bird photography lens on Canon

jerry12953

jerry12953

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,421
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
Hello chaps,

I'm thinking of getting either the canon 100-400 L zoom, or 300 L prime lens for doing some bird photography, and wondered if anyone here had any thoughts they'd be willing to share?

I'm using a 5Dii, and also have a 40D and 1.4x TC which would give me extra reach when needed.

jerry
 
The 300mm is excellent for bird photography but it depends on how close you will be to the subjects, the AF is very quick and it comfortably handles both canon teleconvertors.

I think the 100-400 is lighter than the 300 but has a narrower aperture (F/4 to F/5.6 i think)
I currently have a 300mm for sale in the classifieds as i am switching to Nikon

I know many birders on here use the 100-400 and highly rate it. Much will depend on your budget and how much length you want
 
Rovers_Andy said:
The 300mm is excellent for bird photography but it depends on how close you will be to the subjects, the AF is very quick and it comfortably handles both canon teleconvertors.

I think the 100-400 is lighter than the 300 but has a narrower aperture (F/4 to F/5.6 i think)
I currently have a 300mm for sale in the classifieds as i am switching to Nikon

I know many birders on here use the 100-400 and highly rate it. Much will depend on your budget and how much length you want
Click to expand...

Wow, that was quick!

There's not much in it price-wise is there? But I would be looking at the f4 version, I'm afraid.....
 
The f/4 is excellent and can easily be handheld, and should still auto focus on your bodies with the 1.4TC but not with the 2.0TC
 
I have the same dilemma, and have come down in favour of the 300mm f4 + 1.4tc. The 100-400mm is heavier than the 300mm, but with the tc they are about the same. The zoom also feels quite a bit longer at full stretch. The great benefit of the 300mm is its closer focus of 1.5m rather than 1.8m, which gives a better close focus magnification and of course the wider max aperture. Of course you lose the flexibility of the zoom. I have played with both, and they are both great. I found it difficult to zoom on the 100-400mm as at full stretch, the zoom ring is just that bit further than my hand cradles the lens. The IS, despite being 12years old, works well on both lenses. Which ever one you chose, it will perform well for you.
 
I've just sold a 300mm f4 and gone back to a 100-400 because I missed the flexibility of the zoom.
 
I don't think when I was shooting birds I ever found myself zooming out. I had the 100-400mm, 120-300mm and have now settled on the 300mm F4 IS as my ideal birding lens.

AF speed and image quality are better than the other two lenses I mentioned.
 
The AF wont work with the tele converter on the 100-400 but east enough to manual focus.
 
I've owned both the 300 f4 and the 100-400 and think that both are very good birding lenses - however for me the flexability of the zoom won out so that's what I have now. The AF speed of the 300 is a bit faster, but it slows noticably when you add a 1.4x (for birds you'll want one on a lot of the time). IQ from both lenses was excellent.
 
The 300mm f4 is also very good for dragonflies, butterflies etc as it has a minimum focussing distance of 1.5 mtr even with the 1.4x ext on.
 
The 100-400L is a cracking lens. The reality though is that shooting birds, you'll rarely if ever shoot at anything but 400mm. For that reason I'd seriously consider the 400mm f5.6L which will be a tad sharper.
 
I have had the 300mm f4 but I soon upgraded to the 400mm f5.6 and its brilliant.

Super quick af and having an extra 100mm is a bonus, f5.6 is slow but for under 1k its the best you are going to get. Perfect for anything in flight as its small and light, the only problem is that you can't use it for much else...
 
Had both the 100-400 and 300f4. Sold the 100-400 as it was not being used. I use the 300f4 with the 1.4x and IQ is better than the 100-400 at 400mm...

If birding you will not want/need the zoom it is all about reach... get the 300f4, you will not regret it...
 
I would go for length particulalrly if you wan tot use your 5D2, I have the Sigma 150-500 and it lives at it's long end on my 7D, as a general rule you can never have a long enough lens for birds, possible exception may be swans :D
 
To be honest i'd agree with CT......with birds 90% of the time you are going to need the reach so my recommendation would be the 400 5.6, fast AF and brilliantly sharp.
Otherwise go for the 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc.
 
Can't help you with bird watching, but I've the 300 F4 and it's a cracker of a lens, very quick AF and very sharp :thumbs:
 
I'll add my 2p worth in favour of the 400mm f/5.6 L.

