Telephoto for novice bird photography

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #15025418
Not that simple, specially with birding. With a such a long prime you will have a lot of difficulty when changing from your own eye perspective to suddenly looking through the viewfinder and feeling completely lost trying to pinpoint where the bird just went! LOL! With a zoom you can back away a little find your subject and zoom in.

For an absolute novice, the first time you try putting something in the viewfinder, a zoom may be better. But a little practice and you can nail it with a prime. I have had my 400 for less than 6 months and I can pick up pretty quickly from native eye to through the view finder. It certainly was a struggle when I first got the lens but that went away after a little practice.

JonK wrote in post #15027832
I use both eyes open. I find the bird in my left eye and then close that eye, the bird is automatically in view in my right eye.

I keep both eyes always open, never closing the left one to take the shot. I am basically only "seeing" the bird through my viewfinder with my right eye but having my left eye open really helps with the tracking.

DavidR wrote in post #15027912
I keep both eyes always open, never closing the left one to take the shot. I am basically only "seeing" the bird through my viewfinder with my right eye but having my left eye open really helps with the tracking.

Yes but once you have the bird you could close. I have my 7D setup for a central grid for AF Servo, I couldn't track the bird in the center of the frame reliably with both eyes open and note that its in focus. Once I get the bird near, I squint my left eye and go to work. Everyone has their preference.

I will try closing my left eye right before the exposure tomorrow (if it's not raining again) and see if it helps me. I doubt that I will have time to see if the swallow is in focus before I take the shot though.

Karen,

Since you quoted your price range in $, I assume that you are located within the USA.

It is agreed by many bird photogsphers that virtually the best Bird and Birds in Flight lens is the 400mm f/5.6L lens. Granted, it doesn't have Image Stabilization but, it is razor sharp wide open and the auto focus is amazing. Shooting at ISO 400 or slightly higher @5.6 will give you a shutter speed fast enough to stop the bird and to nulify any camera shake.

On a sunny day, ISO 400 @ f/5.6 should result in a shutter speed of over 1/3000 of a second (if your camera goes that high). Most of today's DSLR cameras can provide very clean image quality at ISO 400 or even a bit higher.

The lens, used on eBay generally sells for right under $1,000 which is within but, at the top, of your budget. Here are some sales on eBay from the past few weeks.

http://www.ebay.com …=0&_sop=12&_dmd​=1&_ipg=50

I often use this lens either on a tripod or on a monopod.

Unfortunately, I am not a birder so I have no bird images to show but here is a hydroplane racing boat crossing my field of view at well over 100 miles an hour.

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …36168266&k=2JSD​f&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …49079880&k=Sk7C​Z&lb=1&s=A

I would recommend either the Canon 100-400 or 400 f5.6.

themadman wrote in post #15028149
I would recommend either the Canon 100-400 or 400 f5.6.

i understand the occasional deal of a 400L for under $1,000...but where can you get a 100-400L for that...

Keebert wrote in post #15027850
For an absolute novice, the first time you try putting something in the viewfinder, a zoom may be better. But a little practice and you can nail it with a prime. I have had my 400 for less than 6 months and I can pick up pretty quickly from native eye to through the view finder. It certainly was a struggle when I first got the lens but that went away after a little practice.

I know it takes a little practice, let me show these:

ScubaDude wrote in post #15026798
I agree. Except, it's not one of the sharpest... it's THE sharpest lens in that focal length/price range.

I keep hearing that, but have not seen the evidence. Where are the 100% crops with a 2x TC, that I would need to say, yes, this is sharper than my 100-400IS?

If you mean that it auto-focuses better, or that the higher shutter speeds it requires guarantee little or no motion blur, those are different things than lens sharpness.

Thanks so much for all the great advice. Learned a lot from what you all had to say. Loved the photos, too. I'm leaning towards the Sigma 150-500, but also considering waiting until I'm ready to spend more on the Canon 100-400. And I haven't completely ruled the Canon 400 f/5.6 out either, but think that I would prefer a zoom. Reading the reviews now. I thought about renting to compare, but couldn't find the Sigma 150-500 available to rent, just the 50-500.

Thanks again!

John Sheehy wrote in post #15028287
I keep hearing that, but have not seen the evidence. Where are the 100% crops with a 2x TC, that I would need to say, yes, this is sharper than my 100-400IS?

Here & here.

Keebert wrote in post #15029005
Here & here.

The 100-400 clearly has a lens stability problem, with a motion blur most horizontal, and slightly vertical (jumping IS?), so some of the difference is due to that. The CA is rather high in the center; mine doesn't have that problem. The problem with the 100-400 is that it has a significant level of variance amongst specimens. liquidstone's, for example, is sharpest wide open. I noticed in your link for the 2xIII that the 100-400 is sharper at f/16.

If I understand site correctly the IS is not the reason for the difference because those test charts are shot on a tripod with IS turned off.

The 100-400 has 17 lenses in 14 groups compared to 7 lenses in 6 groups for the 400. That's more than double the glass the light has to pass through so a lot more opportunity for degradation in the zoom than the prime. It's generally always the case that there is a noticeable IQ difference between a prime and a zoom at equivalent apertures (until Canon released the 70-200 II).

Anyway, the 100-400 give you versatility and the 400 better IQ. What lens you choose depends on what aspect you value more and what you shoot. For me, 400 is never "too long" so I don't need the 100-399mm of the other lens.

DavidR wrote in post #15028102
I will try closing my left eye right before the exposure tomorrow (if it's not raining again) and see if it helps me. I doubt that I will have time to see if the swallow is in focus before I take the shot though.

You won't see that the bird is "in focus" you will just be able to see if the camera is tracking and whether or not you're firing off worthwhile shots.

Oftentimes I have a dark colored bird fly from in front of sky or water to in front of trees and the tracking is crap. If I were to blast away I'd end up with 8 fps of OOF shots. Its all preference though.

John Sheehy wrote in post #15029188
The 100-400 clearly has a lens stability problem, with a motion blur most horizontal, and slightly vertical (jumping IS?), so some of the difference is due to that. The CA is rather high in the center; mine doesn't have that problem. The problem with the 100-400 is that it has a significant level of variance amongst specimens. liquidstone's, for example, is sharpest wide open. I noticed in your link for the 2xIII that the 100-400 is sharper at f/16.

The biggest thing here is that I find that the noted difference in sharpness between these lenses is so small as to not really matter. It's sort of like saying that .08 seconds is faster than .10 seconds; who really cares.

The speed of the AF due to not having to account for various focal lengths, is what makes the prime a better option for in-flight images, really.

I have no problem with either IS "jumping" nor CA with the 100-400 and I much prefer it for overall shooting. However, if I were looking for a reasonable solution for, strictly, BIF, I'd pick up the prime in a heartbeat.