Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon 400,, f5.6 / 300 mm f4 /100-400 f4.5-5.6
#1
I am having a dilemma in choosing between these three lenses. I already have a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4 Canon extender and would like a bit more reach in photographing birds and other wildlife, mainly small mammals such as fox and mink, and ocean wildlife like seals. The dream would be having the Canon EF 500 f4 but in order to afford this I would have to sell a kidney or two or win the lottery.



I am leaning towards the 400 mm f5.6 and would like someone to reassure me I am making the right choice. I hve considered both the Sigma 150-500 and the 50-500 but I don't like the reviews on them going soft at the long end so I thought I would be better off with a crisp 400 mm image than a 500 mm soft one.



I also considered adding a 2x extender to the 70-200 but according the comparison charts on the-digital-picture.com that is more of an emergency option, it will give you a 400mm image but not a very good one.



So please, can you give me some practical advice on this.



the way I argued this in my head.

* The 400 mm f5.6 would give me the best image at 400mm and an option to get good images at 560 with stationary subjects.



* The 300 f4 would give me the best at 300mm and good at 420mm with the extender and ok images with stationary subjects at 600 with a 2x extender, and better low light options with f4 and IS.



* The 100-400 would give me flexibilty and good image quality at all focal lengths, but not the sharpest.





HELP.



Best regards, Jonas.
#2
My "go to" wildlife lens is the 100-400L without hesitation, as I find the zoom function invaluable. It might not be "prime sharp" but personally it is more than good enough.



Since you do have the 70-200 already, I think it is worth trying to get your hands on a 2x converter and try it out for yourself. That would seem to be the lowest cost approach, even if in that condition you might need to go down a stop to help.



Just to throw in another possible consideration, the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS HSM etc... the current version seems to have taken a bit of a dip in price since they announced the "S" version, so it isn't a massive amount more than an 100-400L for example. Of course you'll need extenders for that also, but you get up to 600mm with AF in that case. This lens does take a stop down to get the best sharpness out of though. And it is heavy!
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#3
I was in your dilemma a couple of years back and I opted for the 400. I have never looked back! The 400 is very sharp wide open and very light. The AF is amazingly fast and touted to be the best BIF lens because of this. Yes it suffers from f/5.6 so you need good light or a very steady hand but I rarely find myself in this situation. Like you I have a faster zoom if I do find I need it (In my case I have a Sigma 100-300 f/4).



Off topic, where about are you in Iceland? I work for an Icelandic company and frequently visit :-)
#4
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1350046500' post='20598']

I was in your dilemma a couple of years back and I opted for the 400. I have never looked back! The 400 is very sharp wide open and very light. The AF is amazingly fast and touted to be the best BIF lens because of this. Yes it suffers from f/5.6 so you need good light or a very steady hand but I rarely find myself in this situation. Like you I have a faster zoom if I do find I need it (In my case I have a Sigma 100-300 f/4).



Off topic, where about are you in Iceland? I work for an Icelandic company and frequently visit :-)

[/quote]



I live in small town called Akranes about 45 minutes drive from Reykjavik. I also have a summer cottage in the Westfjords where (about 4 hours drive from Reykjavík) where I try to go as frequently as I can.
#5
I have the 300 f4L IS and the 400 f5.6L. I bought the 400 for shooting birds and BIF but found that where I live (London, UK) 400 is way too short. It also needs lots of light - it may be OK in Florida or California, but not here, though this is becoming less of an issue as the latest SDLRs become better and better at high ISOs. I haven't used it for 2 years so will eBay it shortly. It also won't AF with even a 1.4xTC unless you have a 1D series body. Great lens though, sharp wide open with fast accurate AF, though the long FL means you need very good technique and/or a very sturdy tripod.



The 300 f4 IS is a very sharp lens which has the added advantage of a very short MFD - almost but not quite a macro (the 400 has a very long MFD). The IS is first generation worth only one stop and is very noisy and 'graunchy'. A bit off-putting at first. It works well with a 1.4xTC to give you 420mm equivalent at f5.6, though the AF of this combo is nowhere near as fast as the 400 prime. However, I will probably keep this lens as it gives me 420mm with the TC, though I am also tempted by the newer 70-300L which will enable me to reduce my lens count ( I also have the 70-200 f4L IS).



Also, though the 400 is heavier on the scales, it doesn't feel heavier. It is quite a bit longer than the 300, but the 300 is stubbier and 'stocky' and doesn't balance as well on the camera (I use a 5DII and 40D).



Have never used the 100-400 zoom but the flexibility of a zoom for birds and wildlife should not be under-estimated. The IQ of the latest copies seems to be much improved if the posters on the dpreview forums are to be believed.



Michael
#6
[quote name='jho' timestamp='1350046945' post='20599']

I live in small town called Akranes about 45 minutes drive from Reykjavik. I also have a summer cottage in the Westfjords where (about 4 hours drive from Reykjavík) where I try to go as frequently as I can.

[/quote]



Ah, you are the other side of the tunnel! I haven't been as remote as Westfjords. Is that where there is a lot of ice-climbing?



I love Iceland for photography. When the weather is good, the colours are superb and there are lots of great views around <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />
#7
Have a look here.

I would go fo the prime. IS for birding is anyway very difficult as you need to follow the birds flight direction, which fouls the IS . I always use a monopod instead and disable my IS.



Also I found myself always on the long end of the zoom.



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutori...-mtf.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/review...-400.shtml



or maybe a (used) 300mm 2,8 with a 1,4 TC
#8
The zoom vs. prime debate will always come down to what your subjects are, and what else you may carry. For me, in variable situations where I'm not often targeting a single subject, a zoom is invaluable. For sure, I probably use the 100-400L at 400mm most of the time. But it isn't 100%, and I still take a significant number with that lens at shorter focal lengths too. This can be mitigated somewhat if you use two or more bodies.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#9
A 2nd body would be for sure beneficial and with the 70-200 2,8 and a 400mm there is hardly a gap. Plus you don`t need to carry something like the 100-400mm Zoom arround when you are just after 100mm-200mm. But Popo is right right every lense( -set ) is a compromise. My prefered combo is a 50-150 2,8 and the 400mm 5,6 for the long end. I used for 6 month the 150-500 and never liked it, high in contrast but not enough resolution. Especially with birdfeathers you can`t get enough of it.



My personal dream would be something like the old Minolta 400mm 4,0 with a 1,4 TC in the region for 1.500 euros.
#10
You can use the 400mm f5.6 with Kenko 1.4x Pro DGX, will AF with the centerpoint (and enough light). This gives you what you were looking for in the Minolta, I believe, just with less weight?



http://photography-on-the.net/forum/show...?t=1174183



Canon 1.4x II or III will work too, but you will have to tape the appropriate pin for it to allow AF on the center point.



PS: the cheap Kenko ( the non-Pro version) is very good also, and also will allow AF.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)