Lenses for birding

[quackaddict]

Hi all, This is my first official post on this forum but I have been lurking for quite a while, and learning with every day!
I have recently been bitten by the photography bug. I have a deal worked out for an Eos Xsi, and am currently looking for a longer lense than what the kit lens is. I was wondering what you all woudl recomend in regards to lenses. I want to take photos of birds, mainly waterfowl sitting, flying, and decoying.

The general consensus is that the Canon L 70-200 2.8 is the lense a person wants, but it price tag dosen't allow me to purchase it. With that in mind There are a couple of others that are similar but lack some features.

Canon 70-300 IS UMS 4 to 5.6
Canon 70-200L F/4
Tamaron 70-200 F/2.8
Canon 55-250 IS UMS

Would the 70-200L F/4 without IS be a good choice for what I have discribed? What would it actlike in low light, good light? Would a lense with IS be better for action shots? As you all can probably tell I am very new to the lense selection thing so any pointers would be appreciated.

Thanks all!

[hTr]

The 70-200 is a Good Portrait Lens but if you looking for a Birding Lens Save your Pennies and Get a Canon 300/4 + 1.4TC or a 400/5/6

[midnight_rider]

Welcome to the forum.
If you said what your budget was it would help some. I find that 200mm even on a crop sensor is way to short. I would say a minimum of 300mm but even with that you may find that you want more reach.

[TooManyShots]

You would not like what I am about to say.....none of the lens below is recommended for bird photography. Unless you have good field skills, shooting behind a blind, and able to shoot the bird close. Other than that, you need a lens with at least 400mm focal length X the crop factor of your body. 400L F5.6 is very popular. 100-400 is good for wild life photography in general. 300L + 1.4x converter is also good for wild life photography in general. Why 400mm? Because that's the minimal reach for you to walk up to the birds and still remain to have some good distance (not scaring them away). And for you to take the shot, crop it, and still produce good result.

Hi all, This is my first official post on this forum but I have been lurking for quite a while, and learning with every day!
I have recently been bitten by the photography bug. I have a deal worked out for an Eos Xsi, and am currently looking for a longer lense than what the kit lens is. I was wondering what you all woudl recomend in regards to lenses. I want to take photos of birds, mainly waterfowl sitting, flying, and decoying.

The general consensus is that the Canon L 70-200 2.8 is the lense a person wants, but it price tag dosen't allow me to purchase it. With that in mind There are a couple of others that are similar but lack some features.

Canon 70-300 IS UMS 4 to 5.6
Canon 70-200L F/4
Tamaron 70-200 F/2.8
Canon 55-250 IS UMS

Would the 70-200L F/4 without IS be a good choice for what I have discribed? What would it actlike in low light, good light? Would a lense with IS be better for action shots? As you all can probably tell I am very new to the lense selection thing so any pointers would be appreciated.

Thanks all!

[quackaddict]

I will clear up some things I didn't discribe in my original post, first, thank you all for the responses! I have a budget of around 6-700 dollars. Secondly, I don't believe a fixed lens is the right answer. I am a waterfowler at heart, getting close to birds is what I do, I am most interested in capturing birds decoying to a given spread, were talking 40 yards and in, with many instances having birds at 30 ft a real possibility. I do not want to take pictures of birds 500yards out on a lake. There are enough park ducks around where I can get within inches of mallards if I desire. Would a fixed power still be appropriate?

[midnight_rider]

You could get a used 300mm f/4 L for that range. You may be surprised at how close you would still have to get. 500 yards to shoot a bird you better have a hell of a lot more that 300 or 400mm.

[TooManyShots]

Trust us....many of us went through it all with reach. Right now I am shooting with a 500L F4 IS + 1.4x converter on a 1dmarkII == 910mm field of view. I can truly say that I have the optimal reach right now with 20% to 30% cropping. However, I couldn't even get a full frame shot of the bird shooting right in from of the feeders last week!!! The feeder area is protect by fences. Me and the feeders were probably a bit over 20ft.....:)

And you think a lens with less than 300mm focal length on a crop body you can get an acceptable shot of the birds not even closer than 30ft....???

