC 1.4 would be about the same as it though? I don't think I could swing the 300mm 2.8 as much as I would love to.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Have a look at a used 1D IV as well. It is in your price bracket and may offer the AF and fps required for BIF. Also gets to f8 AF with the centre point, I believe. I also suspect that if you are patient you could get a used original Canon EF 500/4.5 L for about the same as the 300 and 400 put together. I have even seen the original Canon EF 600/4 L selling in the $2500 to $3000 range. </p>

<p>If you are creative I think there is a better way to do birds in flight for $7000 to $8400 USD. </p>

<p>I also recommend one very good telephoto lens as opposed to two good ones. You won't use a 300 and a 400mm lens. You will always want the longest possible.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"@David Stephens you really think I should go with one of the 300mm and that will be enough reach on the 5dmkIII, even with the TC?"<br>

<br>

Christina, as a long-time bird shooter (25 years, many magazine appearances, and co-shooter on one book), the IS on the 300 is worth it, and the image quality with the 1.4x will be just fine. Handheld, except in good light with high shutter speeds, probably better than the non-IS 400/5.6. The latter is an older lens, which is why it lacks IS. It is optically fine, but I shoot the 300/4 IS + 1.4x for a reason: handholding in softer, darker light.<br>

<br>

Speaking as some one who has been shooting birds for a very long time, as I mentioned, you're going to find 400 too short for serious work most of the time on a FF body, but it will be much more reasonable on a crop body like the 7D.<br>

<br>

David has the 500/4, excellent choice. But the 500/4 is not the 400/5.6, and the 500/4+1.4x will maintain autofocus which the 400/5.6+1.4x or 300/4+2x will not. And if the 300/2.8 is out of your reach financially, the 500/4, especially the new one, is even more out of reach.<br>

<br>

If you don't care about AF just buy a 5D II and be done with it. Seriously.<br>

<br>

"I don't think I could swing the 300mm 2.8 as much as I would love to."<br>

<br>

You are going to limit yourself for bird/wildlife photography if you can't go *long*, and *long* means the 500/4 on a full-frame body at a minimum. For me, once a part-time professional, and for full-time professionals, again, bread-and-butter is the 600/4, or the 800/5.6.<br>

<br>

Look, I sold my first bird photos with an old 400/5.6 APO. Later I switched to Canon and the 300/2.8 with the 2x extender. On a tripod, or good support in the car, I could beat the 400/5.6 APO (on a Minolta) and started doubling my saleable images. On crop bodies, it has been doubled again. That's just the way it's been.<br>

<br />Then I bought the 600/4, for film use. With the flexibility of the 1.4x extender, it doubled my saleable images again.<br>

<br>

On crop bodies, it has been doubled again. That's just the way it's been.</p>

 

Look, I've only sold a out $20K-$30K worth of wildlife images, part-time, over the years. That's not much. But it's enough so that I think I know a bit about the craft.

 

<p>Now, as I've mentioned above, the 1.6 crop factor of the 7D makes 300, 400, 600 all extremely good for birds. Full-frame, really, 500 mm is your minimum. Your keepers in focus with the 5D III might be higher full-frame, but you're going to be filling 1/1.6th of the frame.<br>

<br>

If you're going to go with the 5D III, do what David has done - budget for the 500/4 (and 1.4x).<br>

<br>

Otherwise, forget it if you're serious about becoming a bird shooter. Seriously.<br>

</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-ef-600mm-4-0-f-4-L-lens-600mm-4-non-IS-lens-/170951313384?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item27cd7e07e8</p>

<p>The above lens should be within your budget. Also, get a used Wimberly or Jobu gimbal head to shoot the birds.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>@ Don Baccus What would you do if you were in my shoes with $8400? I sincerely trust your opinion.<br>

