Only one lens for birding...

[Duncan Frenz]

I am building a lens collection (slooooowly....) :D, and dabble in many different areas of photography. One area which I have not, but have watched with envy, is the wildlife(real wildlife, not pets) and avian pursuits. I have already formulated a 'wish' list of lenses that meet most of my criteria while making little compromise for all but the most professional and niche photographer. Most of the list comprise a list of L zooms and a few fast primes all 200mm and wider, plus a 1.4X TC. Among them is the venerable 70-200, which from what I understand is waaaaay to short even with a TC on a crop body.

What I have gathered is I would be 'okay' with either a 100-400 or a 400 prime. I understand that the 100-400 requires a learning curve and diligence on the photographers part, but from what I have seen, the results are worth it. Birding will probably never be my primary focus, but I do imagine I will be spending sufficient time and energy to invest in at least one good 'birding' lens. I would like it to have multiple uses, and I am sure it will as most lenses do. I gather it would be good for aviation photography as well.

So, my question is, if you could have only one lens for wildlife/birding(maybe aviation too), what would it be with a current APS-C body and 1.4X TC? I want a good lens for aviation too, but if that has to be a separate purchase from this, then it would be no problem. I have researched this, but would like to hear your thoughts and experience, as I value your opinions, especially considering the images posted and the talent in this forum.

Thank you for your time, I know you have answered similar questions and it presumably becomes a PITA to have to regurgitate the same information et al. I appreciate all opinions and members that will humor me.

[pttenn]

For me, and within the constraints of my budget, the 400 5.6 prime is on my camera all the time when I am shooting birds. I did find that using it with a TC never worked well for me.
Karen

[westernminnguy]

The 500 f/4 would be great if you have the $6K. That is the lens I dream about. :)

If you want to spent about 1/5 of that either the 400 f5.6 or 100-400 work well. I have both and use the 400 f5.6 primarily for birding because it focuses faster, seems to be a bit easier to wield on my 1DIIn and is a sharp lens.

I've also heard really good things about the 150-500 Sigma but have also heard that it's a bit heavy and unwieldy....don't know that for sure though because I've never tried that lens.

I think the 100-400 has a rebate right now?

Best of luck.

:)

[Duncan Frenz]

The 500 f/4 would be great if you have the $6K. That is the lens I dream about. :)

If you want to spent about 1/5 of that either the 400 f5.6 or 100-400 work well. I have both and use the 400 f5.6 primarily for birding because it focuses faster, seems to be a bit easier to wield on my 1DIIn and is a sharp lens.

I've also heard really good things about the 150-500 Sigma but have also heard that it's a bit heavy and unwieldy....don't know that for sure though because I've never tried that lens.

I think the 100-400 has a rebate right now?

Best of luck.

:)

I am not too impressed with Sigma's QC, though I would consider one of their UWA lens. I think my best bet is to stick with Canon for this particular lens. Even though it will cost more, it will give me better results and some extra mileage.

As far as the 500 f/4 is concerned... ummm, no. I am willing to save for what I want, but A.) It will take too long to save for as I want to do some birding this year B.) It's cost/performance/utility ratio is low on my scale. I can swing the 100-400 or 400 prime and it would be used for other endeavors. If I found birding became an unsustainable passion, I might consider it, but until then, I have mouths to feed and doctor bills to pay. I shouldn't even be considering what I am! But that's another story... Thanks for the input.

[Canajun]

When I first started with DSLR. I was going with the same premise then realize very quickly that it was not possible. It became clear I need a short lens for landscape, a mid-range lens for wildlife and candid shots, and lastly a long fast lens for birding.

At the moment my 70-200 F4L IS plus 1.4x TC is doing fine filling in the the role of the birding lens.

