bird lens close up

I have a nice 400 5.6 which I feel to be the best birding lens...and I have a had a few....(Canon 300, Tokina 80-400, Sigma 150-500)...

But sometimes the 400 (and even the 300 when I had that) ....was too much lens when going after hummingbirds, Toucans up-close etc. It isn't a matter of getting the 100-400 since I want a lens that does well in poor light and while that lens delivers on the zoom, it doesn't on the light.

So I have thought it would be good to get a 200mm 2.8L lens for those occasions where I am in overcast clouds, rain, under the canopy and the birds are close......I have a 7D.....

Thoughts on this? jim

The current version of the 200mm f2.8 is reported to work very well with the 1.4x tele-extender. So, if you got it and the 1.4x, you'd have 200mm, 280mm, and 400mm, plus 560mm at f8 (manual focus). That's a pretty versatile close-range birding set-up!

That was what I was thinking....and I would have less weight and length of lens. In the field, the less one carries the better and if I went with a 70-200 2.8m ...wow, that plus the 400 would make my little jaunts into nature a true jaunt...

The 200 is only 5 inches in length and just over a pound, a lot less... If I get the 1.4, I would have 200, 320 (1.4tc) or 400 (2x TC), not to mention the crop factor.

I would almost prefer the first version of that lens since it has the sun shield attached, ....save me something else to think about. Anyhow, my thoughts....
jim (still spend half my time in WA state...the Walla Walla area...) ..

lmans wrote in post #15660949
I would almost prefer the first version of that lens since it has the sun shield attached, ....save me something else to think about. Anyhow, my thoughts....
jim (still spend half my time in WA state...the Walla Walla area...) ..

Jim,

The first version of that lens, supposedly, is a poor match with any tele-extenders. I have not used it personally, but several photographers whose opinion I trust and respect have all reported the same results - if you want excellent image quality from the first version 200 f2.8, do not use it with any tele-converters.

Are you in Walla Walla now? If so, what are you finding to shoot? There are lots of great waterfowl opportunities up here in the Okanogan now.

Thanks Tom....appreciate that information as I wasn't aware of the first version being that much different. I do know that the lens is an oldie and was worried about how it matched with DSLR's and new the second version did okay...so will look for that...

At the moment, nothing in Walla Walla...I consider WW a dead zone for birds as even though it is near the Blue Mountains, the area immediately surrounding this lovely town is dead...If I travel to the Tri cities I see tons of waterfoul and the like; a much better birding area.
I travel back and forth from the east coast all the time as I now live in South Jersey Cape may area....love it!... But my mom is here in WW so I visit often and help around the house as she is elderly, but active.

Where are you from in this state? jim

Jm,

I live in Omak. But, like you, I often travel to the northeast. I was born & raised in Philly, and my parents & siblings all still live there. I often go there to work for a few months at a time, as employment opportunities here in the areas around Omak are completely dead. I like traveling from coast to coast, it provides opportunities for a great diversity of wildlife subjects. I am quite familiar with South Jersey, and the Cape May area. Small world!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15662518
Jm,

I live in Omak. But, like you, I often travel to the northeast. I was born & raised in Philly, and my parents & siblings all still live there. I often go there to work for a few months at a time, as employment opportunities here in the areas around Omak are completely dead. I like traveling from coast to coast, it provides opportunities for a great diversity of wildlife subjects. I am quite familiar with South Jersey, and the Cape May area. Small world!

Odd.... my mom is still alive and she now lives in WW with my brother and sister near by... I moved to the jersey area since my kids and grandchild live either in Manhattan or in Haddon Heights outside of Philly...yes, a small world. Perhaps we will have to meet up some time when one of us in on the right side of the coast!.... I am traveling back to jersey this coming sat and home to do some spring birding back there prior to a few weeks in Ecuador.

Forsythe Refuge got it real bad in the Hurricane and has essentially been closed since. That was one reason why I moved there (other than kids and grandkid) to do digiscoping at Forsythe and birding in cape may! jim

Forsythe - is that the refuge near Brigantine? The one with the dikes you drive on? With all the waterfowl?

