Long Lens input?

[MCary]

I want to get a long lens for wildlife and birds but I'm having a hard time deciding on the lens.

This is for a Canon 30D and I'm looking at these three lens.

EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS
EF 300 mm f4L IS
EF 400 mm f 5.6L

The first lens is a zoom. I already have a 70-200mm zoom lens. Prime lens have better overall quality, and lets face it, when you break out the 400 you usually keep it set at 400. Rarely if ever would I use the 100-400mm for shots requiring 100mm. I would use the 70-200 or maybe even my 100mm macro. But, it does have image stabalization and the 400 mm prime doesn't (at least the ones in my price range don't). I thought the IS might be a nice feature should I ever want to take some pic's indoors, like at sporting events and didn't want to break out a tripod.

The 300 mm has IS and is a prime lens but doesn't reach out to 400 mm. Of course with a f4 it might work well with a 1.4x extender. Do the entenders work with IS?

Hmmm

Anyone want to give any input?

Mike

 

[opie]

If you are shooting birds, I would recommend the 100-400 or the 400mm lens.
The 300 is not long enough and will likely require a 1.4TC to get you to 420mm but you'll lose some quality there.

I am saving up for the 400/5.6 myself since I love primes and how spectacularly sharp they tend to be.

Cheers and Happy new year!

 

[Blue Deuce]

When it comes to shooting birds longer is always better. The 300 is more of a outdoor sporting lens IMHO. I have the 100-400 and the 500 f4 holy grail and have shot extensively with the 400 prime The 100-400 and 400 prime are both excellent lenses with both having advantages over the other you have to weigh. 100-400 has I.S. but does not work well with the 1.4x tcon but works admirably on the prime. The 100-400 provides you more versatility with the variable focal lengths but the prime focuses much faster which is advantageous for inflights. If you need any further help PM me if you like. I shoot eagles and raptors for the Fl. Audubon Society so this is probably the only thing I do know a little about (certainly not reefing).

Look at photography on the net which is a Canon forum that can help you out in making your decision. Search engine on the site is a good place to start. Everyone is super nice and anxious to help.

Where in Mt. are you ? We own some property along the Yellowstone a little west of Columbus and will be out there in a few weeks.

 

[uC]

I personally do not like the 100-400. Replaced mine initially with a 70-200 2.8 is, 300 is and 400 f5.6. Recently replaced my 400 with a 500 f4.5. The 500 is superb lens for wildlife. It is lighter than the 4.0 and much cheaper (it is discontinued but can be found used). It does not support 1.4x with autofocus on all but series 1 cameras and does not have IS. Of course the 70-200, 300, & 500 is a much heavier setup than 100-400 but image quality is substantially better and of course they are faster. For situations where I need to be light, I use a 70-300 DO (along with 24-105).

 

[MCary]

Well my original thought was to get the 400mm prime with a 1.4 extender. It seems like the first choice was the best choice. Thanks alot guys.

Blue, I live about 45 miles from Billings.

Mike

 

[jedininja]

I would go with the 300 IS and a TC. I find IS is extremely helpful at those ranges since every vibration is amplified and when you need to take a quick shot of a moving bird or animal, tripods just take too long.

 

[VoidRaven]

Depending on your tripod that is not always the case. I've seen some VERY nice Gitzo setups that provide a very smooth and fast tracking ability for birds. All I know is that I don't know too many bird photogs who go handheld often....most use some kind of support as often as they can.

Now I am not a Canon person, but either way for most bird shots that I've looked at from other photogs the lens of choice is usually a 400mm prime with some kind of a TC matched to it. Those that can afford it will go 500mm or 600mm but those do get beastly.

Depending on your budget will really dictate which way you can go. Seeing your list, looks like you got a fair amount of budget to work with. I've been shopping for a long lens for a while myself but I don't have much of a budget to work with. Hence, for the flexibility and price of it I've been eye-ing the Sigma (or Bigma) 50-500mm lens.

 

[jedininja]

That makes sense. I think I need to go out and get a better tripod. I have a Tamron 500mm (all I could afford) but a cheaper tripod. So I find it difficult to track the birds most of the time.

 

[VoidRaven]

Oh I'm right there with you. I've got a really nice Manfrotto tripod with 3-axis adjustable head on it and can set it so I can pan around a little....but I've looked at some other very sweet set-ups that make mine look like a cheap-o Walmart setup.

Here are some pics from a Nikon website I frequent....just to show you some of the tripod/monopod setups I'm trying to describe. They're pretty impressive. Easily between $300 to $500 I would fathom.

And yes...I also heavily drool over many of the camera/lens setups in these photos as well.

 

[louist]

It depends what you want to shoot. It sounds like you wish to shoot some indoor sport, in which case the IS isn't going to help you much at all. The IS stabilises lens movement and doesn't assist in subject motion. Most photographers who shoot indoor sports like volley ball uses strobes and very fast primes like the 200 f1.8. It is a very tough shooting condition lighting-wise. However in that line-up of yours, the 300 f4 is probably most suitable for indoor sport. You don't need too much reach for those. Keep in mind that shooting sport with a zoom lens is much simpler especially when you are actually close to the action.

If you wish to shoot birds, the 400 f5.6 is the most suitable one, but also too slow. Add a 1.4x TC and it's pretty useless. Unless you have a 1-series body, the AF would be extremely sluggish to non-existent. The 300 is too short for most birds except urban ones that's very accustomed to human presence. Most bird photographers I know use the 500 or 600 with/out the 1.4x TC.

If you got a big lens, a gimbal is the way to go for a tripod head Shoot from a tripod in the name of consistent image quality and save your back

If you think using a tripod is hard for nature photography, try using one for macro photography! I shoot all my macro using a tripod. It's the cheapest solution to consistent results.

 

[MCary]

The reason for the IS was to shoot offhand when necessary. Not because of the subject moving. I am familiar with what the IS does. I have some Canon IS binolculars that I bought for looking out of my airplane and they were amazing. I would never buy any other kind again. You don't realize how much you shake until you've tryed IS.

I really don't plan any indoor sports shooting. Just in case senerio.

I wish I could afford a faster lens. But I'm just a hobbiest. The 400 5.6 is all I can afford. A faster lens in this magnification can go $3000-6000. I'd rather have a boat.

Mike

 

[Ebn]

Stick to the 400mm f/5.6 lens; the bokeh isn't as ugly as the 100-400mm. I shoot with other birders and that lens pulls off some decent shots. It doesn't produce as creamy a bokeh as the 500mm, but it also doesn't command the same price.