Lens, big lens, or 20D?

[Scottes]

So I'm stuck in a dilemna of my own making. I have a desire for something new, fueled by a desire for more keepers. As many of you know, I like shooting birds. I currently use a 10D with the 100-400 L.

But I don't think that I'm getting enough good keepers - shots that are sharp and full-frame. (I hate cropping, I hate blur.) Yes, many of my images I've shown here are good, but they're far too often cropped to hell, and I spend time with PS CS getting them to look good. I'd rather start with a good sharp image.

So my choices:

The Canon 400 L prime.
Slightly sharper with slightly faster AF. Arguably better for birds in flight. This could be ordered today, and would come in handy for my photo vacation week - Montreal! Cape May!!

Downside: No IS, though I'll still keep the 100-400 L IS. Not a lot of bang for the buck, but has it's upsides and I can afford this now, easily.

The Canon 20D
Compared to the 10D: More pixels, so a "crop-free" 8x10 is still possible. 1.6 crop, great for birds. Faster AF, better AF point arrangement, a little less noisy. I could order this now.

Downsides: My 10D is 11 months old. A 20D will last me a max of 2 years as a main camera. I probably wouldn't get it in time for my photo vacation week. This makes little sense to get otherwise, as winter is my downtime for photography and I do very little shooting.

The Canon 500mm L
This requires waiting until spring when tax returns come in. This would give me up to 700mm with the 1.4 TC. Aperture of f/4 is very nice. Long reach, particularly with the 1.4 TC, is incredibly nice. I'd have this lens for life. The wife has OK'd the purchase, but it wouldn't be a smart thing to do now.

Downside: I'd also need some Arca plates and a Wimberley gimbal mount. This is a $6,000 purchase for a hobby! This is not a handheld lens.

Wait
Maybe Canon will come out with something before next spring.

Downside: Waiting sucks. They might not come out with anything worthwhile.

Do Nothing
No upside.

Downside: This choice *really* sucks.


There are other choices that I've discounted.

The Sigma 500mm is f/4.5 so no TC, which means a simple jump from 400mm to 500mm Not much bang for the buck there.

The Canon 400mm L DO. While it's f/4 allows me use of a TC, I'd rather spend another $1,000 and just get the 500mm.

The Canon MkII. I could now use my 1.4 on the 100-400. Faster AF, yadda yadda yadda. I just can't see spending $4500 on something that will last me 2 years. I'd rather get the 500mm which I'll have for life.


I've been debating these choices for weeks and have not come to a conclusion. I'd appreciate any help, pointers, tips, thoughts, etcetera.


Edit: The decision has been made: I'm getting both the 400 Primae and the 20D for 1/3 the cost of the 500mm. I'll wait til next year.

[HJMinard]

I voted for the 500 because it sounds to me like that's the choice you really want. I know - believe me - that it's difficult to maintain patience when immediate gratification (400/5.6) is batting its eyes at you, but in the end the 500 will make you happiest (albeit brokest :) ).

The wife already approved the purchase? The hard part is over ... :lol:

[Panza]

I must agree. The EF 500mm will be for life and will hold it's value well. So will the EF 400mm, but that's not a big step up compared to the 100-400.
You can wait with the camera purchasing until Canon comes out with somthing that improves upon the 10D a lot (for the same price or cheaper than the 20D).

[Belmondo]

IMHO, if you've reached this level of your hobby and you can afford the big dog, it's your only logical move. A new body doesn't really do much for you, and other than a little sharpness, another 400 doesn't give you that much more than the 100-400.

[Cadwell]

Go for the EF 500mm.

The 400mm doesn't give you a focal length improvement and the 20D is "unproven". I'd let other people take any possible pain.

[RinkRat]

I'm going to have to follow the heard on this one.

Seems the most logical step is to wait, & get the 500.

my $.02 (only worth about $.000000000001 on this board)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wierd...

I'd go for the 500mm f/4L (here's the weird part.. I started looking for one TODAY)

The intermediate step could be the Sigma.. at abour $2,100.00 used if you can find one. (gee if I find a Canon?...) Kidding!


Anyway.. the switch from the 100-400mm to even the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is much more dramatic than a mere 100mm....

I think you may want to borrow my 500mm for a week or so. See for your self.. and not just with a some test shot of tall beach grass! :)

Either way.. your certainly welcome to do this.. even it just confirms your desire for the Canon 500mm... it will give you some Idea of what your in for working with the Big Primes. (needless to say youd get use of the tripod and gimble head as well)

Anyay.. I voted for the 500mm

[cmM]

I'd rather get the 500mm which I'll have for life
You've already made your decision subconsciously. Get the 500, I say.

[slejhamer]

What makes you think the 20D would give you satisfaction? The ETTL-II will help with flash photography, and you could crop your 8mp images more aggressively than the measly 6mp images ... but otherwise, would you really be happier?

