Only one lens for birding...

[Duncan Frenz]

I am building a lens collection (slooooowly....) , 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Duncan Frenz

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.

[Duncan Frenz]

Originally Posted by westernminnguy

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.

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..

[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]

Originally Posted by 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..

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.