Better with a better lower reach lens?

Hi,

By chance I ended up taking some gull shots today and I only had my 85mm (mostly at f2.5) rather than my 100-400mm, but even cropped right back they look pretty damn good which I put down in part to the sharpness offered by the 85mm, so I started wondering would it be a bad idea to sell off the 100-400mm and upgrade to a shorter but better lens?

If so what would you guys suggest, specifically what lens?

Ta,

John

If birds are your aim the 400mm f5.6 would be my choice if I wanted to go prime for wildlife whilst working in that price point. However you can also get a 300mm f4 IS L which will give you the added bonus of IS support - later adding a 1.4TC and still retaining a high image quality (higher than the 100-400mm at 400mm).

Those would be my first choices for consideration, a few others are on the market, but most are more expensive (both zooms and primes).

I could see the 300 working - I could be wrong bug the advantage of having more light (2.5) may have been working well for me.

I would miss the range though I think - looking at my old images I used much of the 100-400 range, but have considered dropping to 300 or maybe even 200! But now IQ is my main focus - without increasing cost of course, so would be looking for something I could almost swap for the 100-400 if that made sense.

the 300 f4 is a very sharp lens.

I suspect that

I suspect, but definitely do not know, that part of your problem with the 100-400mm lens might be camera movement. The 85mm would be less bothered by the movement than the longer focal lengths. The IS on the 100-400, while helpful, is not quite up to the newer IS versions in capability...

Or... perhaps, your focus which can be razor thin with exceptionally long focal lengths and wide apertures migh be a bit off...

Have you considered having your 100-400 calibrated? I looked at some of your zoo images on your Flickr site and they don't seem to be as sharp as they should be. You seem to shoot with higher ISO settings than necessary, but even then the images should be sharper. They seem to be a little better when you stop down so that makes me wonder if your lens needs calibration. My 100-400 seems to be sharper than yours, even when shot wide open.

Here's a wide open shot I took at the zoo with my 100-400.
7D - 1/125s f/5.6 at 310.0mm iso400

Ahh I meant to mention it but forgot - yes the 100-400mm can be somewhat finicky with its calibration and you might find improved performance if its sent to canon with your camera for specific calibration. However this is no guarantee that there is or is not a problem at all.

you could try and limit your use on your lens to just 100-250mm...i predict it won't last that long before you're maxing it out at 400mm though ...

if your main thing is zoo shots, i bet you could get away with shorter lens...but if you're after wildlife/birds then the extra reach is always needed...looking at your shots you have a couple at 560mm...imagine trying to get those shots out of a 200mm lens...it's not going to work all that great

lol, you;re so right - anyway I found another option, I swapped my 100-400 for a 400 prime, all the sharpness with quick AF speed, I do worry about the MFD but I'm also going to get another Tammy 70-300 VC (I had one before and the IQ was on par with the 100-400 so it should fill that gap nicely

You might also consider extension tubes - a set of Kenko AF extension tubes would allow you to work closer with your 400mm when needed. I know several photographers who use that lens and tubes for both dragonfly photos and also for closer hide work with birds for when they get much closer (the 500mm f4 even gets a lot of use for this with its very long min focusing distance)

Excellent, I'll have to give those a shot - I just got the 400 this morning and could I find a bird to shoot?? Well luckily there were some wasps around and amazingly given their size I could actually get some good shots from 3.5m away, so I'll try out the Jessops auto tubes now and see how it works out.

Well that was bad timing - I tried the tubes and it certainly brings the minimum distance down and with all three on it was hard finding where it would focus.

The images we're great, I suspect between loosing light in both the real world and if IRC from the tubes too it was a bit of a washout. Not to worry though I'll try again when I'm not about to go to work!

Overread wrote in post #12968743
If birds are your aim the 400mm f5.6 would be my choice if I wanted to go prime for wildlife whilst working in that price point. However you can also get a 300mm f4 IS L which will give you the added bonus of IS support - later adding a 1.4TC and still retaining a high image quality (higher than the 100-400mm at 400mm).

This is excellent advice, within the price point.