I will clear up some things I didn't discribe in my original post, first, thank you all for the responses! I have a budget of around 6-700 dollars. Secondly, I don't believe a fixed lens is the right answer. I am a waterfowler at heart, getting close to birds is what I do, I am most interested in capturing birds decoying to a given spread, were talking 40 yards and in, with many instances having birds at 30 ft a real possibility. I do not want to take pictures of birds 500yards out on a lake. There are enough park ducks around where I can get within inches of mallards if I desire. Would a fixed power still be appropriate?

[quackaddict]

Sorry guys, Im not trying to start an argument as I know very little about lens selection. From what I had gathered from others who do what I am looking to do it seemed like a variable in the 70-300 or 70-200 range was about the norm, No one that I had talked to said anything about running a fixed power. That is why I questioned the fixed power recomendation. I guess I assumed (and wrongfully) that the images seen here were mainly taken with a variable.

Another question, how large is a fixed 300 or 400mm lens? Is it something that can be handled relitivley easily? Or does one need to have it on a tripod at all times? A huge lens would be a huge PITA in a confined blind.

[midnight_rider]

Here is a focal length tool. (http://www.tamron.de/Focal-Length-Comparison.238.0.html?&L=2)
My 300 is easy to hand hold. I believe that the 400mm f/5.6 is about the same size.

[Oteck]

from what i gather i've only seen bird shooters use primes. Maybe you mixed this up with sport shooters as they need more versatility. If you were just to shoot ducks then you can get away with an ultra wide.

[quackaddict]

Ducks and Geese will be my primary qarry 95% of the time.

Another idea, a 70-200 with a 1.4 magnification extender and a 1.6 crop would give me an effective zoom of about 400mm. Thoughts on this?

[Oteck]

i have a 1.4x and used it on my 70-200 it only gains that 80mm on the long end which isn't really much for me. I'm thinking of getting the 100-400 but seeing i've been addicted to prime i'll probably get the 400mm instead

[L.Morey]

The Sigma 150-500 works well

[5Dmaniac]

No matter what anyone told you and no matter what you think now, a 200mm with or without a 1.4 will NOT cut it for birding. You need at least a 400, better a 500mm lens. Sorry, but that's just the way it is - even for ducks. Oh, yes and we're talking about using that long lens on a crop body, not a FF.

[quackaddict]

Thanks for the replies guys! I may have to look into something with 300mm at the high end and look at getting into something like a 100-400 in the future. I wish I could spend a cool 1k on a lense but right now it just isn't possible.

[jmik26]

With the price range you have you may want to look into a Sigma 120-400. Here is a link for some tests with a couple zoom lenses. (http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm) I have only Canon lenses (just what was burnt into my brain) including the 100-400 which is a fine lens and can be found on selling board for around $1000 - $1100. However, I really like the results some people on the bird forum got with a 400mm wide open.

Its all up to how close you can get to the subject. Ducks and geese at 30ft away I think you would be fine between 300mm and 400mm, 40 yards is stretching it. Hope this helps...Jeff

[Rich S]

I have a 5D which has the full-frame , not the greatest as to reach. It also only shoots 3fps. Your XSI shoots 3.5, but is a cropped camera , which will give a 1.6X magnifcation with the lenses. I bought a 50D to get back into BIF(Birds in Flight) shooting. It is a cropped camera has good AF and 6.5fps. I shot these pelicans with a 300mm f/4L IS and would like to get the 400mm f/5.6L. You could get the 300mm f/4L non-IS for your price range. If you are shooting the ducks that will work. You can practice and see if the habit becomes a full hobby. I stalk the birds too and was shooting with a 3fps and a full frame non-cropped and the 300mm only. It can be done. Here are the Pelicans.....http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc150/blackies_owner/2134195-2-brown-pelicans-1.jpg

