300 vs 400 vs 500mm

[vaizki]

Springtime! The snow is going to melt (only 70cm left in my yard!) and nature will come out of hiding so I want to capture it. Currently my longest lens is a 70-200/2.8 which works "ok" as a 280/4 with the 1.4x extender on a 7D.

But of course... 400mm or even 500mm tempts me as usual. However when trying to research what is the field of view difference between these focal lengths, I ran into this example from WildImaging:

This image is at: http://www.wildimaging.co.uk/Photography/Focal-length-for-bird-photography.html

It seems like 300->400 is a big improvement, but the additional 400->500mm gives me quite a modest one.. so I see no reason to look beyond the 400/5.6 or 100-400L.. am I missing something here besides the fact that these are both slow lenses? My intention is to just up the ISO and deal with the noise :nuts:

 

[grotty]

Each additional 100mm in focal length will be less of a jump as illustrated in that diagram, due to the fact that the increase is less in percentage terms...

300->400 is 33% increase
400->500 is 25% increase
500->600 is 20% increase

From personal experience, the 400 5.6L is a lovely lens.

 

[MartynK]

Well, 400mm is +25% increase in focal length over 300mm, 500mm is + 20% over 400mm, and 600mm is 17% over 500mm.

Choice really depends on what you want to use the lens for, and how much you're willing to spend. Longer is generally better for birds, and fast is better than slow; but costs and weight increase a lot too.

The 400mm prime has an excellent reputation as a "birding" lens that's, sort of, affordable but it doesn't have IS. The 100mm - 400m does, and is obviously more versatile. Jury seems to be out on this one, but I've seen a lot of reports suggesting that the prime has the edge, but not a huge one.

See post above: I screwed up the maths, but it's not my strong point! The principle is the same though.

 

[gad-westy]

Slightly off topic but do those with long primes ever struggle to find their target in the view finder? Even with a 70-300, I often resort to zooming out to find my subject and then zoom in again to shoot.

 

[wippers]

I find both the 300mm F4 and 400mm F5.6 superb lenses with no problems finding the subject and super fast focusing. Even without the IS on the 400mm I find most of my images pin sharp. The F5.6 isn't a problems either in decent light. In dodgy light you may find you have to up the ISO quite a bit but that has yet to cause me problems.
To be honest it will come down to budget. I'd buy a 600mm F4 tomorrow if I could afford one regardless of weight!

This is uncropped from the 400mm F5.6:

 

[postcardcv]

It seems like 300->400 is a big improvement, but the additional 400->500mm gives me quite a modest one.. so I see no reason to look beyond the 400/5.6 or 100-400L.. am I missing something here besides the fact that these are both slow lenses? My intention is to just up the ISO and deal with the noise :nuts:

I can see what you mean about the jump from 400mm to 500mm, but when shooting wildlife any extra reach is often worth having. I love using the 100-400 as a walk about lens but sometimes feel that 400mm is limiting. One of the big advantages of the 500/600mm lenses is the fact that you can add a 1.4x tc and still retain super fast AF and stunning IQ. One of the most impressive things about the 500 f4 is just how good a 700 f5.6 it makes.

 

[StewartR]

I love using the 100-400 as a walk about lens....

....but I don't think you'd love using a 500 or a 600 as a walk about lens.

 

[StewartR]

As a Canon shooter, you're spoiled for choice.

As you've no doubt discovered, there's some sort of law of physics/economics which says that 400mm at f/5.6 is relatively affordable (maybe because it fits within the standard 77mm objective diameter?) but going longer and/or faster adds to the cost significantly.

I think you have three very good options: 400mm f/5.6 L USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, and 300mm f/4 L IS USM with 1.4x Extender

400mm f/5.6 L USM
Sharper than a sharp thing that's just been sharpened. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 400mm. Ideal for birds in flight. Lack of IS isn't really an issue in decent light or if you need to keep the shutter speed high for other reasons.

100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Best ergonomics of any zoom on the market. (Obviously not relevant when comparing with the primes, but relevant when comparing with your 70-200.) Great flexibility: if your lens is too short you can always crop the image - especially on a 7D - but if your lens is too long then you have a problem. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 100mm and 200mm.

300mm f/4 L IS USM with 1.4x Extender
Interesting alternative. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 300mm. Image quality at 420mm not quite as good as the 400mm f/5.6, but it does have the benefit of IS for when the light isn't so good.

Personally I love the 100-400 for its flexibility, but if you find you're always shooting small wildlife or small birds then you don't need that. I know someone who has the other two, and he says that the 400 is the one he turns to when the sun is shining, but he finds he uses the 300/1.4 combo most.

 

[vaizki]

Thanks for the ideas everyone, I have also been tempted by the 300/2.8 + extenders.. It's a bit of a beast and far from cheap but the shots I've seen taken with 1.4x and even 2x are very nice.

 

[Gravyboy]

Slightly off topic but do those with long primes ever struggle to find their target in the view finder? Even with a 70-300, I often resort to zooming out to find my subject and then zoom in again to shoot.

Do you close the eye you're not shooting with? If you leave it open then it may help you...I find it's a help for me, admittedly I've never tried it at such a length.

 

[squishy]

Keeping both eyes open is great for tracking birds in flight.

Takes some getting used to though.

 

[casts_by_fly]

As a Canon shooter, you're spoiled for choice.

As you've no doubt discovered, there's some sort of law of physics/economics which says that 400mm at f/5.6 is relatively affordable (maybe because it fits within the standard 77mm objective diameter?) but going longer and/or faster adds to the cost significantly.