I made the second mistake by assuming that the longest the better. I wanted to get really into birds. I mean like super sharp images. So I was ready to fork up for a 500 or a 600. Then someone here at the forum mentioned something very significant. They said that it's very hard to capture BIF (bird in flight) with anything longer than a 400. So it's a toss up for a 400 prime or the 100-400L IS. I'm sure the final decision will be made at the sales counter.

Lastly the 400 with a 1.4x TC will make a nice long lens. I might get a cheap Kenko 2x TC just to stretch the 400 even more.

It might not be for everyone but this is what I'm thinking of doing for myself.

[doable]

400 prime, it is actually a little longer than the 100-400 and you will only want more length, never less. It's sharp wide open, one of the best inflight lens going from the fast auto-focus.

Get it, you won't regret it.

[westernminnguy]

Duncan,

Assuming you buy Canon; my experience.

(1) Sharpness, the edge would go to the 400 f5.6. I have gotten good shots at 400mm with my 100-400 but I get more keepers at that focal length with the prime.

(2) Flexibility - Obviously the 100-400. This seems to be a popular lens for both birding and aviation because of the zoom and IS. Although for birding, I'm at 400mm, 99% of the time and IS is not a benefit birding for me anyway because I'm usually at a fairly fast shutter speed.

(3) Weight and handling - again, the edge to the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 isn't far behind, but I notice a difference when I'm out walking.

(4) Cost - in the long run it's a horse apiece to my way of thinking.

1.4 T.C.

Subjective here, but I like the results with the 400 f5.6 again better than my 100-400.

Best of luck.

:)

[Duncan Frenz]

When I first started with DSLR. I was going with the same premise then realize very quickly that it was not possible. It became clear I need a short lens for landscape, a mid-range lens for wildlife and candid shots, and lastly a long fast lens for birding.

At the moment my 70-200 F4L IS plus 1.4x TC is doing fine filling in the the role of the birding lens.

I made the second mistake by assuming that the longest the better. I wanted to get really into birds. I mean like super sharp images. So I was ready to fork up for a 500 or a 600. Then someone here at the forum mentioned something very significant. They said that it's very hard to capture BIF (bird in flight) with anything longer than a 400. So it's a toss up for a 400 prime or the 100-400L IS. I'm sure the final decision will be made at the sales counter.

Lastly the 400 with a 1.4x TC will make a nice long lens. I might get a cheap Kenko 2x TC just to stretch the 400 even more.

It might not be for everyone but this is what I'm thinking of doing for myself.

This is precisely what I am looking for. My next purchase will undoubtedly be a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS (probably f/4). I keep reading that you won't get good results for birding, as it is just too short even with any TC. But, while I totally respect those opinions, I realize the source, which is from serious birders who won't settle for much less than the best. I am no different in the respect that I always want the best tools for the application. However, a lot of this is subjective like C&C where some criticize images for 'flaws' that I might find attractive. Much like the debate on noise, pixel peeping and the sort, it really is subjective.

What isn't subjective, is that their is no substitute for reach and you should get as much as you can afford. You also make an excellent point about FL and getting a shot of a BIF or a jet streaking across the sky at an air show. I knew that, but that criteria wasn't in my head when writing this post until you reminded me. Another good reason why posts are made even when it has been said time and again. It really gives you a perspective on your individual purchase utilizing the vast wealth of information amongst our members. Thanks.

[Duncan Frenz]

Duncan,

Assuming you buy Canon; my experience.

(1) Sharpness, the edge would go to the 400 f5.6. I have gotten good shots at 400mm with my 100-400 but I get more keepers at that focal length with the prime.

(2) Flexibility - Obviously the 100-400. This seems to be a popular lens for both birding and aviation because of the zoom and IS. Although for birding, I'm at 400mm, 99% of the time and IS is not a benefit birding for me anyway because I'm usually at a fairly fast shutter speed.

(3) Weight and handling - again, the edge to the 400 f5.6. The 100-400 isn't far behind, but I notice a difference when I'm out walking.