[quackaddict]

Awesome shot! Its pics like that that make me want to get into this hobby. :cool:

[Froggeh]

http://www.identity.net.au/potn/20081229_0461.jpg

sorry for the oversized and shoddy quality photo, it's for illustration. this is a crop at 400mm in very low light. I was on the river bank so this black cormorant would've been 30-40ft away from me maximum and still didn't fill the frame. A duck will rarely go full-frame - 25ft away and i'd expect to be cropping 50%+ of the pixels out of the shot.

was just trying to say that this is a fairly big bird, fairly close, on a 400mm zoom, that's 33% larger than a 300mm lens pic of it. you can do a lot with the 70-300 canon actually and it's a very manageable weight, but there's a reason we all have the dust-pump (100-400) or the snooker cue (400mm), or longer if we can afford.

[quackaddict]

From the replies I have been getting im pretty sure I will be looking at the 70-300 IS canon for now, then I will upgrade to a prime or a 100-400L if I really get into it. I was hoping the 70-200F/4 would have been enough with a 1.4tc and the 1.6 crop, because from the reviews I have read its a better lens clarity and sharpness wise. But I will take the advice you guys have given and go bigger!

[midnight_rider]

From the replies I have been getting im pretty sure I will be looking at the 70-300 IS canon for now, then I will upgrade to a prime or a 100-400L if I really get into it. I was hoping the 70-200F/4 would have been enough with a 1.4tc and the 1.6 crop, because from the reviews I have read its a better lens clarity and sharpness wise. But I will take the advice you guys have given and go bigger!

Have you seen this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=622047)

[quackaddict]

I have been watching the classifieds for lenses like that! Thanks!

[cjs180]

I think the 70-300 mm IS will work for you. As an avid duck hunter myself, that lens is not great in low light which is when you probably see most of your ducks. Some shots with that lens are below:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r31/cjschwer/Pelican4.jpg


http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r31/cjschwer/Pelican.jpg

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r31/cjschwer/Pelican3.jpg

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r31/cjschwer/IMG_1760.jpg

[quackaddict]

I think the 70-300 mm IS will work for you. As an avid duck hunter myself, that lens is not great in low light which is when you probably see most of your ducks.


IF the light is that bad I have something else to shoot the birds with:cool:

[davebreal]

From the replies I have been getting im pretty sure I will be looking at the 70-300 IS canon for now, then I will upgrade to a prime or a 100-400L if I really get into it. I was hoping the 70-200F/4 would have been enough with a 1.4tc and the 1.6 crop, because from the reviews I have read its a better lens clarity and sharpness wise. But I will take the advice you guys have given and go bigger!

the 70-300 IS USM is garbage and a waste of money.

how do i know? i've owned one for quite a while now. i regret ever getting it. get the 300mm f/4 with or without IS, you will never take the 1.4 teleconverter off it.

i use the 500mm f/4 with a 1.4tc, neither ever comes off my 40d. i still need to crop 99% of my photos taken from the field. domesticated animals and ones trained to hand-few are the only ones you'll get consistently at 300mm.

[Froggeh]

the 70-300 IS USM is garbage and a waste of money.

how do i know? i've owned one for quite a while now. i regret ever getting it. get the 300mm f/4 with or without IS, you will never take the 1.4 teleconverter off it.

i use the 500mm f/4 with a 1.4tc, neither ever comes off my 40d. i still need to crop 99% of my photos taken from the field. domesticated animals and ones trained to hand-few are the only ones you'll get consistently at 300mm.

