Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk
Thread started 25 Dec 2016 (Sunday) 03:49
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Which lens would you choose

 
bobb ­ d
Member
bobb d's Avatar
184 posts
Joined May 2011
Preston UK
Dec 25, 2016 03:49 |  #1

I am looking to buy either the 400mm f2.8 mk2 IS or the 500 f4 for birds and wildlife in general. Cant decide which would be best. I plan to use converters and the bodys are 7d2 and 5d4 thanks.


7D, 70-200 f2.8 L non IS USM, 18-135mm EFS, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 50mm Mk2 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 17-55mm 2.8, 580 EXII, Manfrotto 055XB & 804RC2 head..........no money left now:p

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
jp3ters
Member
jp3ters's Avatar
Joined Dec 2016
Dec 25, 2016 04:30 |  #2

I know that the zoom is important for the birds, however, I would suggest going with the 400mm f2.8 mk2 IS as it has more aperture, and converters will make images darker anyway. Just a food for thought, maybe others can join in and provide better insights? What is your budget, for the lens, there may be other good alternatives.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tc202
Goldmember
Tc202's Avatar
Joined Mar 2012
Florida
Dec 25, 2016 13:43 |  #3

bobb d wrote in post #18223094 (external link)
I am looking to buy either the 400mm f2.8 mk2 IS or the 500 f4 for birds and wildlife in general. Cant decide which would be best. I plan to use converters and the bodys are 7d2 and 5d4 thanks.

Where are you located? If you are photographing a mix of mammals and birds you can't go wrong with the 400mm f/2.8 IS II. You get the f/2.8 aperture/ versatility with converters. However, if your focus is smaller birds then go for the longest focal length possible. If you provide some more info I'm sure we will be able to help you out more.


Camera AF Guides:1DX Mark II (external link)5DS/ SR (external link)7D Mark II (external link)
Location Guides: Yellowstone Winter Guide (external link)Fort De Soto Guide (external link)
Instagram (external link)Guiding Services/ Blog: Outback Photo Adventures (external link)- Thomas

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobb ­ d
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
bobb d's Avatar
184 posts
Joined May 2011
Preston UK
Dec 25, 2016 17:25 |  #4

Hi Guys thanks for taking the time to reply, I am based in North of England if that helps


7D, 70-200 f2.8 L non IS USM, 18-135mm EFS, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 50mm Mk2 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 17-55mm 2.8, 580 EXII, Manfrotto 055XB & 804RC2 head..........no money left now:p

LOG IN TO REPLY
Aus.Morgo
Senior Member
Aus.Morgo's Avatar
Joined Feb 2012
Newcastle, Australia
Dec 25, 2016 19:40 |  #5

I'd go the 400 2.8, that extra stop is handy on those dark and gloomy days.
The new MK II IS lens and a 1.4TC III work very well together.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Dec 26, 2016 01:37 |  #6

bobb d wrote in post #18223094 (external link)
I am looking to buy either the 400mm f2.8 mk2 IS or the 500 f4 for birds and wildlife in general. Cant decide which would be best. I plan to use converters and the bodys are 7d2 and 5d4 thanks.

I suggest the 400 f2.8, especially if it's the new one (version 2). Why? Because you have a 1.6 crop body and a full frame body. With the crop body and a1.4, you will have an equivalent field of view of 896mm, with great pixel density and great image quality. That is a ton of reach!

For those rare times when you need even more reach, you can swap the 1.4 for the 2x and get an equivalent field of view 1280mm - Holy Cow!!! And I should mention that the f2.8 Canon supertelephotos actually work really well with 2x tele-extenders; providing much better results than you will get with the 2x on any other type of lens. The 400 f2.8 actually makes the 2x extender a viable option, whereas when used with other lenses it results in sub-par image quality.

But then you can still go all the way out to 400mm by putting the 400 on the 5D and removing the converter.

So, the versatility makes the 2.8 lens the more useful choice over the f4 500mm. The 400 f2.8 is actually my primary wildlife lens, and I chose it for the very reasons I mention above.

jp3ters wrote in post #18223102 (external link)
I know that the zoom is important for the birds . . .

The OP never mentioned any zoom. He is only choosing between two prime lenses.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobb ­ d
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
bobb d's Avatar
184 posts
Joined May 2011
Preston UK
Dec 26, 2016 18:44 as a reply to Tom Reichner's post |  #7

Thank you Tom thats a cracking reply and has made my doubts vanish. Thanks again for your help ans everone else its much appreciated


7D, 70-200 f2.8 L non IS USM, 18-135mm EFS, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 50mm Mk2 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 17-55mm 2.8, 580 EXII, Manfrotto 055XB & 804RC2 head..........no money left now:p

LOG IN TO REPLY
PCousins
Senior Member
PCousins's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Weston-Super-Mare (UK)
Dec 26, 2016 23:16 as a reply to bobb d's post |  #8

Hello Bobb, I live in Somerset/UK

For bird photography I have a Canon 500 f/4 Permanently on my 1d4 body and 1.4 x TC (III). This gives me an effective focal length of 910mm at f/5.6 and even at that length it can be short. I’m finding myself cropping every photo I take when post processing. For this reason When I have raised enough funds I will be going to a 600 f/4.