(4) Cost - in the long run it's a horse apiece to my way of thinking.

1.4 T.C.

Subjective here, but I like the results with the 400 f5.6 again better than my 100-400.

Best of luck.

:)

I was of a mind that the prime would edge out the zoom, but that is almost always the case. I think the 100-400 offers me enough IQ and flexibility to warrant the cost, whereas the prime is a one trick pony for someone not publishing photos. And the beauty of it all is if the 100-400 doesn't meet my needs, there are others always on the look out for well cared for equipment, and I take care of my gear. Thank you for the input, it gives me some stuff to chew on.

[westernminnguy]

This is precisely what I am looking for. My next purchase will undoubtedly be a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS (probably f/4). I keep reading that you won't get good results for birding, as it is just too short even with any TC. But, while I totally respect those opinions, I realize the source, which is from serious birders who won't settle for much less than the best.

Duncan,

Hope you don't mind the edit.

The 70-200 is a great lens...I do have that lens as well.

My experience is that the lens will work for birds if you can get pretty close. I just don't have much luck getting close enough with this lens.

:D

[Duncan Frenz]

Duncan,

Hope you don't mind the edit.

The 70-200 is a great lens...I do have that lens as well.

My experience is that the lens will work for birds if you can get pretty close. I just don't have much luck getting close enough with this lens.

:D

Not at all. I am getting the 70-200 because it is a lens I feel everyone should have in their bag and probably has the IQ/FL that I need for most of what I intend. I was hoping it would be good for birding as well, and I'll take what people say for their experience, but their is no harm in trying since I will have it anyway and may be pleasantly surprised if I can get close enough. We'll see, as I expect to purchase one soon.

[Stormin_24]

The 400mm be it 100-400 or 400mm prime is somewhat subjective.. Pending where you live, some people have complained the 100-400mm is a dust collector with the push/pull zoom feature it has... I presume they shoot alot where there is blowing sand... For me, the Canon 400mm prime was the way to go, faster AF and to the trained eye, yields slightly better photo's... Good luck in your decision, there both fantastic lenses..:D

[WesternGuy]

Duncan, I have the 100-400 and use it a lot for birding. I have no problem with the IQ, although it does have a little problem with low light. For me, the advantage is the range of distance (100-400) that it gives me. I find that in bird sanctuaries you can get closer (100-200) than you can in real life (300-400) and this aspect of the lens is a plus. HTH

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[Duncan Frenz]

The 400mm be it 100-400 or 400mm prime is somewhat subjective.. Pending where you live, some people have complained the 100-400mm is a dust collector with the push/pull zoom feature it has... I presume they shoot alot where there is blowing sand... For me, the Canon 400mm prime was the way to go, faster AF and to the trained eye, yields slightly better photo's... Good luck in your decision, there both fantastic lenses..:D

I've always had an acute sensitivity for many things which others would overlook. Audio, video, computers, cars... I can drive a car and tell if a tie rod needs replaced or a control arm is worn, while most would just drive without a care in the world. I can tell when a computer is not performing to its capabilities; my dad wouldn't bat an eye. But, while I crave and appreciate the best craftsmanship, I have learned what is important to me. I recently bought a Vanguard ball head and it is manufactured as good as a Manfrotto at a fraction of the cost with better controls. I'd like to have owned an RRS or Kirk, but I knew the benefit, if any, was small compared to the price/quality that I got with the Vanguard. The only thing I sacrificed is universal plates, which I can/will change if need be. I KNOW I could spot the difference in lenses, but I am learning to get the best for my needs and upgrade if it makes an appreciable difference to me. I am willing to compromise, but probably not as much as some but maybe more than others.

[marjnap]

My suggestion with lens since I think it is very personalized is to rent all the lens you are thinking about and test them out and see what you like.

[Duncan Frenz]

My suggestion with lens since I think it is very personalized is to rent all the lens you are thinking about and test them out and see what you like.