A little harsh don't you think? The 70-300 IS USM performs comparatively poorly wide open but becomes acceptable stopped down, and is also poor in low light. However, it is a surprisingly well built lens for the money and has a decent amount of reach - it's more of a walkabout telezoom than a birding prime, but if the OP is aware of this then it still is a viable alternative to the 70-200 f4 non-IS, giving him both reach and 3 stops of IS. You're comparing it to a lens costing 2.5x more with a single main purpose, and you use a lens costing 9x more. I'm happy if I get one 'keeper' from a trip, depending on light and location. Bushcraft and quiet shoes may get him the shot when longer lenses fail, but yes - you will get the bird the other side of the river with the lens with a 233% larger image projected onto your sensor. Starting in reality, he can get into birding with the 70-300, especially if he's shooting seabirds up close in good light.

[WingsofFury]

the 70-300 IS USM is garbage and a waste of money.

how do i know? i've owned one for quite a while now. i regret ever getting it. get the 300mm f/4 with or without IS, you will never take the 1.4 teleconverter off it.

i use the 500mm f/4 with a 1.4tc, neither ever comes off my 40d. i still need to crop 99% of my photos taken from the field. domesticated animals and ones trained to hand-few are the only ones you'll get consistently at 300mm.

I just spent $300 on the 75-300mm and I'm using it as a little big of a learning tool, if you will. While I'm still learning how to shoot with a zoom lens, it's also teaching me that in order to be a successful wildlife photographer I need to practice the art of stalking my quarry - something that I find might be a bit of a lost art in todays world of photography. With that being said, I know that it isn't the most powerful lense but if someone is just starting out and wanting to learn the basics, I believe it's a reasonable lens for the money.

However, it is a surprisingly well built lens for the money and has a decent amount of reach - it's more of a walkabout telezoom than a birding prime, but if the OP is aware of this then it still is a viable alternative to the 70-200 f4 non-IS, giving him both reach and 3 stops of IS. Starting in reality, he can get into birding with the 70-300, especially if he's shooting seabirds up close in good light.

Well said, and thanks for sharing the information!

[Perry Ge]

The 70-300 IS was a pain in the butt to use for birding when I had it, because of the poor AF and lack of full time manual. Optically it was OK, but I have to agree with dave that I grew to hate it and see it as a real piece of ****. Sold it after less than a month (Well, I traded it for a 200 2.8L and got a TC, now with the 400 5.6L, there's no looking back).

Having said that, the one listed was for a good price - so maybe get that for now, or the 55-250, and start saving for a proper bird lens like the 400 5.6L - with a zoom, you'll be using it at the longest end 99.9% of the time for birds anyway. I wouldn't bird without full time manual though.

[davebreal]

I just spent $300 on the 75-300mm and I'm using it as a little big of a learning tool, if you will.

$300 seems like a decent price for it, what Canon charges for a new copy is outrageous.

[andrewhuxman]

The 70-300 is just a gateway lens:D, it will soon lead to bigger and better lenses, then another and another.

[Chris]

Here's one I took with a 70-300 IS almost 2 years ago with a 30D. I think I was about 40 yards away. I'm currently lusting for a 500 F4 IS.

[TooManyShots]

Here's one I took with a 70-300 IS almost 2 years ago with a 30D. I think I was about 40 yards away. I'm currently lusting for a 500 F4 IS.


Here is a shot with my 500L F4 IS added a 12mm extension tube:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3195385622_d6663f8cab_o.jpg

[cjs180]

Nice shot too many, how far away was that?

[TooManyShots]

Nice shot too many, how far away was that?

Thanks. Maybe 8ft to 10ft...

[Chris]

Here's one for ya:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=629774

[andrewhuxman]

The 500 is my choice.:) but hey I am biased.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t47/ahuxman58/IMG_3097.jpg

[Chris]

Nice catch Andrew. I don't know if I could have held my camera steady, I'd be so excited.

[quackaddict]

Some great shots coming through on this thread!

