Suggestions needed for a new kit for birding - considering Canon

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Hi to everyone.</p>

<p>Disclosure: I am a Pentax gearghead, so bear with me here.</p>

<p>I am currently in serious need of a lens/camera body (maybe) upgrade for birding.<br>

Unfortunately, pretty much everything I had considered with Pentax comes at a very high price. Of course, that is always the issue but why should I pend more than I really have to?<br>

This is what came up in my searches so far:<br>

Pentax: Sigma 300/2.8 plus Sigma 1.4X TC; Total cost: $3650.00 .... ouch! Mind you, I had also considered the Sigma 500/4.5 but the price is way out of my league.</p>

<p>Canon: EOS 7D: $1,500 (is this the ongoing price?)<br>

Canon: 400 F5.6 L $1,300 (price?)<br>

Total: $2,800 plus a 1.4X TC that would retain AF ... not sure which one but I put a rough estimate of $250.00 ... $3,000 grand total.</p>

<p>That's a $600 difference and I wonder if that set up would be "as good" as the K5 + Siggy 300/2.8 + TC.<br>

I must also consider the "IQ" resulting from this Canon setup which seems quite good according to some reviewed photos.</p>

<p>My questions:<br>

1. Is this a serious contender in my search for extra reach for birding? I sure don't mind adding a "new system" to my gear.<br>

2. Learning curve with this setup considering that I have been using Pentax products for several decades now.<br>

3. AF .... which actual TC with the Canon 400/5.6 lens would allow for retaining AF?<br>

4. Does it make any sense to even consider such a kit?</p>

<p>Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks. JP</p>

<p> </p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>I just saw this thread: <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bRBG">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bRBG</a><br>

and that offers some insight.<br>

I should have looked more carefully as it answers some of my questions, although my thread is a tad different in the sense that I am trying to make a decision between two entirely different systems.</p>

 

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>I am currently in serious need of a lens/camera body (maybe) upgrade for birding.<br />Unfortunately, pretty much everything I had considered with Pentax comes at a very high price. Of course, that is always the issue but why should I pend more than I really have to?<br />This is what came up in my searches so far:<br />Pentax: Sigma 300/2.8 plus Sigma 1.4X TC; Total cost: $3650.00 .... ouch! Mind you, I had also considered the Sigma 500/4.5 but the price is way out of my league.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good, long lenses are always expensive. Good lenses that are long AND fast are even more expensive, as you found out. Getting up there into birding territory can get real expensive, real fast, no matter which camera you have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon: EOS 7D: $1,500 (is this the ongoing price?)<br />Canon: 400 F5.6 L $1,300 (price?)<br />Total: $2,800 plus a 1.4X TC that would retain AF ... not sure which one but I put a rough estimate of $250.00 ... $3,000 grand total.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, the 400 f/5.6L does NOT have image stabilization, so you'll need a very good tripod. Second, a 7D will not maintain AF with a Canon 1.4x converter. It may with a third-party converter. But, do you really want to compromise the image quality of the 400 f/5.6L (one of Canon's best, especially at the price) with a third-party extender? Those prices are in the ballpark.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a $600 difference and I wonder if that set up would be "as good" as the K5 + Siggy 300/2.8 + TC.<br />I must also consider the "IQ" resulting from this Canon setup which seems quite good according to some reviewed photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon kit, minus the third-party extender, would be at least as good as the Sigma on your Pentax. The 400 f/5.6L is a very highly regarded lens, its only shortcoming being the lack of IS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My questions:<br />1. Is this a serious contender in my search for extra reach for birding? I sure don't mind adding a "new system" to my gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It could be, but another option in the same price range would be the 7D plus the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. The 100-400 adds Image Stabilization, and, even though it is a zoom, would outperform most 300s with 1.4x extenders attached. The 100-400 also accepts Canon's extenders.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />2. Learning curve with this setup considering that I have been using Pentax products for several decades now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only you can say, but if you are more comfortable with the Pentax, it may be better to stick with that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />3. AF .... which actual TC with the Canon 400/5.6 lens would allow for retaining AF?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, NONE of the Canon extenders will allow AF on a 7D with the 400 f/5.6L. The 7D can only AF with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster. Most third-party ones likely will allow it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />4. Does it make any sense to even consider such a kit?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is generally better to have the focal lengths you will use the most native in the lens, even if that lens is a zoom. For example, in order of IQ, using Canon optics:</p>