I am lucky in that respect, I have friends with most of the lenses and know the people who own a local camera shop. Sometimes having so many choices actually makes it more difficult. If I am forced to use something, then I tend to find a way to wring out all of its performance.

[davebreal]

I own a 70-200 2.8 IS, even with a 1.4tc the birds generally appear as no more than specks in the viewfinder at full zoom. A 400mm lens is often going to be short for wild birds too. I'd advise you to rent several of the lenses you are talking about and put some time in the field. Until then, you won't realize what it takes to capture a skittish animal the size of a golfball.

Summary: Get the 400mm f/5.6, and use it with the 1.4tc. 70-200 isn't going to do you much wildlife good except for boring mallards or for in zoos... those not being very wild at all.

[gymell]

One lens for birding? The 500 f/4 hands down. It's flat out wrong to say that it's too hard to get BIF with anything longer than 400mm - and I'd like to see a reference to that statement so I can see the context of the discussion. Anyone that actually has a 500 will tell you otherwise, and evidence can easily be shown by the MANY excellent BIF shots posted here on POTN that were taken with the 500mm. If you're serious about birding, the 70-200 simply won't be long enough for the majority of cases. Birds are tiny, and you have to get close even with a 500.

A good companion lens for the 500 is the 100-400 because it gives you that added versatility and portability, especially if you are interested in additional subjects like wildlife, aviation, etc. The 400/5.6 is good too, but you loose the versatility. I have all three of these lenses (and I've had the 70-200 in the past.)

[Duncan Frenz]

Well, I am getting the 70-200 and 1.4X TC for other endeavors regardless. I am leaning to the 100-400 for the versatility and am not considering the 500 yet. I think with time and practice, I can get the results I am looking for with the 100-400, but if I am wrongI will have a lens that fits my other needs. I might consider the 500 if I get serious about birding, but for now I think it is out of my budget/needs.

[HokkaidoStu]

I have the 100-400 and would recommend it to anyone. 400 is enough reach a lot of the time and there are times when it's nice to be able to zoom out. Not all of us shoot distant birds all the time.

Mind you if you already have the 70-200 with 1.4 TC there's going to be quite a lot of overlap there. You'd have 2 fairly similar zooms with IS. I'd go for the 400 prime in your case, keep the 70-200 (or 98-280 with TC) zoom as a general versatile lens and the 400 as your 'serious' birding lens.

[Tom Reichner]

Hello, Duncan!

I appreciate the time and thought you are giving this purchase.

There is so much to be said & debated about the "best" lens, wether it be for birding or any other type of photography. There's been alot of advice given here already, and I guess I'll add to it.

One thing to keep in mind is that primes will always be better than zooms in sharpness and clarity (assuming you're comparing comparably priced lenses). If you photograph birds alot, and get somewhat addicted to shooting birds, then you'll crave every bit of sharpness you can possible get.

As far as BIF are concerned, yes, it is hard to shoot them with anything longer than a 400. Heck, it's hard to shoot them with a 300! But so what? Are we supposed to steer clear of something because it's hard? I think any excellent BIF image will be hard to take. The real goal is to fill the frame with as much bird as possible, not just get the bird in there somewhere and then crop it in tight later. This is not putting many pixels on the bird, and you will lose all the intricate feather detail that makes an image great. I regularly shoot BIF with a 400 2.8 with a 2x converter on it - that's a focal length of 800mm. Is it hard? Yes. But it's well worth the effort.

One lens consideration that has not been mentioned thus far in this thread is the 300 f4. It is a lens that should be well within your budget. If you use it on a 1.6 crop factor body, and combine it with a 1.4x tc, you'll have an effective focal length of 672mm! Plus, you'll be getting excellent clarity with the prime 300. And a bit of flexibility, as you can use the 300 without the tc to achieve a wider field of view. Also, I believe you could use a 2x tc on this if there is a lot of light. The tcs tend to work much better with the primes than with the zooms. If you are very picky about IQ, you will not be at all satisfied with using a 1.4 on a 100-400 zoom.

