Cheap birding setup?

richi914 wrote in post #15581996
I also used it with 1.4ii extender and still a good combination and if with the new upgrade we can use AF at f/8 will be great.

yea I think I'll just have to wait for that to see if it's any good. But restricted @ f8 is pushing it and only really usable when there's plenty of light.

Oh and AF is way faster on the 400, legendary infact.

kin2son wrote in post #15581722
I currently use the 70-200f2.8mkII with the 2xIII TC for birding. I quite like the result I am getting, but just looking for something dedicated for it.

I don't have a huge budget, so I am looking into 100-400, 300f4 and 400f5.6.

Now I read 300f4 + 1.4x isn't nearly as good as the other 2, is that true?
100-400 and 400f5.6 will get me to 400mm native, but is it gonna be a big upgrade from my current setup?
I use a 5D3 and from what I read, I will be able to AF @ f8 with the upcoming firmware update, do you think it will be good or meh?

Ultimately I want more reach than 400mm, probably via TC (can't afford anything 400mm+ native such as the 500mm...).

Any comment is greatly appreciated. Maybe I should just get an used 7D

if you're primarily shooting birds the 400mm prime is probably the cheapest and best way to go. I use the 100-400 for birds but also use it for other things - sports, events, etc.

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
400mm
f7.1

A 7D is the way to go if you can budget for it, also don't discount the Sigma lenses, I used a 150-500 on both my 350D and 7D with good results. The 7D has much better AF options. Prime lenses will always be better than zooms of course in absolute IQ, but zooms are more practical in real life.

Couple of shots this with 350D

While the 550D/T2i is a great little camera..and outstanding value, for you..i would suggest a 60D or 50D (or maybe even a 40D..but you'd lose some cropability with 40D).
Having the ability to use 1/3 ISO's really helps me with my bird photography, plus the faster burst speed, and better AF system is a nice boost.
This is assuming, that a 7D is financially out of reach.

Thank you all. I might just wait for a good deal on a 7D as 70D or possibly 7DII is coming soon

Looks like 7D + 400f5.6 is the way to go.

As Ken said don't discount the Sigma 150-500, it does need good light but the results can be very good.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rawshorty/83670​23534/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rawshorty/84016​78096/

Thanks rawshorty. Yea I think the Sigma is the cheapest option to get more than 400mm.

Is it really bulky and heavy for handholding? How's the sharpest wide open @ 500mm?

kin2son wrote in post #15582100
Thanks rawshorty. Yea I think the Sigma is the cheapest option to get more than 400mm.

It is really bulky and heavy for handholding? How's the sharpest wide open @ 500mm?

It is heavy for some but i can carry it all day, i prefer a heavy setup.
The first shot was at 500mm, wide open, 1/400, ISO100, handheld and heavy crop.

Second shot at 500mm, wide open, 1/320, ISO400, handheld and large crop.

Both taken with 7D.

Neilyb wrote in post #15581910
Problem with the 100-400 having IS is that you have to shoot at f8 to get the best from it, so you lose a stop straight away, plus it only really helps with static birds. If you use a tripod the 400 is the way to go, if you don't then the 100-400 stopped down is a good option, looks like you have some light.

The best birding lens depends on where you live, here in Germany a 500 mostly with TC on a crop body. In Florida or similar, 70-200 can be used quite alot.

No you don't--I've used several 100-400L's, and I've found that they are quite good stopped down to f/6.3-7.1. No major discernible improvement at f/8.

In my opinion, the 100-400L is the best birding/wildlife lens on the market. It may not be as sharp as some similarly priced alternatives (400 5.6L), but the push/pull zoom feature is insanely useful and fast--and the older effective 2-stop IS is still effective for handheld use.

Having compared a SIgma 50-500 OS, Canon 400 5.6L, 500 4.5L, 300 2.8 IS, Tokina 300 2.8, 100-400L, and Canon 70-200 mk2 + 2x III all for the same purpose (birding), I can honestly say that the 100-400L was the best overall performer for all given scenarios. As nice as the 300 2.8's and 500L's are, relying on tripods all the time means you're going to miss some shots. For me, handheld 100% of the time is the way to go.

rawshorty wrote in post #15582085
As Ken said don't discount the Sigma 150-500, it does need good light but the results can be very good.