[Dave 1942]

Here is what I would suggest.. Look at the Tamaron 28-350mm zoom. My friend has one and I am impressed with the images he is getting.. That being said, when you can afford it, get the biggest lens you can. I have a 500 f4L lens and even then, I find myself wishing for a little more. Artie Morris just wrote a report on Canon's new 800 5.6L lens on his "Birds As Art" website and spoke highly of it. That lens is just a little out of my price range. Now, when I add a 2X teleconverter to my 300 2.8L lens, on my 40D, I end up with a 960 5.6, and when I add a 1.4X tele to my 500 f4L, on my 40D, I end up with an 1120 f5.6.

Dave

[chauncey]

I don't rely on posted Internet images, unless it is a true 100% crop, to determine lens IQ.
Instead I look at the MTF charts and the gear that the real pros use.

I can't think of any type of photography that requires more lens investment dollars than does birding.

[lmans]

Try a Tokina 80-400...... Personally I do not like Prime lens for birding as there are many times when you are trying to 'find' the bird and it is best to do so with a lesser mag and slowly zoom in. The Tokina has 400 and can take a 1.4 converter. The tokina is also the lightest of the lens I have seen so given that I prefer to hike lightly and know that every few ounces adds up on long slippery trails etc...

[puadxe]

I bought a sigma 70-300 apo dg as my first birding lens and after not even a year I want more. The 5.6 aperture at 300mm kills me, and I want more reach. Wish I would have just saved for a better lens, but it was spring at the time and I was dying to get some bird shots with my new camera before winter came. But it was nice to get out there rather than waiting a year to save more money, and now I have a better idea of what I actually need out of a lens.

[CountryBoy]

If you don't mind buying used, you should be able to find a Sigma 50-500mm in your price range.
Maybe even a used Sigma 100-300mm f/4 with a 1.4 teleconveter, that would give you 420mm on the long side, with AF. It does handle a tc very well. That's what i'm using for now.

Just be carefull buying used.

[cbjim]

I have a Canon 100-400 5.6 and it is a great lens. I have had it for 4 years and its been all over the world. Easy to hand hold lots of flexability. Weight is a big factor after a long day

[Sean]

What do people think about the 300 F4 on it's own?

[artyman]

I bought a Sigma 150-500 DG OS and I'm very pleased with it. Quite a bit cheaper than the Canon 100-400. These are a couple of shots from it.
1/200 f7.1 ISO-800 @500mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3303151921_d30a169370_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3303155029_41bdb7a0d8_o.jpg

[Tom Reichner]

Ducks and Geese will be my primary qarry 95% of the time.

Another idea, a 70-200 with a 1.4 magnification extender and a 1.6 crop would give me an effective zoom of about 400mm. Thoughts on this?

The less you do to achieve focal length, the better your images will be (clearer & sharper).

I do alot of bird photography. I have a 70-200mm L. I never use the 70-200 for birds. It's really just not the right lens.

Adding an extender takes away a little bit of clarity & sharpness. Cropping takes away a little more. Why start with two strikes against you when you could just start with a 400?

The 300 f4 would also be a good choice if you are doing mostly large birds like ducks, but you still need to be very close to them for a 300 to be affective. Even in a blind it can be hard to get that close.

The 400mm f5.6 prime that so many have recommended really would be a good choice for you, and it's relatively affordable. Once you get used to how fast it focuses you'll be spoiled for anything else.

- Tom

[gh patriot]

What do people think about the 300 F4 on it's own?


You will probably want to use that lens with the 1.4 TC. I (almost) always do. Unless you can get really close, 300mm is kinda short for small birds. Or big birds for that matter and Im shooting on a 1.6 FOVCF (40D)

[artyman]

Murphys law dictates that whatever lens you have it will be the wrong one for the bird that is in the viewfinder :D

Usually you can never have a lens that is too long or too fast. ;)

[bhowdy]

Like so many folks here I have been through several lenses in my "bird photography" evolution. I own the Canon 70-200f4L IS lens and love it, but not for birds (even with an extender).

