For birds: 500 f/4L II or ?

[neuroanatomist]

But if I got the 500 II, I doubt I'd take it on that trip. Too big, too specialized. So the decision seems to be a 500 II that only sees use in my backyard and on birding-specific outings versus a 100-400 that comes along whenever there's a chance of wildlife sightings.

I think that's really the best way to look at it. For 'typical' trips, I don't travel with my 600 II. However, I wouldn't bring a 100-400 either, but rather the 70-300L which I prefer for the much more compact size. But that's at least in part because my current travel is generally to urban destinations, so I don't feel the need for something longer than 300mm. If I did, I'd pick up the 100-400 II and still leave the 600/4 at home on trips.

 

[tomscott]

I bought the 100-400mm MKII as its compact and stellar IQ. With todays cameras 5.6 is great unless you want less DOF which is nice but with birds you usually want more to make sure everything is in focus.

Took it traveling around the world with a 5DMKIII and a 7DMKII. I also took a 1.4x and used it 3-4 times as I didn't need it. The 7DMKII gets a bad rep but mine is a great copy and my 5DMKIII got a lot less use when it came to wildlife which was my primary reason for having the lens.

Granted on my 7DMKII its 640mm and once you get to that point atmospheric issues come into play especially in hot places like Africa.

I absolutely loved it. I like you would love a 500-600 but they are cumbersome and I've always found fixed focal lengths to be inconvenient especially at that size.

On Safari I would have hated using it, I was forever moving around in the car and there is usually 4-5 people it just wouldn't have been practical. You also get a lot close than you would think. Also I was back packing, carrying the weight for the 100,000 miles would have been a pain. My bag already weighed about 14kg with camera gear, with some supplies 16+ then I had a larger bag with all my clothes etc which was 20kg so a lot to carry around. Granted the 20kg bag wasn't with me all the time and was left in trucks or tents or truck etc but when your on the move you have to be able to carry both between transport and rooms, catching trains etc.

The 100-400 is so versatile its fantastic IMO. But with birds you always want more so the 5DSR might be a good option or if you want to spend less the 7DMKII really is a fantastic camera. I shot it up to 6400ISO and had no issue at all.

For example

I know its not a bird, gorilla in Biwindi NP Uganda but its tack sharp has a little noise but didn't struggle at all. Unfortunately I haven't got any birds that I photographed on hand but there were many thousands along the way.

My first travels through South America I took the 70-300 with my 5DMKIII and it was way too short but had a very happy back. Took it to the amazon and always felt like I needed more. Will return with something a crop + 100-400mm

Don't get me wrong if I had the choice I would take a big lens but you have to carry it and in tropical rainforest heat its so hard. I trekked 6 hours in 45+ deg humid rainforest through hard terrain to see the Gorillas and I struggled with the 5DMKIII + 24-105 and the 7DMKII and 100-400 on my back with water food etc but it wasn't a trail we had to make or way through with Machetes so probably not the average trip but thats the sort of thing you have to do to get to these incredible creatures.

You can always hire a porter but I find it a little disrespectful.

 

[AlanF]

But if I got the 500 II, I doubt I'd take it on that trip. Too big, too specialized. So the decision seems to be a 500 II that only sees use in my backyard and on birding-specific outings versus a 100-400 that comes along whenever there's a chance of wildlife sightings.

I think that's really the best way to look at it. For 'typical' trips, I don't travel with my 600 II. However, I wouldn't bring a 100-400 either, but rather the 70-300L which I prefer for the much more compact size. But that's at least in part because my current travel is generally to urban destinations, so I don't feel the need for something longer than 300mm. If I did, I'd pick up the 100-400 II and still leave the 600/4 at home on trips.

And I was going to rename you machoanatomist....Seriously, i pack my 100-400mm II on all short foreign trips in the hope that I'll see an interesting bird and take the 400 DO II on longer holidays (but my wife then takes the 100-400mm II as it is such fantastic nature lens).

 

[Deleted member 91053]

There is a lot of food for thought here!

Currently, for birding, I use the Canon 100-400 Mk2, Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS on either a 1DX or 7D2.