Yup, owned that too--very solid performer. I sold mine off when I got a Sigma 50-500 OS. Having compared the two, the 50-500 OS shows a marked improvement at 500mm, but either way Sigma makes some great "budget" birding lenses. However, I found the zoom mechanism and locking features to be unwieldy--if only the Sigmas had the Canon 100-400's push/pull mechanism and rotation-locking system!

richi914 wrote in post #15581986
Hi I use to have 600d then I sold it for the 5diii I love the change specially in low light, I also use 70-200 ii with 2x ext and have some good photos of this combination, I just bough the 400 f/5.6 and is fast focus and very sharp still playing with it. Here are some examples
first one with 70-200 f2.8ii + 2xiii and the second one with the 400 f/5.6 both at f/5.6

I had a 100-400L as a direct comparison against a 70-200 mk2 + 2x III at 400mm. My finding was that the 100-400L was sharper, had better contrast, and much faster focusing--the 70-200II combo failed to lock on to fast moving birds in anything but good lighting. I also found it faster/easier to track/zoom using the push/pull vs standard twist--but I suppose that's mostly preference. For the sole purpose of birding, I found the 100-400 to be far superior. The 4-stop effective IS of the 70-200II easily beat out the 2-stop IS module of the 100-400L at 400mm though--about the only positive I saw as a direct comparison.

Anything with a TC attached slows down, Canon build them so.

I disagree about the f6.3 and 7.1. I have owned 3 100-400s for various reasons and all worked BEST at f8, if you find wideopen acceptible that is a personal point. My stock sales are in 4 figures and I know what acceptible and SHARP mean. End of the day if you post 1000px shots on a forum then you can buy a sigma 70-300 and crop, seriously. I have had any number of lenses from any number of companies and I will only touch Canon primes for my wildlife work, unless I am travelling and take the 100-400 as a turn to lens (say Africa where an elephant can jump out on you and you need 100mm...but it will be used at f8!).

Horses for courses.

Thanks for all the input guys, really appreciated.

I see myself using it at 400mm exclusively so therefore 400 prime is my top choice atm, 100-400 comes in 2nd.

The difference between the 2 is IS, and with my 5D3, I can keep ss high with reasonable ISO and still get clean files under good light.

400 prime should give me faster AF and better IQ @ f5.6 compared to the zoom.

Also i am quite a pixel peeper, although IQ isn't the primary concern, as reach and AF are of higher priority imo, I have more trust with Canon and therefore won't be getting the Sigma.

Neilyb wrote in post #15582155
Anything with a TC attached slows down, Canon build them so.

I disagree about the f6.3 and 7.1. I have owned 3 100-400s for various reasons and all worked BEST at f8, if you find wideopen acceptible that is a personal point. My stock sales are in 4 figures and I know what acceptible and SHARP mean. End of the day if you post 1000px shots on a forum then you can buy a sigma 70-300 and crop, seriously. I have had any number of lenses from any number of companies and I will only touch Canon primes for my wildlife work, unless I am travelling and take the 100-400 as a turn to lens (say Africa where an elephant can jump out on you and you need 100mm...but it will be used at f8!).

Horses for courses.

I've also owned 3 different 100-400L's. Aside from the one unit that was badly in need of a calibration, my own tests showed that the 100-400 improved enough (to make me happy) when stopped down only 1/3-2/3 a stop. Whether or not the unit is optically at its BEST at f/8-f/9 is of no concern to me, because shooting at those apertures is impractical for me, unless I'm using a flash and beamer. Guess what, the 70-200 2.8 II is actually sharpest at f/4, but most people find it acceptable to shoot at f/2.8. Obviously our definitions of "acceptable" are very different--that, or your 100-400L is in need of servicing. Not everyone has the luxury of affording/shooting only prime telephotos--tradeoffs are being made here. You do realize this is a discussion about "cheap" birding setups, correct? The OP isn't just going to switch to a 300 2.8 IS when f/8 (100-400L) becomes unworkable.

And even though lab tests obviously don't translate to actual performance in the field, there are a number of resolution reports out there showing that the resolution difference from f/5.6-f/8 is NEGLIGIBLE with a good 100-400L.
ex.
http://www.lenstip.com …USM_Image_resol​ution.html
http://www.photozone.d​e …anon100400f4556​ff?start=1

You're free to disagree all you like, just as I'm free to disagree with you--given that the 100-400L has been my most used lens the last 2-3 years, I feel my opinion is plenty valid. My eyeballs function just fine. I'm also free not to care how many sales you have--boisterous claims add nothing. That kind of comment can just make you appear pompous, rather than support your points. A professional in any field can be just as wrong as anyone else out there.