For me, the decision would be the 20D, but I'm not a "ninja birder." For you, the 500mm lens seems to be the right choice. Get it, enjoy it!

[timmyquest]

20D...an upgrade from the 10D may be a waste of money IMO. Then again it's only about $600 after you sell your current body.

400mm prime, you have a 400mm zoom that is plenty sharp.

500mm prime, very long lens Slap a TC on that puppy someday 1000mm lens, Yummmmm.

I say if you could swing it, get the 20D (for the cropping alone). Then save up for the 500mm prime :twisted:

But, if you MUST chose one or the other, get the lens.

[Scottes]

OK, OK, OK - the 500mm is the choice!


Now here's a couple of rubs to throw things off - stuff I should have mentioned.

The cash for the 500mm is *not* a sure thing. I usually overpay on taxes so I get good returns, but one never knows what may come up between now and then. And when I do the smart thing to do would be to pay bills and throw some in the bank. But I ain't too bright sometimes.

It's quite possible that I could get either the 400 Prime or the 20D *and* still get the 500mm if the cash comes in this spring. No hedging of bets.

I could go full-in, get the 500mm *now* - I have room on the credit cards, and could pay them off in the spring or just suck it up if the cash doesn't come in. This would not be wise, but it wouldn't be completely horrible either. I've done stupider things and made it through.

And I have NO patience. Tell'em CDS. No patience. I want something *now*...


Right about now I'm wishing that I had a large collection of model trains to sell.

[Belmondo]

Right about now I'm wishing that I had a large collection of model trains to sell.

I sure wish I had another one. :lol: The fund is tapped. Now I'm spending real money----not the imaginary stuff anymore.

[Panza]

Model trains ?

Something like this you mean :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1557&item=59188277 70&rd=1

:shock:

[Jim_T]

I'd get the 500 f/4L before I replaced my 10D

I was saving for one, but wound up buying a new house in the country a few months ago.. I spent most of my lens savings on landscaping, house stuff and a lawn tractor :(

Oh well.. I've started making regular deposits to my 'stuff' account again :)

[sGu]

i know a few bird shooters, and they generally use 600mm or longer, 500mm is longest in your choice, hence my vote.

[Persian-Rice]

For you, the 20D is just a useless upgrade considerring you have a 10D, unless you are one of those guys that has money to waste..............

Go with the 500, as everyone else has already mentioned.

[MediaMagic]

Scottes,
You've decided on the 500mm prime. A choice you will certainly cherish a lifetime. I think your copy of the 10D could be like mine though, and might be your weakest link.

For me, the more I shoot, the more dissatisfied I become with the performance of the 10D autofocus. Not that is isn't a great camera, etc. But for me, it has become the weakest link in my photography. My copy will consistently front or back focus, just slightly, just enough to turn an otherwise fantantic shot into a "workable" shot or a throwaway shot. For the longest time, I thought this problem with throwaway images was simply due to photographer error, so I practiced, studied, practiced, studied, on and on, and everything about my photography improved drastically. Compositions, color, exposures, everything except for this silly focusing problem.

When I'm working with the studio lights where everything is manual, the result is excellent, but anytime I'm relying on autofucus, I have about a 25-30% (estimated) throwaway rate. And I'm not talking about just moving subjects where the focus tracking loses it, I'm talking about people standing nearly motionless, or inanimate objects. The autofocus, while appearing perfect in the view finder, is slightly off just enough to be aggravating as hell.

As a point of reference, I borrowed a D60 from a friend. Shot about 200 frames, had 3 bad shots due to photographer error. I sent the 10D in to Canon with all my lenses, and was told it was within spec. Maybe it's just my copy, but either way, I just have to accept that if I am going to use autofocus, it's going to be off about 3 out of 10 times. I'm not convinced, unless Canon really has revamped the focusing system altogether for the prosumer line, that the 20D will be any different.

I've opted to go with a 1 series camera. I will get the 1D mk II to begin with, and then add a used 1Ds for the studio work when the replacement is released.

Again, I'm not slammin the 10D as a crappy camera. I have a gazillion beautiful shots. I just also have about a third of a gazillion I've tossed due to unacceptable focus. I really think it has an autofocus issue which you may be experiencing also.

And then again, maybe I'm just going blind. :)

[JZaun]

I gotta reply..... the reason I am getting the 20D if because I miss too many bird pics because the 10D is off or asleep and I have to wait for that wakeup :? not because I need more reach! Yep the 500 plus a 1.4 would be nice but the price is not acceptable for me.. I vote for the 20D. It if lives up to the reviews it will be a fantastic camera. How about the 1100-400 with a 1.4 and manual focus? Just my thoughts.

Where is my 20!!!!

JZ :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

MediaMagic... you make some excellent points..

