400 5.6 or 100-400

What's best for birds and why?

Edit: note that I do already have a 100-300 5.6L and my XS is being replaced by 7D.


I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I did a quick search and didn't find anything. Forum links will be appreciated as well as comments.

I would save up and get teh 800mm 5.6. Neither 1-400 or the 400 5.6 is long enough.

I have already invested more than 10k into all the lens and other equipments, if I could go back and do it again, I would go straight for hte 800mm, just for birds.

Well I doubt I get to the 10k mark anytime in the next 10 years, in the meantime I think I'll try my luck birding with one of these. Hopefully someone will offer more applicable advice then yours.

If it is purely for birds, the 400mm f5.6 is better. Particularly for birds in flight. It is lighter and has quicker AF. I often find that 1/400 is barely fast enough for birds anyway so I'm sceptical about how much help IS would be.

It takes a 1.4 extender well optically though AF will suffer and you will have to 'tape pins' on the extender to make AF work at all. I didnt have any luck on my fathers 7D with the 400+ extender however. It just wouldnt lock focus on anything and with the FOV of a nearly 900mm lens and only f8 it is hard to get the shutter speed you need for sharp pics. On my 5DMark2 it is ok since the thing focuses slower to begin with and is FOV of a 560mm lens. Though the bare lens on a 7D gives you more reach than this anyway. Without the extender the 400mm f5.6 is simply kick ass.

Either of these lenses will give you the most reach you can get without going either to Sigma lenses or one of Canons supertelephotos (ie the 500mm f/4.0 or above, or 300mm f2.8 with extenders) which are obviously a massive price and weight jump.

Thanks for asking this question as I'm trying to decide the exact same thing. So far this is where I'm at. The 1-4 is ok, zoom is handy... The 400 seems much better iQ but no zoom & no IS. That's the big one for me. I'm afraid to buy it and not be able to handhold it. I hike a lot and don't always have a tripod. I think I'll go for the 400 and hopefully get used to handholding it. Hope some of the pros pipe in with some advice.

I am a nature and wildlife photographer who specializes in birds. As a bird photographer 95% of the time you will be out at 400mm and at 400mm the prime has better IQ and AF. I never use a tripod, I use a long cylindrical pillow for a rest. You can check out 50 bird images on my website (link is in my signature). They were all taken with the 400 f/5.6L

Below are 4 images I took this year on a trip to FL. All taken with 40D and 400 f/5.6L

Northontguy wrote in post #11041194
I hike a lot and don't always have a tripod.

I often bring my monopod hiking. It's alot easier to bring along then a tripod IMO.

Airedale1 wrote in post #11041348
They were all taken with the 400 f/5.6L
...

Great thanks for your input. This has me more convinced the prime is the way to go.

As a 100-400 owner (and a big fan of it), I would say if your main use is birds go for the prime. I love my 100-400, but birds are a secondary subject. And when I am shooting birds it is always at 400.

weeatmice wrote in post #11040091
If it is purely for birds, the 400mm f5.6 is better. Particularly for birds in flight. It is lighter and has quicker AF. I often find that 1/400 is barely fast enough for birds anyway so I'm sceptical about how much help IS would be.

It takes a 1.4 extender well optically though AF will suffer and you will have to 'tape pins' on the extender to make AF work at all. I didnt have any luck on my fathers 7D with the 400+ extender however. It just wouldnt lock focus on anything and with the FOV of a nearly 900mm lens and only f8 it is hard to get the shutter speed you need for sharp pics. On my 5DMark2 it is ok since the thing focuses slower to begin with and is FOV of a 560mm lens. Though the bare lens on a 7D gives you more reach than this anyway. Without the extender the 400mm f5.6 is simply kick ass.

Either of these lenses will give you the most reach you can get without going either to Sigma lenses or one of Canons supertelephotos (ie the 500mm f/4.0 or above, or 300mm f2.8 with extenders) which are obviously a massive price and weight jump.

As an aside I used to double stack 1.4X TCs very sucessfully on my 20D but my 7D will not put up with this.

I had the same question but it really was never a question. After over 2 years of use I knew the 100-400 was good at 400 and not as good as the zoom was pulled back, so what I had was a 'heavy' 400mm with a slow AF and not the best results as I could tell others were having better results with the 400 5.6 prime. Last week I put the 100-400 on the chopping block to sell, and ordered the 400 5.6 from B&H. The 400 prime came yesterday and I just happened to put the 1.4 TC on it to try and was looking for something to shoot when this scrub Jay flew into the yard and landed on a bush about 30 feet away. Here's the shot, and need I say I have a new best friend in this lens.

7D, Hand-held, 1/1000, f/8, 2500 ISO with the 1.4 TX so manual focus too.

http://www.studio10web​graphics.com …tPosts/scrub_ja​y_4885.jpg

Airedale1 wrote in post #11041348
I am a nature and wildlife photographer who specializes in birds. As a bird photographer 95% of the time you will be out at 400mm and at 400mm the prime has better IQ and AF. I never use a tripod, I use a long cylindrical pillow for a rest. You can check out 50 bird images on my website (link is in my signature). They were all taken with the 400 f/5.6L

Below are 4 images I took this year on a trip to FL. All taken with 40D and 400 f/5.6L

Beautiful work Airedale1.

One thing I found very helpful with the 100-400 just starting out with bird photography was the ability to use the zoom to acquire the target with birds in flight in the lower range and then zoom out to 400. I would have missed many shots without the ability to do this. I found the IQ pretty good. A few examples with the lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com …zVVG#515977422_​UMzQf-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com …zVVG#515972341_​X3bLr-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com …xvyK#630412877_​fv2us-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com …zVVG#517237057_​9vk6h-A-LB

Candor wrote in post #11070641
One thing I found very helpful with the 100-400 just starting out with bird photography was the ability to use the zoom to acquire the target with birds in flight in the lower range and then zoom out to 400. I would have missed many shots without the ability to do this. I found the IQ pretty good. A few examples with the lens.

Thanks for your input here, I hadn't really considered this. Something more to think about. I need to decide soon too, as I am pretty sure I'll have funds together for lens by the end of week.

Yes the aiming thing is relevant.

Using the prime lens I keep both eyes open rather than closing my non viewfinder eye which helps a great deal in aiming. It feels odd though.