I think you have three very good options: 400mm f/5.6 L USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, and 300mm f/4 L IS USM with 1.4x Extender

400mm f/5.6 L USM
Sharper than a sharp thing that's just been sharpened. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 400mm. Ideal for birds in flight. Lack of IS isn't really an issue in decent light or if you need to keep the shutter speed high for other reasons.

100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Best ergonomics of any zoom on the market. (Obviously not relevant when comparing with the primes, but relevant when comparing with your 70-200.) Great flexibility: if your lens is too short you can always crop the image - especially on a 7D - but if your lens is too long then you have a problem. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 100mm and 200mm.

300mm f/4 L IS USM with 1.4x Extender
Interesting alternative. Best image quality (amongst these 3 lenses) at 300mm. Image quality at 420mm not quite as good as the 400mm f/5.6, but it does have the benefit of IS for when the light isn't so good.

Personally I love the 100-400 for its flexibility, but if you find you're always shooting small wildlife or small birds then you don't need that. I know someone who has the other two, and he says that the 400 is the one he turns to when the sun is shining, but he finds he uses the 300/1.4 combo most.

Stuart,

If you had to do the same assessment for a Nikon shooter, what would the answer be? There is the 80-400, 300f4 + 1.4x, and the 400 2.8? Obviously the 2.8 is a different league. Is there a good option for a 400 5.6 in Nikon?

Thanks
Rick

 

[Woodsy]

Basically, Nikon don't do cheaper long primes.

The do the 200mm F/2, 200mm F/4, 300mm F/4, 300mm F/2.8, 400mm F/2.8, 500mm F/4 and the 600mm F/4.

The do also do the 80-400mm, which frankly is a terrible lens for wildlife unless focusing is not required

The 200-400mm F/4 is £lol.

That's it. Nikon really need to sort it out when it comes to cheaper long primes.

 

[StewartR]

If you had to do the same assessment for a Nikon shooter, what would the answer be?

My answer would be that, if this is really important to you, you should switch to Canon (*).

Is there a good option for a 400 5.6 in Nikon?

There are options, but not as good as with Canon.

AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR
Optically it's not a bad lens, but ergonomically it's a disaster, and it's particularly embarrassing that it's up against Canon's superb 100-400. It has Nikon's first-gen AF, so it's slow and noisy and it won't AF at all on entry-level DSLRs. The zoom ring is very heavy. It looks and feels very awkward when zoomed to 400mm. And it has the most bizarre implementation of VR which I've ever seen. (Amazingly the Canon 100-400 is an older design: you really have to wonder what Nikon were thinking of when they released this.)

AF-S 300mm f/4 D IF-ED plus 1.4x Teleconverter
Nikon's 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, comparable to Canon's - except of course it doesn't have IS/VR. It accepts a 1.4x TC very well to give you 420mm f/5.6.

AF-S 300mm f/4 D IF-ED plus 1.7x Teleconverter
This is a very interesting option and one which Canon don't offer because they don't make a 1.7x TC. It gives you 510mm at f/6.8, and in the right conditions it will retain AF, even on a non-pro body. I haven't seen anything published by Nikon which states definitively how their AF systems function, but they certainly don't have the firmware cut-out at f/5.6 that Canon do. So if your lens/TC combo is f/6.8, the camera will try to AF. It might fail if the light is poor, it might hunt a bit if the light is so-so, and it should work if the light is good. There are people here on TP who have experienced much joy with this equipment.


(*) This reminds me of a time when I saw the BBC TV presenter Gavin Esler talking about a trip to cover some sort of international conference at Jackson Hole in the USA. After the day's proceedings the crew went to a restaurant, where not surprisingly most of the items on the menu were steak. "What would you recommend for a vegetarian?" asked Esler. "Well son", drawled the waiter, "I'd recommend you get the hell out of Wyoming."

 

[gad-westy]

Do you close the eye you're not shooting with? If you leave it open then it may help you...I find it's a help for me, admittedly I've never tried it at such a length.

Ahhh, that'll explain it. I have a lazy right eye. Can see b****r all with it when my left eye is on the view finder. It just won't work on it's own!

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Ahhh, that'll explain it. I have a lazy right eye. Can see b****r all with it when my left eye is on the view finder. It just won't work on it's own!

I think its called selective eye focus or something like that. Not everyone can do it and it does take practice, Snipers use it to focus on the subject and check thier surrounding at the same time, without having to pull an eye off the scope.

Basically you have to be able to switch focus from the camera viewfinder to the other eye, without moving.

Like i said not everyone can do it and some can do it naturally, like me.

 

[Organic]

AF-S 300mm f/4 D IF-ED plus 1.7x Teleconverter
This is a very interesting option and one which Canon don't offer because they don't make a 1.7x TC. It gives you 510mm at f/6.8, and in the right conditions it will retain AF, even on a non-pro body. I haven't seen anything published by Nikon which states definitively how their AF systems function, but they certainly don't have the firmware cut-out at f/5.6 that Canon do. So if your lens/TC combo is f/6.8, the camera will try to AF. It might fail if the light is poor, it might hunt a bit if the light is so-so, and it should work if the light is good. There are people here on TP who have experienced much joy with this equipment.

Are you sure about the f/6.8? This is actually worse than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 + 2x extender combination which delivers a 600mm f/5.6

 

[SamHH]

Are you sure about the f/6.8? This is actually worse than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 + 2x extender combination which delivers a 600mm f/5.6

A 1.7x teleconverter reduces the aperture by one and a half stops. One and a half stops less than f4 is f6.7.

If you fitted a 1.7x teleconverter to an f2.8 lens, the maximum aperture would be f4.8.

 

[Organic]

Thanks for the explanation SamHH. I failed to spot the initial prime lens was f/4 and not f/2.8