Another thing to keep in mind is that once you do buy a lens, you're not completely "locked in" to that one choice. If, after a few months or a year (or more), you feel that another lens would meet your needs better, then you can just sell your lens here on the forum in the "classifieds" section, then use the $ to buy something else. Heck, you may even find someone on here that will trade with you. So you really don't have to get it perfect. You may not even know what the perfect lens for you is until you shoot extensively with a couple different ones. But do give that 300 f4 a little consideration. At least the images you shoot with it will be crystal clear.

-Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Go for 400mm, . (or longer) really.

The 70-200mm really is not a very useful lens for Birds, either perched or otherwise...
There are some rare conditions where 200mm or 200mm with a 1.4x TC will work, but it is by far the exception.

[gymell]

Well, I am getting the 70-200 and 1.4X TC for other endeavors regardless. I am leaning to the 100-400 for the versatility and am not considering the 500 yet. I think with time and practice, I can get the results I am looking for with the 100-400, but if I am wrongI will have a lens that fits my other needs. I might consider the 500 if I get serious about birding, but for now I think it is out of my budget/needs.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach to me. My main thing was I didn't want anyone to think that the 500 wasn't good for BIF.

[Canajun]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach to me. My main thing was I didn't want anyone to think that the 500 wasn't good for BIF.At the risk of starting a flame war I just like to state that not once I implied that a 500 is not good. I use the word "hard to capture" meaning harder to learn or harder to use than the shorter lens.

I for one must learn to walk first before I can run. therefore I chose something that will cause me less frustration.

I find it ironic that even when I finally got a 400 be it prime or tele. With a cropped body, I'd be shooting pass 500 anyways.

Peace

[gymell]

I don't see anything close to a flame war happening here, so I think we're good on that.

The statement I was referring to from your post (and yes I paraphrased) where you in turn had paraphrased someone else, didn't mention anything about starting with one lens and then moving to something longer. It simply stated that "it's very hard to capture BIF (bird in flight) with anything longer than a 400." Given that statement, I had to disagree with it, especially if someone is using that criteria to evaluate the 500 as a lens to possibly buy for bird photography, as is the topic of this thread. And you said you had been ready to buy a 500 (or 600) until you read that. As I mentioned, I don't know the context of the original statement that you quoted, or how it was originally phrased, so I can only go on what was stated here and that's what I disagreed with.

[rgfrison]

Here are a couple samples, not much for composition, just frame size comparisons.
These were shot from a tripod in the same spot at the same feeder both full frame shots. This is a calliope hummingbird the smallest target you will ever encounter likely. These were shot from 8 ft about 2 ft from minimum focusing distance for the 100-400 and about 3.5 ft for the 70-200 2.8. Unless you can get them in your hand like Canonloader you probably won't get much closer. You can see how much more you will have to crop with the 70-200. With the 1.4 it would be somewhere in the middle, I am not sure what effect a tc has on minimum focus distance I assume it would be somewhere in the middle also. Extension tubes can shorten the minimum distances, but I don't know the specifics.


100-400

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a271/rgfrison/fftest400.jpg

70-200

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a271/rgfrison/fftest200.jpg

[Tom Reichner]

Nice illustration of what we can expect from these lenses, Randy. Your images make the point very clear that you really want as much reach as you can get. Only 8 feet away, and even with the 400mm, you'd still need about a 100% crop to get the image the way you'd really like it to be. Hope you don't mind me editing your pic, but below is the way I'd want the image to look. This would mean a 600mm with an extension tube. Cropping is really not the answer - you want it to be right in the camera in order to get the feather detail properly captured. See some of BradM's posts for what a humming bird photo should really look like.

