Hi Alan,
Thanks for the great posts.
I am not primarily a wildlife photographer, I mostly do travel and weddings. However, I am starting to get more into wildlife and bird photography.
I am debating between the following:
- Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 or
- Canon EF 400 F4 DO II (with a 1.4x)
If you assume that neither size nor price is an issue (I can get a reasonably priced used 400 DO II), what would you recommend? Would you take the flexibility of the zoom or the faster aperture of the prime?
With my background in travel and weddings, I appreciate the ability of a fast lens to separate the subject from the background and to stop motion, but I have also read that with a longer lens you need to stop down when shooting birds to get most of their bodies in focus.
Thanks,
Sean
Sean
It's horses for courses. Remember that I am an opportunistic photographer who doesn't use a tripod and I carry a camera while walking around as well as less frequently sitting in a hide.
First the advantages of the prime. At 400mm and f/4 it resolves as well as the zoom at 500mm with 1.66 stop advantage. With the 1.4xTC at 560mm f/5.6, it is very sharp. With the 2xTC at f/8, it is distinctly better than the zoom at 700mm with the 1.4xTC. Nevertheless, the zoom is impressively sharp at 500mm. It's rare I use a telephoto at less than wide open.
The advantage of the zoom is that it is a zoom, and zooming out is on some occasions essential, and it focusses down to about a metre as opposed to the 3.3m of the prime. I do photo butterflies and dragonflies and need to get close, but 3.3m away at 560mm is usually good enough
Another factor is weight. The 400mm DO II + Hood + 1.4xTC weighs 2.5 kg, that is 0.9 kg or 2 lb more than the zoom. I notice the difference and find the prime more difficult to hold steady and more of a strain hiking with it on a BlackRapid strap over my shoulder. However, even at my advanced age I can manage it but try and rest it on something convenient if possible.
I am happy to go out for a days shooting with either. For our last three serious birding trips before covid, Galapagos/Ecuador, trip all around Florida in a rental car (we live in the UK) and a superb group bird tour in a minivan around Israel in the migration season, both my wife and I took 100-400mm IIs on our DSLRs and left the 400mm DO II at home, with no regrets. If I had to have just one lens, it would be the 100-500mm because of greater versatility and far easier weight for travel. But, if I was going somewhere like in rain forests that are gloomy or where birds are mainly far away, I'd take the prime. In the Galapagos, the zoom was essential because the birds are so close. In Ecuador, the prime would have been better, but the 100-400mm II did a good enough job. On safari in Tanzania, I had taken the prime with TCs and it was great, shooting from the Jeep. On a later birding trip to Portugal, I did take a lightweight monopod.