Serious Bird shooters.....I have a lense question

I've been shooting with a Canon 100-400 IS L series Lens for about a year now, and really love it. I now want to try for a little more image sharpness, but I still want to be able to hand hold the lens. Many of my shots are inflight and the ability to hand hold is really important to me. I'm an older guy with a full shoulder replacement, so I can't go swinging around a 10 pound lens like some of you young bucks (and does). I do frequently use a monopod, but it often times gets in the way and I'll end up putting in in the trunk.

I've narrowed my choices down to the following two:

Canon 500 mm f/4 L IS which weighs 8.5 lbs.
Canon 300 mm f/2.8 L IS which weighs 5.6 lbs.

The speed and weight of the 300 mm, f/2.8 really appeals to me, but I'm worried about loosing picture quality (mainly sharpness) when using both the 1.4 and the 2.0 Canon extenders.

The salesman at the camera shop (an excellent photographer) recommends the 500 mm, but here, again, I'm concerned about the weight factor.

I shot about 1000 pics with a Canon 300 mm f/4 IS and a 1.4 Extender last Saturday and got some nice pics, but I don't feel that the quality was any better than with my 100-400. The light weight of the lens is a real plus but, I really to want to step a notch in picture quality.

Please give me your thoughts and opinions on this dilema of mine. THANKS

You can never have enough focal length when shooting birds...

The 300mm is more portable but you will likely need TCs. The 300mm responds very well to those, losing virtually no IQ with the 1.4x and just a little with the 2x.

I don't think the 300mm will really be long enough unless you plan on getting a TC or two. If you plan to shoot at the long end anyway (birds, hello) then you're better off going right to the 500mm. But it's not really a hand-holder.

if you can afford the 500 get it, when birding you'll always want more reach

Click my gallery link below and go to 'Articles'

The 500 is the way to go. For serious bird photography you'll need a really good tripod and gimbal head for either lens.

Your looking for a birding lens?
Get one!

It's the 500mm f/4L IS

I recently got the 300 f2.8 and am loving it. It is one amazing lens.

Is it for birding? Yeah, if they're real close. Even with my 1.4 tc it's not long enough.

It's obvious to all here that the 500 is the birding lens of choice; but you've thrown a monkey wrench into the equation. It is not, repeat, not hand holdable for any length of time, especially in the condition you represent yourself to be in.

If you get a good tripod and a full wimberley, or even the sidekick, then you're good to go.

mark

Here's a couple of alternatives for you... The first is the 100-400 IS L on a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal mount. Coupled with a panning ballhead, this will support the weight of the lens and still allow a free range of motion. The camera is a 20D...

i would say if you can hold 6 lbs in comfort you can hold 2 extra from what i hear about the 500mm F4L IS its worth it

Two very sweet setups there, John.

I'm venturing into the first setup myself. I have the tripod/ballhead setup so far (though not hardcore, decent enough) and Off-Camera Shoe Cord... I'll have to pick up a Sidekick, flash bracket and 'Beamer. Right now I'm handholding birds in flight and it works, but they're close-up. I need something for distance and a plain ballhead doesn't cut it. The gimbal is key.

For once the salesman speaks the truth. The 500 is the cornerstone of most pro bird photographer's kit.

I second, or is it third, or fourth, or fifth, the vote for the 500. The 300 with a 1.4 TC has OK reach, in many cases, for avian photography, but while the 300 suffers less than other telephoto primes in the Canon line with the 2x added, it does suffer noticeably.

The 500, meanwhile, especially if you limit yourself to the 1.4 TC, will be a tremendous lens, and is definitively sharper than your current 100-400. And if you have a second camera body, putting the 500 plus 1.4 on one and the 100-400 on the other will allow you to be flexible during those moments when the supertelephoto and TC are too tight for nice environmental portraits, in which instances the zoom will shine.

Good luck, and have a blast whichever way you go.

I use the 500 f4.5L on a monopod all the time, it's only 6.6 lbs. It doesn't have
IS, but it's lighter and can be handheld for a short period of time. I have the
300 f2.8L IS also, it works better handheld then the 500, but is still a lot of weight
to hold for any length of time. Also I think the 500 with 1.4x is sharper then the
300 with a 2x TC.

The first thing I learned upon getting my 100-400 and tried to shoot some birds: man, this thing is too short!

Not trying to hijack this thread but not one post mentioned the 400mm f2.8. I realize it is a $7,000 lens and not for everyone. Is it just the cost issue. I have been saving for a while and hope to be able to get one after the first of the year for sports. Thought it would make a good birding/wildlife lens.

The 500 would be best for the birds, the 300 is good too