400mm

I know that this really doesn`t belong in this area of the forum, but I posted it here cause you guys will have the expierience, with both the lens and the field I wan`t to use it in.

Well actually there are two lenses.


I am thinking of getting either a 100 - 400 or the 400 5.6 in the future (say a month or two) and would like your opinions on which would be better. The lens would be used almost exclusivly for photographing birds, but I was wondering whether having the versitility of the zoom would come in handy, I know with myself there have been times when I have needed to have less magnification because the birds get to close. But then I also want to use teleconveters with it, primarily 1.4 but also on rarer ocations 2 times, I know that neither of the lens would be fast with the loss of two stops, but i can`t afford the super expensive lenses, so would have to make do. Also allthough I don`t really mind weight, the saying would still be true "the lighter the better."

Ultimatly I am asking primarily for those who have had expierience with both, which one they prefered and why, any other comments by anyone would be grately appreciated.

Mark

That said though I am also thinking of purchasing a 24 TSE at the same time, so maybe it would be better to forgo that and get a second hand 500 f4 for a little more, any thoughts?

This lens has been way out of my range and probably always will be, but if you can afford it, get it. It's big and heavy and you will need to get a really good tripod and head to use it right, but no 400mm lens can come close to it. The only thing I don't like about it is the IS. IS does wear out and it's expensive to replace.

But, I have owned both the 100-400L IS and the 400L Prime. The prime was far and away the better lens in my experience. Much faster to focus and lighter. All IS lenses take about a second to spin up and focus, sooo....

On the other hand, I sold my 400L and bought a new bigma with the money. No IS, it's heavy, but it focuses fairly fast, faster than the 100-400 IS did, but a little slower than the 400L. It's a zoomy, very sharp and cheaper than a Canon lens, and it weights 4+ pounds.

Cheers Mitch, at the moment i don`t have any outgoings to be worried about (mortgage, car etc) so I figured now would be the best time to buy the gear I wanted, I may not get the chance at a later date. At the moment the 400 prime is winning it, the 500 is just so much money even second hand. However I hadn`t thought about the 50 - 500 I might look into that aswell, so thanx for the surgestion, how does it cope with t/c?

Mark

I love my 400 5.6. (I like the primes and will say that right off.) And it will focus up to about 5' away or so, not many birds will be closer than that. It's light also. It gets my vote.
Karen

Thanx Karen, as I said to Mitch, at the moment the prime is winning it, still a while off before I get it, but I like to reaserch these things as much as possible, better I take a while to be certain of the lens I want, than to rush out and buy one and find it doesn`t suit my purposes.

Again your input is greatly valued, are a lot of your shots from the 400?

Mark

Depends on the body. I owned both the Canon 1.4 and 2x tc's and they both were terrible for IQ. When I got the Bigma, they did not fit so I traded mine for Sigmas. The 1.4x is fine, the 2x degrades IQ. I have heard that other brands, Kenko and Tamron do work good on either the Canon or Bigma lenses, but never tried them. Depends on the body too, anything less than a 1D and you will lose autofocus.

I have to add, the 400 sucks with tc's, just does not work and I was really disappointed in that. But yes, all of the shots you see that I post are taken with the 400. I used to have a 200 2.8 and LOVED that lens, but sold it to my brother and got the 400 for more reach.
Karen

So many considerations, I wish I had got into bird photography a while ago, I might have gone through this a while back instead of now.

Again thanx Mitch your advice is useful as always .

Mark

Ya know, it doesn't matter what lens you have now, if you can afford both, all the better, but if not, I would buy a 1D body first, then worry about a lens later. Even a 1DMkI is better than a 30D for IQ, and will keep AF later on when you get the lens and TC's, which from what I've seen, work much better with the 1D than anything else I've seen.

You do have some fantastic shots, so I guess they in themselves speak for the quality of the 400, (as do you mitch so I guess that speaks for the quality of the Bigma).

If the 400 sucks with t/c`s then I guess I will have to let the birds come to me , good job I got that hide recently!


If only we could all win the lottery, we wouldn`t have these problems then

Mark

My appologies, I never said....I shoot with a MKIIn, have done for a while now, just new to bird photography. My choices, choices rant (don`t know if you can call 2 or 3 lines a rant but hey what the heck) was in referance to the IQ of the sigma t/c`s over the canon t/c`s.

Iv`e been into photography for a good few years now, my uncle was the first to get me into it, he shoots with a F1n, a camera I would dearly like to play with for a few months, but thats asking a bit to much. anyway I got my first SLR at 14, a Pentax ME Super, a great litle camera that put me in good stead, having to learn about f-stops, shutter speeds, exposure, depth of field and its relation to aperture etc, 4 years of using that gave me good grounding. Then I got an EOS 3 (it was either that or a used EOS 1n) it was a big change going from manual to automatic, but i always try and make sure that at the very least I shoot on aperture priority, I figured there was no point my having had and learnt from the Me Super if I was just going to use the P button. Then from there i got a 20D and eventually got the MKIIn mainly due to the area I wanted to persue (birds) but also because I wanted something similar in build and layout to the 3, silly maybe.

Mark

Don`t know why iv`e given you my life story

If you already have a 1D, then your set. Get almost any lens you want then. But, the lenses with IS are slower to focus because the IS has to spin up and drop into place. Non-IS lenses just focus and bang.

If you already have a 1D, then your set. Get almost any lens you want then. But, the lenses with IS are slower to focus because the IS has to spin up and drop into place. Non-IS lenses just focus and bang.

Again thanx for the advice, you are the fount of all knowledge, remind me of that when I have another question!

I`m actually getting all excited, there is this disused quarry that has been converted to a shallow lake, I can remember passing it and thinking that would be great for waders, I`m going to check it out on saturday so long as it doesn`t flood . That and I plan on finding a mature wood nearby so that after I have been there for a few hours I can take a few woodland birds. At the moment saturday can`t come quickly enough!

Mark

I have both lens, and use both lens. I can't afford the weight of the big glass.

100-400 for the zoom and IS. Image quality is unacceptable with 1.4X.

400/5.6 with 1.4X mounted 99% of times for that extra reach. Even with 1.4X mounted, Image quality is on par with 100-4 without 1.4X


I also want to add that the close focus on the 400/5.6 prime is 11 ft, not 5 ft.

You can add Kenko tubes behind this lens and get minimum focus distances of about 4 feet and keep AF.

Kenko tubes also work on the Bigma and I presume, most other lenses.