Right.... it was a perfect spot for incoming waterfoul....Will have to see how mother nature puts it back. The hurricane blew in a lot of salt water and although much of it was tidal, there were still spots of fairly unbrackish water. They are about 70% complete in putting back the dikes and drive so that will help. Brigantine has been closed since so much of that area was destroyed. That should open up with no problem but I know the area was attempting to put back the sand and they were using the Brigantine area to pull sand from. jim

is the 70-200 IS2 too heavy for you?
it takes a 1.4 III very well and a 2xIII pretty darn well.
you would have 70-400 and 2.8-5.6 depending on the tc.
A local guy Ned Harris who is also a pretty famous bird photographer
uses this combo and gets very good results.

it would let you use one lens and keep a couple of TCs in your pockets.
the 70-200 IS2 is sealed too so some dampness under the canopy shouldnt be an issue.

Jeremy...I have thought of the 70-200 and have ruled it out...first, the cost is more than I want to go. Second, not that I can't handle the weight but, I can't or don't want to handle the weight. Hiking around and up hills etc...one soon learns that some equipment comes at a high expense and in this case, the weight is too much for that lens. It is no doubt a good combo and I can pretty much get the same results from my 400 prime as I would from that one or from a 200mm 2.8 with a 2x converter...so just not sure of the benefit of that lens.

But I do like the that it is sealed, something the 200 prime is not and something to think about.... jim

The benefit of the 70-200 with TCs is that you carry one lens that weighs only
3 lbs or so and have a massuve zoom range. I use a 100-400 because I never
Know how close I will get to something. For example, last weekend I went out for birds
I ended up finding some javelina and got within 10feet of them by getting down and not moving. I got great photos, I got less than 40 feet from sone AZ cous deer (whitetail)
I needed to zoom back to get the framing I liked.
I know more reach is better 90% of the time but the rest of the time its great to
Have the zoom. You just dont know what youre gonna run into.

Im not saying your other optiins aren't good too. I would love a 400 5.6. But im letting you
in on what I have personally experienced. Thr 70-200 isnt very heavy. Its about what rhe 100-400 weighs. I just really like the sealing.
I hope you figure something out. I know how hard it is for us to choose a new piece of equipment.
Here is my javelina thread if you want to check it out.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1278533

[QUOTE=Tom Reichner;15662518]Jm,

I live in Omak.

Yes, it is a small world. I grew up, at least my later years, in Oroville. I am quite familiar with Omache. In Seattle now.

jhayesvw wrote in post #15666704
The benefit of the 70-200 with TCs is that you carry one lens that weighs only
3 lbs or so and have a massuve zoom range. I use a 100-400 because I never
Know how close I will get to something. For example, last weekend I went out for birds
I ended up finding some javelina and got within 10feet of them by getting down and not moving. I got great photos, I got less than 40 feet from sone AZ cous deer (whitetail)
I needed to zoom back to get the framing I liked.
I know more reach is better 90% of the time but the rest of the time its great to
Have the zoom. You just dont know what youre gonna run into.

Im not saying your other optiins aren't good too. I would love a 400 5.6. But im letting you
in on what I have personally experienced. Thr 70-200 isnt very heavy. Its about what rhe 100-400 weighs. I just really like the sealing.
I hope you figure something out. I know how hard it is for us to choose a new piece of equipment.
Here is my javelina thread if you want to check it out.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1278533

So true Jeremy...is there ever a perfect lens for out needs!...
Actually yes...but the cost is prohibitive or something is. I am looking at the new Sigma 70-200 with OS and 2.8...it fits the bill nicely and am real tempted.

Hey, if I really want to...I could sell my 400 5.6 and take that money plus the money i am purchasing with this new lens and get a Sigma 120-300 2.8 for 3500$ with OS. It is getting real good reviews and is a lot cheaper, a lot...than the Canon. I have been a Canon guy for a long time but when it comes to a good lens, the Sigma might do it. The weight is a bit of an issue at 6.5 pounds and length of 11.5. Just not sure I want to go 'that' much into weight and length since portability and carrying it for any distance does add up after awhile. But I could put a 2x Tc on that and still have 5.6 auto focus at 600mm. think of that....not just a 400.

but the 70-200 2.8 might be something to look at. Light, and the range. i was looking at some of my pics and there are times when i do see animals other than birds and want to have less than 200. so ...thinking about it real big time now. jim

I've got both an EF 200mm/2.8 II "L" and an EF 400/5.6 "L" and both are really fine and sharp lenses.

I love the 200mm/2.8 for it's speed, but the EF400/5.6 is also really a great birding lens.

The 200mm is fast focusing, but the 400 is even faster!

As others mentioned, the 200 is a very compact lens and is NOT white so it is so much more discrete to shoot. BTW, you'll LOVE the 2.8 aperture, and the shutter speed advantage when shooting hummingbirds!!!