New birding and surfing lens? Help me decide!

I want to purchase a new lens for under $2k for both bird and surfing photos. I'm considering the following...

100-400mmL
400mm F5.6L
70-200mm F2.8L IS and maybe get a 2x teleconverter later

I'm having a hell of a time deciding!

ETS wrote in post #10473446
I want to purchase a new lens for under $2k for both bird and surfing photos. I'm considering the following...

100-400mmL
400mm F5.6L
70-200mm F2.8L IS and maybe get a 2x teleconverter later

I'm having a hell of a time deciding!

How about the 300f4L IS and a 1.4 TC?

Of the lenses you listed... You need 400mm without the use of a 2X extender. And using the 70-200mm by itself won't be long enough for birding. If you feel you will need a wide focal range, get the 100-400mm zoom. If your getting the lens mainly for the 400mm focal range, then I would get the 400mm 5.6 prime. The 300mm f/4 with the 1.4 converter certainly is another excellent suggestion.

The 70-200 2.8 is the only lens that you've listed that isn't a "daytime lens"
You have the 70-200 F4 now; so you will save $ by going that route and selling the F4. Are you okay with the focal length of the zoom lens you have? I'd answer that question first.

If you are wishing for a longer zoom; then I'd recommend the 100-400 as it will also add a lens with IS to your arsenal as well as being more flexible than the 400 prime.

Definitely the 100-400 for that intended usage. The 70-200/2.8IS with a 2x TC is not very good, and really shouldn't be considered. I don't do much birding, and used to own the 400 prime. The 400 is a great lens, but being stuck at that FL I found too limiting. I ended up selling it to afford the 70-200/2.8IS, with the idea that a 2xtc would work as well. Sorely disappointed. For the times I do wildlife or airshows I rent the 100-400. I really like the 100-400, and if I ever have the luxury in sinking that much coin in a lens I would use once a year will definitely buy one.

I will pick 400mm f5.6. Faster AF and better picture quality.

How about a used Sigma 500 f4.5? Can be had for a little over 2K used.

http://cgi.ebay.com …enses&hash=item​23083e37b7

Have a look. Not my lens or listing. Not affiliated with the sale in anyway, but it is a great lens. Might be worth stretching the budget.

bobbyz wrote in post #10473718
I will pick 400mm f5.6. Faster AF and better picture quality.

I agree and the 1.4 TC is a better choice than the 2X

Honestly for birds and surfing you realy want reach. 400mm , without TC.

70-200 with 2.0 is worse than the 100-400L

A good 100-400L is as sharp as the 400/5.6 in the center, but not the edges. Also the 100-400L has poorer bokeh and slower AF.

Depends whats important to you, I've used a 100-400L and got very sharp pics out of it of small birds , havnt used one for surfing yet, but I intend to buy a 400/5.6L

District_History_Fan wrote in post #10473481
How about the 300f4L IS and a 1.4 TC?

This ^^^

The 400 f/5.6L for it's sharpness, light weight, super fast AF and reach. 95% of what I shoot is birds and I love this lens.

All taken with the 400 f/5.6L wide open

Airedale1 wrote in post #10474251
The 400 f/5.6L for it's sharpness, light weight, super fast AF and reach. 95% of what I shoot is birds and I love this lens.

All taken with the 400 f/5.6L wide open

Darn I had decided to get the 100-400 zoom before I saw your shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you have me thinking.

I have all of the lenses considered plus a few more and my thoughts are:

Too many people consider the 70-200mm with an extender as a lens to be used for birds. Wrong tool, like hammering a nail with a set of pliers, will do the job but poorly. A great lens in any flavor, f/4, 2.8 IS or not but it is not a birding lens, let alone surfing where distances are much longer.

The 100-400 or the 400 5.6 are the minimum to consider with the budget in mind. The better tools for surfing or birds are longer lenses, I use the 500mm f/4 or the 400mm DO wonderful results but at a significant cost.

Personally I like the 100-400mm for its versatility, the 400 5.6 has a few minor differences for the better. Slightly quicker AF and maybe a sharper image but in my experience there is enough benefit to seen by most or outweight the adaptability of the 100-400mm.

Last thought, never buy a lens that you think will work for you if you are going to HAVE to use an extender. AF slows or doesn't work on the body, IQ will suffer and results aren't what is hoped for.

All w/ the 100-400mm

bazz8 wrote in post #10474923
Darn I had decided to get the 100-400 zoom before I saw your shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you have me thinking.

I've had both the 100-400 and the 400. The bottom line for me though is that as a bird photographer 95% of the time I am always looking for more reach, not less. So, besides the fact that the 400 is lighter than the 100-400 and has faster AF, it is also just a tad sharper at 400. So, even though the 100-400 is more versatile it does not outweigh the pluses of the 400.

Besides in the rare instance when the 400 is too long, I use my 70-200 f/4.0L IS to fill in the gaps and you already have that covered.

BradM wrote in post #10475103
Too many people consider the 70-200mm with an extender as a lens to be used for birds. Wrong tool, like hammering a nail with a set of pliers, will do the job but poorly. I agree with that.

A great lens in any flavor, f/4, 2.8 IS or not but it is not a birding lens.

I disagree with that. It depends on the situation and as a bird photographer I'll give you one quick example. If you ever get an opportunity to go to Seal Machias Island off the coast of ME to photograph Puffins you will be in a blind surrounded by Puffins and their young and for the majority of your shots the 400 will be too long to get anything but a head portrait of a puffin, not that it's a bad thing, but you will want to get the full bird and the 400 will be too long and the 70-200 will be perfect.

The 100-400 or the 400 5.6 are the minimum to consider with the budget in mind. The better tools for surfing or birds are longer lenses, I use the 500mm f/4 or the 400mm DO wonderful results but at a significant cost.

Again, I agree but as you point out, at a significant cost and significant is an understatement:

400 f/5.6L = $1,269.00

100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS = $1,610.00

400 f/4.0L DO IS = $5,820.00

500 f/4.0L IS = $6,140.00

Personally I like the 100-400mm for its versatility, the 400 5.6 has a few minor differences for the better. Slightly quicker AF and maybe a sharper image but in my experience there is enough benefit to seen by most or outweight the adaptability of the 100-400mm.

I agree.

Last thought, never buy a lens that you think will work for you if you are going to HAVE to use an extender. AF slows or doesn't work on the body, IQ will suffer and results aren't what is hoped for.

Very well stated and right on the money.

BTW Brad, very nice images.

Here are a few more from the 400 f/4.6L. Did I mention I love this lens?

Just want to bring something up - in general I am agreeing with the guys about selecting a 100-400mm or a 400mm f5.6 over the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L +2*Teleconverter. In my experiences the 70-200mm did very well with a 1.4teleconverter, but was a poorer option with a 2*teleconverter and if you wanted that range your ideal options were, and still are:

100-400mm f4*5.6 IS
300mm f4 IS + 1.4TC
400mm f5.6

However the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L is no longer in production and the upgraded version is now released. It is a more costly lens than the above three so if a good longrange lens is your aim then its not the lens I would recomend going for because of its higher price point. However if you also want the versatility and the quality of a good 70-200mm lens then you might consider the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 + 2*teleconverter.
If you have a look at mebailey's shots in this thread here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226
you can see that it can get pretty much similar results to the 100-400mm at the 400mm mark whilst being able to take advantage of the new IS setup. A 400mm f5.6 will still beat (optically speaking) this setup and I suspect a 300mm f4+1.4TC would be a little better, but those are certainly very usable results.