400mm

Mark

I think the nice combination for the money is the 300/4 L IS with a 1.4 TC which brings you to 420/5.6 and you also have a great 300/4. It is my choice for many In-flight and larger birds and animals. I have the 500/4 also and use the 1.4 TC on both. When it is released I'm getting the 1D mark III with a TC 2x and that should be the end as I shoot at f8 most of the time anyway.

I hope it helps

Check this out Mark.
http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/comparing_cano​n_400s.htm

Just to clarify: I have the Kenko Pro 300 TC and used it with the 400. The problem was, some of the time the shot was in focus but most weren't, AND had to cover some of the contacts to make it work at all with the 400. So I have quit using it entirely. Some may have more success than I did with that setup.
Karen

canonloader wrote in post #3260218
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.

I also use Kenko tubes, but DOF is so minimal that it is not ideal for birding....only the eye will be sharp, and everything else is OOF.

Marsh wren with my Poorman Almost 600mm (400+1.4X), from 11 ft. away

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The 400 5.6 prime is the best 'starter' bird lens. Click my link below and click articles for a quick write up.

I have a 400 2.8 on a 20d thought view finder is dark with a 2x it still produces good photos. When I use the 1.4x my view finder is still bright. Now my PP in photo shop is anouther storie, at least when I post them on this sight.
If you can take your camera to a shop that will let you shoot with the lens you would like to buy or rent it for the day.

Get the 400mm and the 1.4 teleconverter. Would love a 500 or 600mm, but, even second hand, those are out of my $$$$ range.

Every day, I find the 400 5.6L to be very satisfying... It delivers... When least expected, again it delivers...

Thanx Frank for the input, as I am planning on using a converter quite often it would seem the 400 would be the better choice.

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.

Thanx again Mitch, the Kenco tubes have worked for your shots, another thing for me to look into .

Thanx Gary, there are lots of surgestions for me to consider here, how heavy is the 300? By the way when is the MK III reaching you? Maybe you could cut a deal with Mitch for your MKII/n (cant remember which you have) .

Check this out Mark.
http://www.michaelfurt​man.com/comparing_cano​n_400s.htm

Thanks Reyno, I havn`t had a chance to read it yet but am looking forward to reading it.

Thanx Karen, how did the T/C work with other lenses, was it just with the 400 that you had this problem?

Thanx again Frank, thats a great shot, what t/c are you shooting witth there?

Thanx, again I havn`t had a chance to check the link but will do so soon. Do you use the 400 still?

Thanx Glenn, I wasn`t considering the 2.8, but hey all imput is valued . Gotta check all options! I do intend on renting both lenses for a weekend, well just the prime, I have a friend who uses the zoom and having allowed him the use of the MKIIn for a while he owes me one .

Thanx Bettyn, another vote for the 400, it seems to have quite a following here! And yeah the 500 is expensive, but you get what you pay for, I have no doubt that those who use it will confirm that it is the best "birding lens."

Thanx John, yeah a lot of people are very happy with the performance of the 400, deffinatly leaning that way at the moment.





Well thanx all for taking the time to help me in a dilema, I appreciate all the advice given and am left with a lot to think about.

Mark

If birds are the target and you shoot a Mark II go with the 500. You will end up getting one sooner or later. Why not sooner? I have owned all 3 lens but for birds I like the 400 for flight and the 500 for the rest.

frankdatank wrote in post #3260182
100-400 for the zoom and IS. Image quality is unacceptable with 1.4X.

Then again:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

And this is with the same camera/lens/TC combo:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Another vote for the 400 f/5.6, however I've never had the 100-400 for direct comparison. I 'agonized' over which lens to buy and ultimately chose against the 100-400 because it can be functionally reproduced (well almost) with a 1.4XTC on my 70-200.

The 400 prime is fast focusing , light weight and seems like the perfect lens for a fledgling birder (of which I am )

pttenn wrote in post #3260525
Just to clarify: I have the Kenko Pro 300 TC and used it with the 400. The problem was, some of the time the shot was in focus but most weren't, AND had to cover some of the contacts to make it work at all with the 400. So I have quit using it entirely. Some may have more success than I did with that setup.
Karen

I think this may have more to do with taping the pins than the lens/TC setup. Did you try it with pins un-taped and manual focus?

I have the 400 and 1.4x TC, but it still isn't long enough for me!?!?! Although, to be fair, i've not given it a propper test yet. I don't have a hide, and all the birds are skittish at the moment, due to having chicks i think.

I did manage to get an in-flight with the TC attached that looked pretty sharp, even though it was manually focussed. I definitely wouldn't tape the pins, as i've heard horror stories, possibly urban myths (who knows!?!), about damaging the AF motor....

The only time i've regretted choosing the 400 over the 100-400 was at a race track. It's not really versatile enough for motorsports (IMHO).

Another vote for the prime which will not surprise Keith !

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.