The recommendations for the Canon 100-400 (which I also own), the big Sigma or Tamron lenses are all excellent for birding on a budget.

I have owned the 300 f4 and the 400f5.6 and both are good lenses, but if you are serious about bird photography they will always leave you wanting more reach.

Birds the size of a duck at 40 yards will not be a full frame image, actually they usually will not be at 30 feet.

I guess what I am offering is to read and read and read, believe what folks are telling you and not decide that you know better than the folks that have been there before. I started with a 75-300, because I did not read and listen well enough. (what a sad lens). Of course you can get good images with shorter lenses, just be ready for large crop factors.

There are so many great folks on these forums that are willing to offer help and advice. Most of us cannot afford to start with a $6,000 prime lens or a high fps camera body so we learn while using other combinations. I have found if I ask questions respectfully and without a pre-determined answer in my mind, I learn so much!

This quote by WingsofFury is very true!
While I'm still learning how to shoot with a zoom lens, it's also teaching me that in order to be a successful wildlife photographer I need to practice the art of stalking my quarry - something that I find might be a bit of a lost art in todays world of photography

Amen chauncey :D
I can't think of any type of photography that requires more lens investment dollars than does birding

I am showing the following photos to give examples of what a 500mm lens looks like with different subjects at varying distances.

The Blue-winged Teel below was taken with a Canon 1D MarkIII and a Canon 500mm f4L IS and a 1.4 extender (700mm) from not more than 20 yards, it's a slight crop.
http://bhowdy.smugmug.com/photos/447506081_6EGdp-XL.jpg

The Blue Jay is the 1DMIII with the 500mm (no extender) at 17 feet, in my backyard. (no crop)
http://bhowdy.smugmug.com/photos/457017894_UeRhm-XL.jpg

The Coyote was with a 40d and the 500 (no extender) at 30 yards (I paced it off after the coyote moved on) (no crop)
http://bhowdy.smugmug.com/photos/456985112_FhkSE-XL.jpg

Sandhill Crane in flight .... 50 yards (approx) 1D MarkII - 500mm w 1.4 extender, about a 50% crop
http://bhowdy.smugmug.com/photos/440796416_QQtpR-XL.jpg

[Roy C]

The recommendations for the Canon 100-400 (which I also own), the big Sigma or Tamron lenses are all excellent for birding on a budget.

I have owned the 300 f4 and the 400f5.6 and both are good lenses, but if you are serious about bird photography they will always leave you wanting more reach.

So the 100-400 gives you more reach than the 400/5.6 does it? I do not understand this. If the 400/5.6 always leaving you wanting more reach does not the same apply to the 100-400?

[bhowdy]

Roy,
I see that you misunderstood my statements. I mentioned that the three telezooms were good "birding on a budget" lenses. I stated that the 300 f4 and the 400f5.6 were both good lenses.

Nowhere did I say that the 100-400 had more reach than the 400f5.6! Actually the 100-400 has less reach (in my experience) than the 400 prime. This is because the 100-400 is not great with a tele extender on it. My experience was that the 1.4 extender was not all that great on the 400f5.6 either. So ..... always hoping for more reach with those lenses.

My primary birding / long lens now is the Canon 500f4L IS, which is killer with an extender on it and hand holdable for short periods of time.

Sorry that you misread my original post.

[palaima]

Hello!
Well as i read through the thread i began to wonder, i was going to save up money for canon 200mm F2.8L lense for wildlife/bird photography, but now i think that this might not be enough. But here is the trick, the last time i went "bird shooting" i only had my noble sigma 17-70 and at 70mm ~ 120mm (full frame) i took quite decent shots...i managed to get to a tomtit as close as 3 meters (about 10feet), and the only thing that i saw my lens was lacking was sharpness and autofocus speed. So now then you heard my story do you think that i should save some more money and by a longer lens than 200mm? (i prefer primes over zoom). I am only an entuziast so i don't want to spend too much.
Looking farward to your answers!