These are just my observations:

The 100-400 Mk2 is a great lens - very happy with mine. However it is simply not as good a a Canon 300 F2.8 - but what is?!? The 100-400 is lighter, is a zoom, focuses much closer etc - but it doesn't (quite) produce the IQ or AF speed of the 300 F2.8. On the other hand it is more versatile. With either of these lenses a tripod/mono pod is not needed for most people.

With longer lenses things get a bit more specialised and they can be less flexible. On the other hand they will get you shots that are not available from the shorter lenses - it's all a compromise!

Whilst I love my Canon 800mm for BIF it is NOT the best choice in all circumstances, but when it works - it REALLY works. The focal length and IQ are excellent but keeping it on target can be a wee bit of a challenge!

I have used both the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 and 2 and they are both excellent lenses. The Mk2 is lighter and works better with extenders but either is a very good choice.

As I mentioned above I use both crop and FF cameras. For me FF wins hands down. The higher IQ and better ISO performance beat the advantage (?) of the crop factor 80/90% of the time. Certainly there is a reach advantage to a crop sensor but only under ideal conditions - which are not that frequent in my neck of the woods. Also the reach advantage is somewhat less than you may think. With my setup, under ideal conditions, the 7D2 will give me an equivalent shot (on a Kingfisher) at 12 meters as my 1DX does at 10 meters. But if the light is not just right then the 1DX (lower MP and larger sensor) wins every time. So I would suggest full frame - just my experiences.

Much the same as you I would love a 500 F4 - they are just a great combination of size weight and performance - but I would have to sell my 800mm to get one = not happening!

You mention the lack of IS on your current lens being an issue. For moving subjects I have found IS to be a hazard not a help. After all for flying stuff your shutter speed will need to be far higher than the speeds where IS is effective and IS will only serve to throw your AF off. Been there, got the Tee Shirt and deleted thousands of images before I learned to turn IS off.

Hope some of the above is useful. I should say that my personal choice, if you can afford it, would be a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 and a used 1DX (I would prefer the 1DX Mk2 - but not by much).

 

[alvarow]

Hi, I will give you advice you have not necessarily asked for... but please think about it first before you dismiss it.

Don't blow your cash on gear. If you feel you need a longer lens to make you happy (it is a big part of photography hobby, you have to be happy to enjoy it) perhaps get a not so expensive lens like the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 (I had the Sigma and stuck with the 400 5.6L as even cropped it was sharper than the Sigma at 600 on my 70D), but not necessarily blow the rest on gear. Take that money and go get some experience on the field, perhaps with your wife and go visit Alaska, California, Colorado, Brazil or some other place that is not where you have access.

It is nice to hit the beaches and county parks, but I guarantee you'll have much better pictures from actual cool places, if a tad less sharp, than having a pro level shot of a Sparrow or a Robin in your backyard.

Sorry if that is not what you wanted to hear, but I think this line of thought carries some weight and should be explored as well.

Good luck

Alvaro

 

[Act444]

Interested in following this thread because I'm looking for a lens with similar range...would like a bit more reach for birds that I can handhold. 400mm on 5D = still a bit short for many birds. Thought about the 500 but it comes down to that handholdability/portability thing.

I can say the 100-400 is great and quite versatile. Definitely can recommend to the OP if 400mm provides adequate reach.

 

[Eldar]

A lot of people have concerns with handholding these larger lenses. My experience, like Neuro pointed out earlier, is that handholding the 600 f4L IS II is quite easy, after some practice. I also handhold a lot with the 1.4xIII extender attached. With the 2xIII extender I need a monopod or a tripod. If you want maximum freedom of movement, buy a standard flag bandolier, but a monopod, with a good tilt head, in the flag cup and off you go. I can go for a full day hike with that solution.

The question to answer is how much flexibility you need and how much cropping you accept. I have both the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, in addition to the 300 f2.8L IS II and the 600. I use the 600 more than twice the others put together and more than 2/3 of my shots are with an extender attached.

If your usage is a walk around lens, safari lens and birding lens, then the 100-400 is a fantastic lens. Especially the very short MFD (less than 1m) is a great feature. The 200-400 is a better lens, but because of weight and the need to operate the zoom ring, I find it the most difficult lens to handhold. The 300 f2.8L IS II is a fantastic lens, but I don't use it much, because it is simply too short.