Except.... it does need decent light because it's only f/5.6 and it has no IS. Canon Bob has both the 400/5.6 and the 300/4, which as has been pointed out takes a 1.4x Extender very well. He says that overall he gets more use out of the 300, but the 400 is the one with the suntan.
 
StewartR said:
but the 400 is the one with the suntan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you'll have to explain that bit....:thinking: He uses suntan lotion on the other?

I'm thinking.....a fixed focal length could only be used for one thing really, whereas a zoom would have that bit more flexibility? In certain circumstances I could use it alongside the 24-105 and have pretty much all the focal length I would need for any subject matter, and leave the 70-200 at home....

I could see that as being a big plus in favour of the zoom, actually....
 
I sold my 100-400 and bought a 300/4 with a 1.4 extender. I occasionally photograph birds and so far I am more than happy with this combo. My main use for it though will be butterflies and dragonflies. I looked at the 400/5.6 but the minimum focussing distance was mad for my needs.

If I was purely looking for a birding lens I am certain I would have gone for the 400/5.6.
 
StewartR said:
... overall he gets more use out of the 300, but the 400 is the one with the suntan.
Click to expand...
The 400 is the one that comes out of the bag when the sun is out. The 300 is the one that gets used when the light is poor (which is most of the time).

:bonk:
 
jerry12953 said:
Sorry, you'll have to explain that bit....:thinking: He uses suntan lotion on the other?

I'm thinking.....a fixed focal length could only be used for one thing really, whereas a zoom would have that bit more flexibility? In certain circumstances I could use it alongside the 24-105 and have pretty much all the focal length I would need for any subject matter, and leave the 70-200 at home....

I could see that as being a big plus in favour of the zoom, actually....
Click to expand...

Ifi t's flexibility you need then the 100-400L really has no peer. An obvious situation is a zoo visit where you really don't need to bother taking any other lenses at all.
 
I have the 100-400 and to be fair if i am shooting birds it will be at the 400mm no boubt, but seeing as I donot have endlessly deep pockets it suits me to have it as zoom.

I get to have the flexability of having a zoom for other types of photography with a cracking sharp lens.

If birds are your thing with nothing else then the other advice may be better for you.

Spike
 
CT said:
Ifi t's flexibility you need then the 100-400L really has no peer. An obvious situation is a zoo visit where you really don't need to bother taking any other lenses at all.
Click to expand...

Flexibility is always good, in my opinion. However as I'm not going to buy one of these (either one) for a while, it's good to sound out other people's opinions. I'll probably hire one or t'other for a week and see how I get on with it....
 
jerry12953 said:
Flexibility is always good, in my opinion. However as I'm not going to buy one of these (either one) for a while, it's good to sound out other people's opinions. I'll probably hire one or t'other for a week and see how I get on with it....
Click to expand...

You wont go wrong with either Jerry tbh - the 400mm prime is sharper if it's primarily birds you're after, but it's not a deal breaking difference.
 
StewartR said:
I'll add my 2p worth in favour of the 400mm f/5.6 L.

Except.... it does need decent light because it's only f/5.6 and it has no IS. Canon Bob has both the 400/5.6 and the 300/4, which as has been pointed out takes a 1.4x Extender very well. He says that overall he gets more use out of the 300, but the 400 is the one with the suntan.
Click to expand...
Stick a 1.4 on the 300 and you have a 400f5.6 with IS.
 
Personally, I'd save for the 300 f/2.8 and then you can use the 1.4 or 2x if needs be. But I'm not a "birder" so you can probably ignore this... :thinking:
 
micloi said:
I would also look at the Sigma 150-500mm OS is I were you
Click to expand...
I'd say that has to be a serious consideration. The difference between 400mm and 500mm is quite significant for small birds and I've seen some cracking results from the Sigma.
 
400/5.6 here :thumbs:

hopefully 500/4 next but that's a big difference in dosh from the 400/5.6 unfortunately :gag:
 
The only other thing I would add to the advice is that the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 always seem to render very contrasty images (much like the 70-300 IS). The 300f4 either with or without a 1.4x TC gives a much more pleasing image.

Also, a 300f4 with a 1.4x TC gives you two focal lengths should you find that you are taking photos of ostrichs or emus :D

Oh and also... I've seen some stupidly low prices on (2nd hand) Sigma 300 2.8's. Not my #1 choice, but you might want to take a look around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top