@Peter J thanks for the link I did not know those lenses could be found so cheap.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>I should also add by June of next year I could have another $4800 available</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>It was a first generation 600 mm f/4L USM lens released in 1998. It was Canon's longest telephoto lens. The price is low in the above link because parts are most likely no longer available, it shows battle scars and is missing the expensive case and other stock items. Let's presume the optics produce a sharp image. Throw it on a compatible gimbal head and you are in business. The money saved and the money you will have next June can get you other tools.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>@David Stephens I own 100mm Macro IS, 70-200mm 2.8 II, 100-400mm, 50mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8, and EFS 18-55mm. I forgot to answer that question of yours.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Christina, I agree with Don's answer to your question about the suitability of the 300/f4 IS vs. the 400/5.6. The lack of IS on the 400/5.6 is a big negative. Versus you 100-400mm you only gain AF speed, but the 300/f4 IS will match that closely, even with the 1.4X TC attached.</p>

<p>That 600mm being discussed is HEAVY and HUGE. The lack of IS and weight make it a tripod baby, with hand holding out of the question for most of us. If you really want a long lens, look for a used Series I EF 500mm f/4L IS for around $6,000. This is a wonderful lens with the 7D, with and without the 1.4X TC. I know two women that hand hold this baby, as I do for 99.9% of my shots with it. Given the money your budgeting, you might by a used 7D to use while you're waiting on the 7D MkII (it could be months and months) and then buy a used 500mm Series I.</p>

<p>You seem to be moving this direction and with $8,400 you could get there in one-step.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>IS the 7D that much better than my 50D I have right now? And all the other forums I have read suggested the 400 5.6 with a monopod so I didn't know the 300mm f4 + 1.4 was doable :) I want the best image quality I can get. And that goes for the best setup as well.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The big advantages of the 7D vs. your 50D are the 8-fps and more adjustable AF system. You can do well with your 50D, but the 7D is faster and more responsive.</p>

<p>Both the 400/5.6 and the 300/f4 have exceptional IQ. You can see the raw lenses compared here:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</a><br>

I thought that I saw a comparison of the 300mm with the 1.4X TC, but I can't find it.</p>

<p>If you're willing to consider a used lens, <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/">http://www.lensrentals.com/</a> has some deals. Buying used from a reputable source will give you the most lens for the money and increase the odds that you can recover your full investment when you move up.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>So basically get the 7D and not the 5DmkIII? And yes I am very open to good used lenses. With already having the 100-400 would the 400 5.6 be useless? I am leaning towards the 300mm + 1.4</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you are going to go with a smaller budget then the 7D, 300/4 L IS, and 1.4x is the way to go. My 300/4 L (non-IS) and 1.4x is very sharp, and has little or no chromatic aberation. I think the IS version will be similar. My 20 year old Nikon 400/2.8 manual lens is significantly sharper but does show more CA (though relatively easy to minimize in post processing). </p>

<p>If you are going to go all out and maximize your budget then I'd be considering a used Canon EF 500mm f4.5 L now (or if you think you can afford it, a used 500/4 IS), to use with the 50D, and add a used 1D IV in the spring/summer. The 1D IV is in the same price range as the 5D III but offers what should be more accurate focus and goes all the way to 10 fps with a very large buffer. The 1D IV has similar pixel density to the 5D III meaning resolution should be similar when using the same lens on both cameras, and high ISO noise will be similar. The 1D IV is however quite heavy so you'd be best to check one out in person. The 500mm L lenses are the typical birding lens because they weigh the same as the 300/2.8 lenses and about 1/2 of what the 600/4 weighs. The 500mm L lenses are considerably sharper than the 300/4 L and 400/5.6 L and of course signficantly longer for tighter framing.</p>

<p>Whether IS is useful for birding is up to some debate. In low light with birds wading in water or hanging out in the shade of trees IS would help considerably in avoiding the use of a tripod. However, with birds in flight, you are likely using shutter speeds fast enough to stop the action of the bird and any motion of the lens/camera combo. Whether doubling your expenditure for a supertelephoto IS version is worth it is up to you. </p>