[artyman]

You can shoot with a short (relative) lens but it usually will involve a hide and long periods of waiting, a long lens gives you more opportunities. Primes will invariably give that little extra in terms of IQ but zooms offer flexibility, and are still capable of good images.

[palaima]

Now about zoom and prime...well you see most of my time i was working with a fixed focal lengh lens and now than i have a zoom, i don't really ike it :) I would better move with my feet :D

[Ronnie H]

:)Budget Lens was the ?? IMHO Canon 55-250 is is a good bang for the buck,,,,& a good place to start,!..Ron:D

[Froggeh]

tbh you need to use the 70-300 for more than a month before you learn to love it. probably over 6. Center-point AF, tracking on the bird's shoulder, and it's not so far off the 100-400 in real world situations, unlike the 55-250 which is frankly not a good birding lens. It's too short, too low contrast, too slow AF, if the weather isn't great, you'll want to go home, and it seems about a third of a stop darker than the 70-300 in low light (not compared in good light). The lack of FTM and slightly softness past 260mm are par for the course at this length/price, and it still outperforms the 70-200 w/ 1.4x and gives you AF into the bargain.

[Ronnie H]

:confused:Foggeh ? have you ever tried the 55-250 is Canon,,,your words don,t match,,,what I have gotten with my 55-250is....I had a 70-300 non -is canon & i much preferr my 55-250is, and as i stated a good place to Start? not a perffect lens,,but it takes nice pics IMHO...Ron:D

[bandana]

i use a 100-400L and i still need more reach. if you go too close to the birds, you are likely to spook them and lose the shot

[Hawkman]

Roy,
I see that you misunderstood my statements. I mentioned that the three telezooms were good "birding on a budget" lenses. I stated that the 300 f4 and the 400f5.6 were both good lenses.

Nowhere did I say that the 100-400 had more reach than the 400f5.6! Actually the 100-400 has less reach (in my experience) than the 400 prime. This is because the 100-400 is not great with a tele extender on it. My experience was that the 1.4 extender was not all that great on the 400f5.6 either. So ..... always hoping for more reach with those lenses.

My primary birding / long lens now is the Canon 500f4L IS, which is killer with an extender on it and hand holdable for short periods of time.

Sorry that you misread my original post.

The 100-400 is more like 385mm when fully extended - the 400/5.6 actually does have a little more reach :D

[citrinella]

The easiest trap to fall into with bird photography is buying something "just for now", then finding it is not quite what you want, so spending more money "just for now", then more, and more.

After getting a 70-200 2.8 IS for candids and adding a 2x for birds, I realized this. I stopped and saved up for what I really wanted. If I had bought a xxx-300 this then a yyy-300 then a xxx-400 this then an xxx-400 that I would have been trapped in perpetual sub-optimal debt.

Sure, you have nothing, and that is unacceptable, but once you have something, start saving ... and keep on saving until you have decided what your optimum lens would be. By that time, maybe you can afford it.

BTW, I think Art Morris described the 500 f4 as perhaps the best birding lens (before the 800 5.6 came out). He can't be far wrong :-0

Mike.

[Sean]

Mike,

I agree with your statement. I am saving up for a 500L as we speak. I am forgoing the 400L and 100-400. I am getting a 300L and 1.4TC. Yes I know it won't be perfect, but I have used the 100-400 and I don't like it. The 400 5.6 is great, but I can't hand hold with my salt, and I don't always want to use a tripod. I have used the 70-200 F4L IS and love it, and have gotten lovely shots. Right now I know I should be getting a 400 Prime, but in reality I'd be unhappy with it. So instead, my wife and I are saving for a 500L, and a 400 2.8 for the future (next 3 years).

Some lenses might be perfect, but they have to make you happy as well.

[Methodical]

Quackaddict, what lens did you get and how's it going?