400mm F5.6 vs 300mm f4 IS

[Aschlaman@comcast.net]

I have been bitten by the Canon bug REAL BAD. I have purchased a bunch of lenses and a 20D over the last few months. I bought the 300mm f4 IS and use it with the 1.4X teleconverter. I've gotten some nice shots with it in the back yard.

I was wondering what the advantage of getting the 400mm f5.6 would be? I have seen some stunning pictures shot with that lense.

Sometimes I look at a photo and say "if I could just shoot one like that" Then I go out and buy the lens that was used. The most recent was some photos I saw shot with the 35mm f1.4. I just located that lens and ordered it.

Anyway please give me some feed back on this. I shoot lots of birds and I am down to that lens or possibly the 50-500mm Sigma.

Thanks

Art Schlaman Chicago

[condyk]

Welcome to the forum Art

Seems you forgot that the lens never took the pictures you most admire ... there was a person behind it. You can't buy what that individual has developed through their own experiences, patience, talent.

The combination of equipment you have is capable of quite extraordinary results. You have a dream lens that many would love to own and a camera body many would aspire to. Rather than spend more money I suggest you spend time and effort developing what the people who's shots you most admire have. You can only do that through failing 1000's of times. But failure is really the opportunity to get better if attention and intelligence is applied to the experience.

It's a steep learning curve, let me tell you :lol: but if you enjoy what you do then it's great to notice each step you take. Don't aim for anything, just keep learning each time and enjoy it. One day, you'll notice how great your shots are.

Maybe you also need to find locations that enable you to get closer to the birds. Many shots we see, not all, are taken tripod mounted in hides.

PS I had the Bigma and it was a dream ... but I just don't think it will be as good a lens ultimately as the 300mm IS or 400mm Canon's. The advantage of course is zoom range and the longer the better for birds. If you can afford it and want zoom, get the IS Canon 100-400mm, which will produce more keepers. But all the above still applies :lol:

[lomond]

Hi Art and welcome to the forum.

You have an excellent camera and an excellent 300mm prime, which becomes 420 mm with your TC.
As you probably know when shooting birds focal length is everything, hence your thought about the 400 f5.6

This lens is sharp and AF is fast but it is 400 F5.6
With your 1.4 TC attached it becomes 560mm but you lose AF and thats crucial IMO.
So, unless you do the tape trick ( and I don't recommend it ) you are faced with 420 f5.6 with AF or 560 F8 without AF.

Your choice.

Regards,

[condyk]

Art

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/242732

This seems a very relevant discussion over at fredmiranda.com

[pcasciola]

With your 1.4 TC attached it becomes 560mm but you lose AF and thats crucial IMO.
So, unless you do the tape trick ( and I don't recommend it ) you are faced with 420 f5.6 with AF or 560 F8 without AF.I recently picked up a Tamron 1.4x extender ($80). It does not report the f/stop adjustment back to the body, so autofocus is retained on many lenses which are slower than f/4, and no taping is required. I'm not aware of anyone here who has tried this extender with the 400/5.6L, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I recently picked up a Tamron 1.4x extender ($80). It does not report the f/stop adjustment back to the body, so autofocus is retained on many lenses which are slower than f/4, and no taping is required. I'm not aware of anyone here who has tried this extender with the 400/5.6L, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

O_O Are you serious?! So, he could use the tamron 1.4x t-con on the 400mm f/5.6 and it would remain f/5.6? Or be stopped down to f/8 and the camera just wouldn't pick up on it thus maintaining AF?

[LightRules]

O_O Are you serious?! So, he could use the tamron 1.4x t-con on the 400mm f/5.6 and it would remain f/5.6? Or be stopped down to f/8 and the camera just wouldn't pick up on it thus maintaining AF?

That's correct. The lower end TCs (e.g., Tamron non-SP version) don't communicate the same way the higher end TCs do, so you retain not only AF but almost identical AF speed. One other thing: the lower end Tamron (4 element version of their 1.4xTC) is actually quite good. I've seen plenty nice captures with it. The most important ingredient to getting a good image quality is the lens itself, then the TC quality.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Huh, wow, always learning something knew I guess. :-)

Anyway, Asch, I think your purchasing that 400mm f/5.6L would be a complete waste of money. You have that wonderful 300mm f/4 piece of glass with a 1.4 t-con that can get you the same results. That and it has IS!!!!! The 400mm f/5.6 doesn't have any IS. There's a biggggg downfall right there. That, and with the t-con your looking at 420mm..... 20 MORE than the 400 f/5.6 will give ya. The only realy difference is a 10% decrease in image quality due to the addition of the t-con. Big deal!!! I have a few local jobs in the area. If someone offered, I wouldn't accept a job 50 miles away for a 10% increase in pay....... just as I wouldn't go out of my way to drop $1,100.00 on a lens for an extra 10% increase in image quality. It's just not worth it! And once again, NO IS! So, 100% not worth it.... In my opinion at least....

[foxbat]

Why don't you rent the 400 and the Bigma for a weekend and see what you think? Normally I wholeheartedly recommend the 400 to any birder that will listen but when you've already got that range well covered it's a different matter.

Does anyone know the actual technical reason why Canon disable AF over f/5.6?

[accord]

F/5.6 may be too dim to give accurate focus.

[Aschlaman@comcast.net]

Thanks for all the replies,
After concidering all of the feedback I bought the 100-400 IS L lens yesterday. This makes the most sence for me. Prime lenses are great but this zoom is awsome. I shot some photos in the back yard yesterday and found this lense to be very sharp and contrasty.
I have a bunch of Nikon and Contax Glass that I will eventually sell. (I never bought camera equipment that I intended to sell) My goal is to buy the Sigma 300-800mm or the Canon 600mm f4. That won't be unitl next year though. With this lens and the 35mm f1.4 I'll be broke for a while. But that's okay. I don't mind being poor as long as I have my camera stuff close at hand.
I need to figure out how to post photos on this site. That will be my next adventure.

Art Schlaman

[condyk]

Nice choice

You may know about:

http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk/

Worth a look over ...

She takes the very finest (consistently, not one off lucky!!) bird shots I've seen. She now uses the Sigma 300-800mm and Sigma 800mm, though was previously a big Bigma fan. When considering the 300-800mm then remember to factor in the daily fee for a Caddie and golf cart hire to drive it around :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey, and post some of your shots.

[foxbat]

Good choice, the 100-400 has a top-notch reputation around this forum. Heh, if the 100-400 has you broke then the 600 f/4 is going to have you in the poorhouse breaking rocks for a living ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

We had a little poll/side by side on these two lenses...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56149

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Heh, if the 100-400 has you broke then the 600 f/4 is going to have you in the poorhouse breaking rocks for a living ;)

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Nice to be able to afford such lenses though! p