But I do want to interject this one thought.

Currently,.. Scott is relying on the 100-400mm for all his long shooting. I own that lens and a 10D as well and can tell you that the combo is really EASY to improve on re: autofocus.. by upgrading EITHER the cmaera or the lens.

When my 10D is hooked to the 100-400mm I am constantly swearing... (ask Scott I'll be trying to track a bird in flight,.. saying over nad over agian.. getting progresively louder.. "The Bird, The Bird,.Focus on the BIRD)

When I mount the 10D on the Sigma 500mm... these troubles seem to disapear.
(or get a lot better anyways)

My guess.. with a CANON 500mm @ f/4? With IS? The 10D will be a whole different camera as far as AF performance.

[Scottes]

Currently,.. Scott is relying on the 100-400mm for all his long shooting. I own that lens and a 10D as well and can tell you that the combo is really EASY to improve on re: autofocus.. by upgrading EITHER the cmaera or the lens.

Which is exactly why I'm thinking about the 20D and/or 400 Prime!

I've been cursing the AF on this rig for some time. It is a GREAT lens, but tracking a bird in flight is quite difficult. It can be done, but I lose many, many opportunities and don't even bother clicking. I've been doing birds in flight for a while now - it's not *always* my fault.

The 9-point AF of the 20D looks *perfect* for birds in flight, and the AF is faster and better. The 400 Prime is also slightly faster to AF and slightly better contrast than the 100-400 - so birds in flight should improve a bit.

Either the 20D or 400 Prime would be an improvement. Either would be easily doable today. Hell, I could swing both today, really.


That's today, mind you, not in 6 months. Even getting both is almost 1/3 the price of the 500mm.

I think I just convinced myself of the real thing I should do...

[JZaun]

[quote="CyberDyneSystems"]MediaMagic... you make some excellent points..



When my 10D is hooked to the 100-400mm I am constantly swearing... (ask Scott I'll be trying to track a bird in flight,.. saying over nad over agian.. getting progresively louder.. "The Bird, The Bird,.Focus on the BIRD)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

CDS you sound just like me!! Yep it is slow and doesn't always focus on what you are trying to get auto focus on, :? I seem to have that problem with all lens but the 100-400 is the worse. Don't get me wrong, I love my 10D but (I'm betting / hopeing the 20D will do better with auto focus :D

JZ

[samdring]

I think this thread represents one of the fundamental 'difficulties' with a site such as ours. Read the posts and one could well be put off a 100-400 which is a top notch lens. The way we each use our equipment is very different (ask my wife!) and some of you posters on this thread, obviously, stretch the boundaries far more than the average user (me). I have never had focus problems with this lens and catch birds in flight (albeit larger jet-powered ones!) with little issue.

This is not meant to be negative - I love this site but sometimes it can be hard to recognise the limits some of you are trying to reach

[Scottes]

I can understand - if one reads ONLY this thread, and reads it looking at only the bad comments about the 100-400.

If you read other threads you will find a great number of people - and I'm one of them - who love the 100-400. I have said many times, and I'll say it over and over again: "If I had only one lens then it would be the 100-400 L."

But the lens isn't perfect. And the 10D isn't perfect either. Neither are *the best* autofocus'ers in the world.

Without re-reading this entire thread, I'm pretty sure that it mostly says that the 100-400 on a 10D isn't very good for birds in flight. Compared to the possibilities, it's not. It's very very good, but better combos exist.

That does not say that the 100-400 is a bad lens. It says that it isn't the best.


If there are any doubts about this lens, I'll say several things in bold:

If I had only one lens, it would be the 100-400 L.
The 100-400 L is a fantastic lens.
I don't think that you can get better bang for your buck than with a 100-400 L.
I feel that the 100-400 L is the most versatile lens on the planet.
But better lenses exist.


Right now I'm looking for a better lens - sharper & fast AF. In actuality I'm looking for a better combo for birds in flight. From everything I've read and heard I'm positive that the combo of the 20D and the 400 Prime will be better for birds in flight.

Whether I'm right or wrong, it will be a cold day in hell before you could pry the 100-400 L from my dead fingers.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh no nothing bad about the 100-400mm in and of itself.

Faster lenses AF faster too.. as a rule of thumb. @ f/5.6 the 100-400mm is simply not up to the level of an f/2.8 or an f/4.

Also,, the AF in that lens just happens to be much older than most current "L" lenses.. it is an older workhorse compared to many.

And as mentioned above.. it happens to be a combo thing. Put the 100-400mm on a "1" series and it too behaves better..

There is NO guarantee whatsoever that the 20D will be ANY better with this lens than the 10D.. It would be nice.. but the 20D is no "1" either.

The thing is.. no one should think that what we say is bad mouthing the 100-400mm when they realize we are discussing the difference in performance that occurs when you switch from a $1,400.00 L zoom to a $6,000.00 "L" prime...