<p>Let us know how you make out with your choice of lens/camera.</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>Thank you for your input John Crowe. I am unsure which way to go right now. I have completely confused myself and am unsure what the best choice would be. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>That would be a great way to start.</p>

<p>The next step is a 500mm. Buy the rig you're considering and then check your committment. After three-months, are you still going out every chance you get and shooting several hundred shots per month? If so, then start thinking about a used 500mm and a body upgrade (a 7D MkII may be available by then).</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>How much is a used 500mm IS v1 or v2 going for I can't seem to find any online? I must be blind</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Oh, NEVER buy a super-tele without IS. You'll be chained to a tripod. Yes, for BIF, at SS above 1/1000-sec. IS does little, but you never know when you'll hand hold a shot at 700mm, at 1/80-sec.:</p>

<p><a title="Buck in the cattails at sunset by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8337/8180759388_d83f420405_b.jpg" alt="Buck in the cattails at sunset" width="1024" height="1024" /></a></p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>Beautiful shot!</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>that are very good, but aging.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh my, this certainly hits close too close to home, don't you think?<br>

<br /> I am very pleased with the 50D and the 5Dii that I upgraded to this year to replace my 20D and 5D classic. But I tend to shoot sitting ducks for my wildlife photography, so as I said earlier, really check out the focus systems to see what you may need.</p><div></div>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>My husband has informed me that I do not need the 400 5.6, anyone agree? Is the 300 + 1.4 just as good IQ wise? Sorry for all the questions I greatly appreciate everyone's time. <br>

@ JDM great Duck shot :)</p>

[christina_hoffner]

<p>All the bird photographers out there, do you hand hold, or use a tripod or monopod at all? Is a gimbal head needed or is that overkill?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I use the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM + Canon Extender EF 1.4x II with a JOBU Black Widow Gimbal Head Pro. I will be upgrading to a Canon Extender EF 1.4x III.</p>

[eric_washburn]

<p>A gimbal head will greatly improve your photos of perched birds and prevent you from putting your chiropractor on speed dial. Very few photographers use them for shots of birds in flight.</p>

[dcstep]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7150338">christina hoffner</a> , Dec 05, 2012; 12:50 a.m. asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>All the bird photographers out there, do you hand hold, or use a tripod or monopod at all? Is a gimbal head needed or is that overkill?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just so you know that I'm not anti-tripod, I own a 6-ply carbon fiber Induro C414, with an Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal. When I had my 400/5.6 (don't get one, I agree with you incredibly intelligent husband) and when I first purchased my 500/f4, I used the tripod for 99% of my super-tele shots.</p>

<p>After around 9-months of shooting the 500/f4 I tried a few hand held shots and my keeper rate doubled immediately. As I gained more experience with hand holding, my keeper rate improved further. Almost all my friends shooting super-teles now hand hold, even two women shooting 500/f4s. You do get better and stronger over time, but it is worth the time and effort to develop your left arm. With a 300/f4, it'll be child's play. When you buy that 500/f4 that I see in your future, then it'll take a few outing to build you strength, but it'll come quickly.</p>

<p>I do use my tripod when I have a subject that I'm going to observe in one place for quite a while. Last spring I sat under great horned owl nests for hours at a time, with the camera almost constantly trained on the nest, waiting for some action. I did the same thing shooting burrowing owls, which tend to stay in a relatively small territory. I set up my folding stool and sat for hours shooting a family of owls.</p>

<p>A friend and I were shooting a humming bird sitting on and guarding its favorite perch and flower patch (this is another good time for a tripod). My friend had his Gitzo/Wimberley rig and I was hand holding when a yellow warbler came into the open in the neighboring bush. I got the shot while he was futzing around with his tripod, moving and trying to lower it at the same time. He got nothing.</p>

 

 

<p><a title="What have we here...? by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8025/7380965072_bca4b1f33e_b.jpg" alt="What have we here...?" width="1024" height="1024" /></a></p>