<ol>

<li>Canon 300 f/4L</li>

<li>Canon 400 f/5.6L</li>

<li>Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L</li>

<li>Canon 300 f/4L with Canon 1.4x Extender</li>

</ol>

<p>Mind you, there are some very close calls here, and other features may trump IQ in a particular photographer's decision process, like IS, or IQ @ 300, etc..</p>

<p>If you want the reach, but want to retain your Pentax, there are some other lenses from Sigma, including a 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 and a 150-500 f/5-6.3, both at around $1,000 or so.</p>

<p>Good luck in your decision!</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Second, a 7D will not maintain AF with a Canon 1.4x converter</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've already explained in another thread that it will, Larry - just not on the centre AF points, and the pins needs to be taped.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Larry:</p>

<p>Thanks a bunch for the detailed reply ... much appreciated.</p>

<p>A couple of elements brought to my attention:<br>

1. No IS .. that could be a bummer since I am used to shoot with the built-in SR of the Pentax bodies .... but that can be upset with proper handling and shutter speed.<br>

2. No AF with the Canon TC ... again a bit of a let down although other brands could do, except perhaps for the resulting IQ. That could also be a "bummer".<br>

If this lens is as good as expected, the best is to use it alone, without a TC, .... but then again I loose the extra 160mm.<br>

Time to get closer to the birds then! :)<br>

I never considered the 100-400 lens ... USM and IS .... very interesting. I will browse some more to see what sort of image quality one would get with this with/without a TC.<br>

I did search in the Sigma "zooms" but the concensus is that they are "soft" at the long end; ineterestingly, some users have had great success both in reach and IQ. One wonders if that has to do with technique or the lens "batch". i.e.: some users swear by those zooms while some others are simply disappointed.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for the time you took to reply.</p>

<p>JP</p>

<p> </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Also consider the new Nikon D7100. It promises to be very good as it has no anti-aliasing filter that should, in theory, lead to very sharp images. It also has a 1.3x crop mode which gives you 15-megapixel images at a higher frame rate whilst at the same time giving you an effective 2x focal length multiplier. i.e. a 300mm f/4 lens shoots like a 600mm f/4 lens in 35mm terms. In standard mode it shoots at 24-megapixel. Such a high resolution in conjunction with no AI filter "should" lead to very impressive image quality.</p>

<p>Canon cameras are in my blood, but if I were starting out in bird photography today, and with your budget, the D7100 would be my choice by a huge margin (especially if it is as good as the specs imply). It would also mean you can forget about the hassle of using teleconverters.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p><strong>@Jamie:</strong></p>

<p>I have read about the D7100: interesting camera; much similar to the Pentax K5IIs which is without the AA filter, giving sharper images. The famous "Moiré" is certainly not an issue from what I read from actual users.<br>

The D7100 has more to offer in terms of MP's, granted, and of course it has a better AF suystem than that of the Pentax.<br>

As for the effective FL ... I am not quite sure if I follow your calculations of the resulting FL: is that because of the "lesser" no. of MP's in high frame rate (15MP) that this happens plus the 1.3X crop ratio?<br>

I thought that, like in my case for the camera/lens I use, the resulting "FL" (from the crop mode) would be 300mm +1.5X (450mm), at 16 MP's.<br>

EDIT: just found this:</p>

<p align="left">"<em>There's also an inexplicably silly 1.3x crop mode, in which the frame rate climbs to 7 FPS. The 1.3x crop is inside the <a href="/tech/crop-factor.htm">1.5x DX crop</a> to make it a total of a 2x <a href="/tech/crop-factor.htm">crop factor</a>."</em><br>

I haven't checked what a Nikon setup (camera plus 400mm lens) would cost; possibly more than the Canon one?<br>

Further edit: just checked the prices:<br>

D7100 ... $1,200 (CDN)<br>

400mm 5.6 .... could not find any.<br>

I suppose they would have one such lens and hopefully with IS BUT I am almost scared to find out about the price.</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply.<br>

JP</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>The Canon 400/f5.6 will indeed focus on a 7D with a 1.4X TC attached (with pins taped), BUT whoa to you if the subject moves. IME it's too slow to track ANY bird in flight.</p>

