Cheap birding setup?

kin2son wrote in post #15582100
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?

The Sigma is not unwieldy to handhold. But it is long for storage. The 100-400L would fit in any of the bags I use. The 150-500 Sigma will not. It is ok wide open, but better stopped down.

I've thought about going to a 100-400, just because it would be easier to take with me, because of size. I find the IQ and performance of my 150-500 to be at least near enough (almost the same) to the 100-400L that that is not the issue for me. I just can't give up the extra 100mm.

I want the zoom for flexibility. I could see picking up a 400mm f/5.6 L for the AF speed and it does have better IQ (IMO) than either zoom.

If I had the 100-400, I would not switch it out for another zoom unless you like buying and selling AND really must have the extra 100mm in a zoom. From what I here the 70-200L IS MKII and a 2X (III) is close enough to the zooms for many that occasionally use the combination. (I have the 70-200L IS MK and it is not an option.) I doubt either zoom + TC is what many would settle for if they used the combination often. You sound like you will be using it regularly not sporadically.

I think you need to decide if you want the flexibility of a dedicated long zoom or the better IQ of the 400mm prime.

That said, I think that for you the 400L (f5.6) would probably be your best bet (mainly due to IQ). Use your zoom with a 2X (I'd rather use a 1.4X) when not using the 400L. If after you have used that combination enough and still think you have need of a longer zoom, then pick up the zoom that you think fits your shooting the best.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #15582232
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.

At what point did I say the OP should buy a 300 2.8? er, i was talking about the 400 prime, you know, the CHEAP one that is as sharp as the not so cheap ones.

12 months ago I fought tooth and nail with people about the 100-400 vs 400.... and then I tried the 400 out in the field, a different one. BAM, wow, sharp wide open, light weight, no silly hood, focusses like a dream.

Oh and I am not being a t**t, I do sell images and the point is my POV differs from the web posting majority and gives the OP something else to think about. I never thought I would sell shots, and now I do my early shots with 100-400 don't cut the mustard and I wish to hell they did.

Oh and my 100-400 has been for check and clean and calibration 3 times in 3 years, it is a good as they get.

OP's choice at the end of the day, does he need to zoom and does he need IS?

The difference between a 'good' 100-400 and a 'bad' one is the difference wide open. Mine at 5.6 is excellent. If you're buying, new no probs, have it calibrated. I pitted mine against the 300/4, saw no advantage. The 400/5.6 is up to you if you can handhold. I struggle and the IS helps me.
I'm on my iPad now feeding my 7 week old, I'll try to post up samples later...........

Especially since you already have a 70-200 2.8 IS II, which I assume you are keeping, and looking specifically for a great lens for the money to focus on birds, get the 400 5.6L, no question.

If you plan to keep the 70-200mm, get the 400mm 5.6.
I personally own a 5D III + 100-400mm that I use for birding and wildlife. It is quite sharp and I almost always shoot wide open. These days I also use it extensively with a Kenko 1.4x extender as a ~560mm f/8 lens for birds-in-flight. AF is snappy and I'm very happy with the combination, except for the the fact that it's slow (f/8).
I have mentioned my experience with this combination in another thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15316479&po​stcount=54

The 400 5.6 is a terrific lens with the 7D, you won't be disappointed. I picked it up used for a G just over a year ago and have had a lot of fun with it. It could be a fixed Av lens in my opinion as I don't think I've ever moved it off 5.6. I think the only thing it lacks is it is tough to hand hold and get a great sharp shot in lower light... many times I wish I had 100 mm more to work with and a stop or two more light. It can be negated somewhat by propping the lens on something or using a monopod. That said, I've used a monopod once only with it and typically I'm on the move hiking, canoeing etc when out using it. Sometimes I shoot from the car in the country. I've thought of going to the 100-400 to gain flexibility with travel, but I won't do that until I finally can afford to purchase a used 500 f4. Here are some shots of the 5.6 on the 7D:

jroovs wrote in post #15589013

Thanks for your input jroovs! Love this shot!! It looks surreal.

Yea I am definitely leaning towards the prime.

I have used both the 400 f/56 and the 100-400. Both are excellent lenses but I see them as complementary rather than competitive. If you are shooting BIF the 400 f/5.6 is a lightweight fast focusing beast that just requires more light than the 100-400. So I position myself to give it that light whenever possible. I always hand hold (and believe me it is the only exercise I get) and do not have any issues. The focus is positively instantaneous and the product is fantastic. The 100-400 did a whole lot right for me but since I turn off the IS for BIF That was not a deal breaker. I found it more difficult to fling around. I used it mainly at 400 anyway and at that focal length, I prefer the 400. Since you have a 70-200 already, you may give a thought to doing what I did. I purchased a 70-300 L to complement my 400 and have never looked back. The 70-300L is the most underrated lens in the L lineup and it is also one of the best values right now. Sharp with great AF and stunning IS the files produced by this lens rival the 70-200 F4L IS and that means they rival the 2.8 MKII. It is F4 out to (I believe) 180mm
It is a light weight lens that seems more like a 24-70 than a 70-200. Selling your 70-200 would go a long way towards purchasing both of these and you would be covered from 70-400 with a gap from 300-400. It may be worth giving it some consideration. I sold my 100-400 and now have the 70-300 and the 400 prime and am very happy with the choice
Tim

Thanks for your comment agog. However 70-300L just doesn't appeals to me...

Price is reasonable for what it is. But it's neither fast (I use my 70-200II @ f2.8 for portrait and I hate variable aperture) nor long enough for birding.

I might sell the 2xIII TC if the 70-200II + 400f5.6 combo works out

I have both 400mm and 100-400mm with 7d and 5d3. If you have 5d3 I would recommend getting 400mm. 400mm doesn't have IS, but with 5d3 high iso performance, you don't really need IS. SS 2000, f 5.6, and let the camera auto iso. No problem for me so far. Either way you can't go wrong with either lens. Good luck

kin2son wrote in post #15589557
Thanks for your comment agog. However 70-300L just doesn't appeals to me...

Price is reasonable for what it is. But it's neither fast (I use my 70-200II @ f2.8 for portrait and I hate variable aperture) nor long enough for birding.

I might sell the 2xIII TC if the 70-200II + 400f5.6 combo works out

I would keep the TC. Never know when you might like to have 800mm on a tripod and use Live View for focusing, for example.

I think you should check more into the whole "reach" theory given by crop sensors. they dont actually give you more reach, they just CROP away the outsides of what the same lens would show on a FF sensor. sorta like putting blinders on a horse, it doesnt make him see further. yes you would have more pixels on the subject with a crop camera...but will you notice it? thats the question.

I would stick with the 5d mkIII and enjoy many more shots at late dusk or early dawn when us crop sensor guys have no more isos to use and get decent images with low light.

S.Johnsen wrote in post #15596438
yes you would have more pixels on the subject with a crop camera...but will you notice it? thats the question.

And the answer is - Yes!

hollis_f wrote in post #15597209
And the answer is - Yes!

Agree. Cropping the FF sensor down to the same crop means you are increasing the noise, lowering detail, which negates the advantages of the higher ISO they are capable of. Providing you are using a lens capable of resolving for the 7D sensor the detail you capture will blow you away. Upto ISO800 is very workable, ISo1600 with work gets you a saleable shot. Above that, needs too much work for my liking and loss of detail is too great (not to mention DR and colour reproduction).

Here's one from a few months ago ( as I said I have a newborn and am grounded for now :[) It's wide open and a fair crop of the origional.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ianhatch/846707​5208/