When chasing wild birds in the field—especially small, wary birds that won’t let you get close—you’ll more often find that you need more magnification rather than less. To give you an example, I mostly get on average of between 40-50 feet of a typically robin sized bird. Anything less than my 910mm leaves the bird noticeably small in the frame.

What is important to me is the “detail of the bird” , and to achieve this I need to fill the frame. I do often use a 2x TC (III) but AF is much slower and you do loose some IQ.

Personally I think you will find that a 400 f/2.8 will be too short for birds and small wildlife.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,666 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Dec 27, 2016 17:10 |  #9

I used to have an earlier version of the 400 F2.8 and found it less than ideal for birds.

Like you I am using both crop (7D2) and full frame (1DX) cameras and the vast majority of my birding, + most of my mammal shots, are done with the 800mm F5.6 L IS - it is rarely too long!

If I were in your shoes I would be going for either the 500 F4 Mk2 (light weight and greater mobility) or the 600 F4 Mk2 (more reach and better for hide work). The 800mm is currently overpriced, a very nice lens but no better than a 600 Mk2 + 1.4 extender and less flexible. The 400 F2.8 L IS Mk2 does perform very well with extenders but you will be invariably using them!


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

LOG IN TO REPLY
mkkaczy
Senior Member
mkkaczy's Avatar
Joined Mar 2012
Poland/Ireland
Dec 29, 2016 09:14 |  #10

400mm 2.8 is great for birds and best for wildlife, if you know how the get animals close to you.


http://500px.com/mkkac​zy (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jp3ters
Member
jp3ters's Avatar
Joined Dec 2016
Dec 29, 2016 14:12 as a reply to Tom Reichner's post |  #11

Yes sorry, my bad. Thank you for noticing and correcting! This is the best way how we can learn, and improve!




LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,545 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Dec 29, 2016 14:45 |  #12

500mm.

400 is not long enough.
Life is better without t-cons.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
don1163
Goldmember
don1163's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Washford, Somerset/ UK
Post has been edited 8 months ago by don1163.
Dec 29, 2016 16:06 |  #13

Go for the 500 f4 (MK2 if you can afford it). I use the 500 f4 mk1 and usually have the 1.4x III on it. Results with the 1.4x are very good..
I think you will find 400mm a bit short for birds in most cases.


1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1

LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
ShadowHillsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Schoharie, NY
Dec 29, 2016 16:55 |  #14

If we are talking the first generation IS lenses then go with the 500mm for birds, no contest. The 500mm is very hand holdable for birds in flight, the 400mm not so much. The 2.8 advantage of the 400mm is nice, but it's becoming less and less significant with each generation of bodies as high ISO capabilities keep improving. Not to mention that for birds you can really never have enough reach.

If it's the Mark II lenses you are looking at I would say neither, get the 600mm instead. Essentially the same weight as the original 500mm, actually hand-holds better because of better weight distribution, 4-stop IS, and more reach.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited 8 months ago by Tom Reichner. 6 edits done in total.
Dec 29, 2016 17:03 |  #15

PCousins wrote in post #18224419 (external link)
Personally I think you will find that a 400 f/2.8 will be too short for birds and small wildlife.


johnf3f wrote in post #18225013 (external link)
I used to have an earlier version of the 400 F2.8 and found it less than ideal for birds.
The 400 F2.8 L IS Mk2 does perform very well with extenders but you will be invariably using them!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18226829 (external link)
500mm.
400 is not long enough.
Life is better without t-cons.

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18226961 (external link)
Not to mention that for birds you can really never have enough reach.

I respectably disagree with the above comments about the need for reach. Sure, there are many times when 400mm will not be sufficient. But there are many other times when 400mm is plenty, and that one will actually miss the shot if they can't back out enough to fit the bird in the frame. Many of the bird photographers I know have lots of shots with the bird's head clipped, or the legs cut off, or just framed so tightly that it is awkward. These are all images that could have been awesome if they had only had a bit shorter focal length.

If so many people can never fill the frame with the birds the way they want to at 400mm, it makes me wonder just how much work they are putting into their bird photography. The best results come when you can work well-prepared setups and use a hide, and in such situations 400mm is often plenty of reach, even for smaller birds........especiall​y when using a 1.6 crop body like the OP's 7D Mark 2.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

8,648 views & 47 likes for this thread
Which lens would you choose
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00127 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.12s
Latest registered member is steve-cor
828 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016