<p>However, all is not lost, since 400mm is a decent focal length on a 1.6X crop sensor. Yes, you'll want more, but it's not the end of the world.</p>

<p> </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><strong>@Jacques: </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>I cannot understand any reviewer calling the 1.3x crop mode silly. It saves you having to manually crop your images afterwards and it increases the frame rate of the camera. Not sure how it effects the view through the viewfinder, I would be interested to know. </p>

<p>Nikon do a 300mm f/4 so that would give you 600mm. Add a teleconverter and you get even more focal length AND autofocus! Remember that shooting at an effective 600mm on the D7100 without a teleconverter gives you a wide f/4 aperture and the same great unhindered AF performance. You also won't suffer the image quality loss from a teleconverter.</p>

<p> </p>

[bkpix]

<p>I'm a K-5 user who just bought a 7D to use with a 100-400 L zoom after trying my son's 7D for a couple days.<br>

The Canon body is not as pleasant to use as the Pentax -- you and I are spoiled by the feel and use of that body -- but the autofocus is excellent. The 7D also has noticeably less dynamic range.<br>

But, since I already own the 100-400 from a previous incarnation, getting the 7D is quite a bit cheaper for me for birds than buying the Pentax 300/4 and wrestling with third-party converters. (Check out Canon refurbs on their website for better prices.)<br>

I haven't used the 400/5.6, but by reputation it's sharper than the 100-400 @ 400.<br>

I'm not sure it would be worth switching to a 7D if you're always going to be shooting in such a way (like at f/8) that the autofocus is crippled.<br>

Another Canon option would be to pick up an old 1DII ($400-$500 at KEH) or 1DIII body ($1,200-$1,300) instead of the 7D. Great autofocus and high frame rate even at f/8.</p>

<p> </p>

[philrichardson]

<p>In answer to your first question, I am using the 7D with the 400 5.6 L for birding and I am extremely happy with the combination. So yes, it is a very serious contender in my view. </p>

<p>As to your second question, I am not at all familiar with the Pentax cameras or lenses. I don't know what the learning curve will be for you, but if you are very serious about bird photography, going through it now is better than later. Is this something you may want to pursue beyond the 400mm range to the 500, or 600 or 800, or even more with teleconverters? If so, this is a good time to switch (most people use tripods with those bigger lenses). I realize you talk about financial limitations so that is a factor now, but your circumstances may change. As you go above 400mm, the bigger lenses are huge sums of money. Still, I would say investigate Nikon and Canon if you want to get serious. They are the two big players for the best birding systems. </p>

<p>I handhold the 400 5.6 so I can react quickly to opportunities and have increased flexibility to move in the field. It is a relatively light lens and I could handhold it throughout a day-long session if necessary. I have handheld the 600mm 4.0 Canon lens for short periods, but at almost 12 pounds, it is very limiting. I do not use a teleconverter. Even though there are ways to get around the loss of AF, it isn't worth it to me. Someday I may get a Canon 500mm lens, the newer lighter one, with the plan to handhold.</p>

<p>So it comes down to how serious you want to get about birding. I will give you one solid vote for the Canon system you proposed, the 7D/400 combo.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

If you need AF then the300 F4 IS is a good buy - on an APSC body it is the same angle of view as a 500. If you can live

with MF then there are some interesting old lenses out there - I recently bought a Mamiya 500 F5.6 for $350 and I it is a

very impressive performer (although only for static / slow moving subjects). Indeed optically it is as good as the 300 F4 IS

or 70-200 F2.8 non IS and I suspect it is better than the 400 F5.6 although I have not compared the two. I have not used

the sigma lens you mention but some alternative manufacturer lenses have fairly slow AF. It may be that MF does not

work for you but if you are on a budget there are some great optics out there at low prices.

[matthijs]

Uhm... Not my expertise however one thing seems very relevant.

 

The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6...

[matthijs]

Uhm... Not my expertise however one thing seems very relevant.

 

The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6...

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Er... OK. Thanks for the heads up.</p>

[dcstep]

<blockquote>

<p>The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and ONLY cost nine-times as much...</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 both with OS, works with either Canon or Nikon. Does very nicely with birds.</p>

<div></div>