[Duncan Frenz]

Thank you everyone for your insights. I have a lot to think about and you guys have definitely pushed me in the right direction. No matter what I choose, I will be learning some new techniques that will apply to whatever I end up with. I have already learned so much just reading through many threads and discussions. Luckily, I am a quick learner and have reasonable expectations.

Thank you for helping a wannabe birder take his first step.

[westernminnguy]

Duncan,

Let me wish you the best in your hunt for a lens.

If I'm reading between the lines of your post, perhaps birding is not as important as some other possible things you might want to do.

Birding is sort of thing of it's own and most birders are going for reach.


For anyone reading this post that wonders about the ability of the 500 f4 for BIF, take a look at some of Liz'(gymel) eagle shots in flight on her website. From what I can tell, it's great for BIF.

Take care all.

:)

[Duncan Frenz]

Duncan,

Let me wish you the best in your hunt for a lens.

If I'm reading between the lines of your post, perhaps birding is not as important as some other possible things you might want to do.

Birding is sort of thing of it's own and most birders are going for reach.


For anyone reading this post that wonders about the ability of the 500 f4 for BIF, take a look at some of Liz'(gymel) eagle shots in flight on her website. From what I can tell, it's great for BIF.

Take care all.

:)

I wouldn't say birding is not as important as other aspects of my photography, but rather a distinct area I have not pursued seriously. I have this unfortunate trait that won't allow me to do anything half-heartedly. All of my endeavors, whether it is photography, mountain biking, biliards, computers, etc. must be met with my full potential.

With birding, I suspect it is an area which I will love, but have not tried due to time/money/children/life constraints. If anything, I believe birding will actually be one of my bigger passions and will consume much of my time if given the opportunity. I just couldn't devote the proper attention to this pursuit until now. I am looking forward to this as I believe it is something I can share with my children and pass along to them.

Thank you all again. I am overwhelmed with the well thought responses. I know it is easy to look at some posts with the 'oh, not this subject again...' mentality, but I assure you, it is something I take to heart and your advice and wisdom will not be wasted.

[BradM]

One lens for birding? The 500 f/4 hands down. It's flat out wrong to say that it's too hard to get BIF with anything longer than 400mm - and I'd like to see a reference to that statement so I can see the context of the discussion. Anyone that actually has a 500 will tell you otherwise, and evidence can easily be shown by the MANY excellent BIF shots posted here on POTN that were taken with the 500mm. If you're serious about birding, the 70-200 simply won't be long enough for the majority of cases. Birds are tiny, and you have to get close even with a 500.

A good companion lens for the 500 is the 100-400 because it gives you that added versatility and portability, especially if you are interested in additional subjects like wildlife, aviation, etc. The 400/5.6 is good too, but you loose the versatility. I have all three of these lenses (and I've had the 70-200 in the past.)

What Liz said!

The 500mm is an incredible lens (but if you don't have the means currently then) the 100-400mm is my 2nd lens. I shoot with the 500mm on the 1D3 and always have the 100-400mm on the 40 or 50D to grab those other shots that might come along. It is a great lens, I certainly prefer it over my 400mm f/5.6. Both are great but the 100-400 has so many more areas it can work for you.

As to image quality, it ain't no slouch. You can see a lot of shots here of shots with the 400 or the 100-400mm were the lens is not being used to it's abilities and then others where the IQ is incredible. Bottomline it is the skill behind the glass as both are wonderful pieces of glass.

[Hawkman]

500/4L with 400/5.6L as second fiddle (assuming a budget constraint). The 500/4 takes a 1.4X TC VERY well, even on a 1.6x crop body.

Gene

[Mike J.]

great shots, Hawkman

[Adam1818]

I am nowhere close to a pro but I recently purchased a 70-200mm F4 and use it with a 2x converter and shoot alot of birds and on a nice sunny day I still find it real sharp. Now on a overcast day you will have a hard time getting a fast enough shutter speed but I think it is good for the level that I am at.