At four times the price I certainly HOPE the 500mm focuses rings around the 100-400mm :)

[MediaMagic]

I think this thread represents one of the fundamental 'difficulties' with a site such as ours. Read the posts and one could well be put off a 100-400 which is a top notch lens. The way we each use our equipment is very different (ask my wife!) and some of you posters on this thread, obviously, stretch the boundaries far more than the average user (me). I have never had focus problems with this lens and catch birds in flight (albeit larger jet-powered ones!) with little issue.

This is not meant to be negative - I love this site but sometimes it can be hard to recognise the limits some of you are trying to reach

I agree with you here, the 100-400L is a great lens. I have one and its on my camera whenever I need the reach. That being said, it's also a "compromise" tool. It's designed to *adequately* cover a spectrum of circumstances which means it will do most everything within its fstop and zoom ranges good to excellent. However, there's no way under the sun it can compete head on with the 400mm f4 or f2.8 primes (or any prime within it's zoom range) because an L prime is a specialized tool, honed to damn near perfection. It smokes the non L zooms in its range, but even many of the non L primes can give it serious competition. Tack a 1.4 extender on the 100-400, and its performance is degraded a bit more.

Also, what we believe is acceptable or throwaway is completely subjective for the most part. I do think that using the 100-400 for bird photography is really pushing the envelope of its capabilities.

I think for bird photography, the perfect rig would be a 1D mk II and a 600mm f4L IS, with the 1.4 extender handy, but now we're talking in the double digit thousands.

Scott,
I think your thoughts on the 20D (if the autofocus is indeed improved) combined with the 400mm f4 may be an excellent choice. Or even the 20D along with the Sigma 500 f4.5 like CDS uses. Either combo would be less than the Canon 500mm alone. Or if you stay with the decision for the Canon 500mm, it will be drastically better than the 100-400 on the 10D for bird stalking. I still think you'd have a high percentage of autofocus throwaways, but your good shots would become fantastic.

[Scottes]

There is NO guarantee whatsoever that the 20D will be ANY better with this lens than the 10D.. It would be nice.. but the 20D is no "1" either.

I think it will - but I'm thinking this due to the design of the autofocus points. The 9 points in a diamond should pick up the bird better. With the 10D it was tough to keep the sensor covering the target - especially when the AF hunted and it lost focus.

I do not think that it will be a huge performance increase, but I definitely think that it will be better for birds in flight.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Fingers crossed.. me too :)

I'm just saying there is a slight difference beween what we think and hope Vs. what we allready know.

[samdring]

Thanks chaps - your replies appreciated especially as I hi-jacked.
My point, which you ably answered, was in essence that it is hard to judge the standards of the person/photographer when they make comment on the standards of a piece of equipment.

[IanD]

I tossed my vote in fvor of the 500 F4. Reason? I have both the 100-400 and the 400 prime and agree with Scott and CDS. The 100-400 is a great lens for stationary subjects or slow moving. ( Talking birds and deer here, not boats and cars.) The 400 prime locks on to a bird in flight very quickly and is considered one of the best flight lenses out there. ( Arthur Morris)
In Scotts situation, I'd go for the 500 prime. I have never complained afout the quality of images from the 10D. I would dearly love to be able to slap a 1.4TC behind the 400 prime and have AF but it ain't going to happen with the 10D or 20D. As Scott said, camera bodies last about 2 years before the next "newest and bestest" comes out but good glass lasts forever. One day I'll find a deal on a 1 series but till then, I'm staying with the 10D.

[MediaMagic]

There is NO guarantee whatsoever that the 20D will be ANY better with this lens than the 10D.. It would be nice.. but the 20D is no "1" either.

I think it will - but I'm thinking this due to the design of the autofocus points. The 9 points in a diamond should pick up the bird better. With the 10D it was tough to keep the sensor covering the target - especially when the AF hunted and it lost focus.

I do not think that it will be a huge performance increase, but I definitely think that it will be better for birds in flight.

Especially combined with the SM belt... the belt alone will give you the confidence for inspirational greatness! :P

[Mark Kemp]

Personally I reckon that you can get a lot of stuffed birds and nylon fishing line for the price of any of this kit :D

[MarkH]

There is NO guarantee whatsoever that the 20D will be ANY better with this lens than the 10D.. It would be nice.. but the 20D is no "1" either.

I think it will - but I'm thinking this due to the design of the autofocus points. The 9 points in a diamond should pick up the bird better. With the 10D it was tough to keep the sensor covering the target - especially when the AF hunted and it lost focus.

I do not think that it will be a huge performance increase, but I definitely think that it will be better for birds in flight.

I think you are making the right choice for now, but save your money after the current purchases. Remember that there is still a 500mm out there with your name on it!