 

[stochasticmotions]

As Eldar and a few others may have said, the new 500 and 600 are definitely handholdable even with teleconverters. What you do have to realize is that when you move to a much bigger and heavier lens you will find that you have to relearn your technique in terms of following focus and maintaining stability. My first month or two with the new combinations were another learning curve, getting the muscle memory to consistently follow focus and get the same level of sharpness in my images that I can get with a shorter and lighter lens. It will take a little time but it is the same with changing cameras....at the level of detail we are looking for you have to learn each tool until it becomes part of you.

 

[AlanF]

eldar is a brilliant bird photographer and neuro is no mean hand either. They clearly can hand hold successfully. But, I go out at least 100 times a year on bird photography and have never seen anyone hand hold big whites - those guys sit in hides (blinds). It can be done, but it is rare.

 

[rancho_runner]

I disagree strongly. Own a 500 II, its usage equally split between 2x, 1.4x and naked. Never used it with a tripod, I love the freedom of just shooting whatever I like without limitations (especially BIF, since I can follow any path in any direction). Most of my best pics would not have been possible otherwise (unplanned opportunities, weird angles including overhead). I can use it a whole day with no issues, you just need to time your shots.
If everybody does use it in birding with a tripod, maybe you want your pics to stand out instead ?
As another reference point, at airshows only a vast minority uses tripods with big whites..

eldar is a brilliant bird photographer and neuro is no mean hand either. They clearly can hand hold successfully. But, I go out at least 100 times a year on bird photography and have never seen anyone hand hold big whites - those guys sit in hides (blinds). It can be done, but it is rare.

 

[AlanF]

I can use it a whole day with no issues, you just need to time your shots.

For us mere mortals, it isn't time - it's having strong enough muscles to hold the lens. I use 560mm and 800mm for BIF and never a tripod, but I use lightweight lenses. If you are very strong, then hold as heavy a lens as you want.

 

[rancho_runner]

My point was that there are different possibilities for big whites, not just tripods but handholding too (with all the caveats that you may want to add), each with different pro and cons.

 

[NancyP]

Neuroanatomist, you are a good bit stronger than I am. I am still using my featherweight 400 f/5.6L. Even the Sigma Sport 150-600 seems like a brick to me, and it is a pound lighter than the Canon 500 f/4 LIS II.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!

Unless there is a medical reason not to hand hold big lenses, then a little practice will get you going!

 

[candc]

I would recommend the 400doii. I use it on a 7dii and its a great combo. I have used it on a 70d and the iq is great as well. the issue I have with that camera is the slow clearing buffer. the doii works well with converters, especially the 1.4xiii. that combo gives you what I think is ideal for birds on a crop body.

if you are mostly shooting from a tripod/monopod then the 600ii or ver1.

I still have and use the tamron 150-600 and like the size and versatility but the iq falls off over 400 and the af doesn't measure up to canons better lenses. I understand the ver 2 is improved and the sigma 150-600 c is better as well. either one of those lenses is a good all around choice for a reasonable price.

the 7dii/100-400ii is a very popular. I have several friends using that combo with great results.

 

[Ozarker]

I had a 70D. I upgraded to a 5D Mark III. The difference is breathtaking. I dumped the 70D and never looked back.

With the 5D Mark IV you should get much better image quality, much better autofocus, and much less noise than the 70D.

You won't lose any "reach". The crop sensor doesn't get you any closer to the subject. It just narrows your field of view.

Your idea for a 5D Mark IV and 100-400 II sounds great to me.

 

[alvarow]

I had a 70D. I upgraded to a 5D Mark III. The difference is breathtaking. I dumped the 70D and never looked back.

With the 5D Mark IV you should get much better image quality, much better autofocus, and much less noise than the 70D.

You won't lose any "reach". The crop sensor doesn't get you any closer to the subject. It just narrows your field of view.

Your idea for a 5D Mark IV and 100-400 II sounds great to me.

From what I've read on the interwebs (so it must be true), you are correct, it does narrow the field of view... but certain scenarios (such as birding) you may be better off APS-C. With FF you lose all those megapixels when you narrow to the same field of view as APS-C, which means you have a cleaner image, but less resolution... so APS-C allows you to crop further and arguably get a better end result, thus in practical terms it can give you more reach. You do need a good quality APS-C sensor to start with. It's why some folks like the 5Ds

 

[arthurbikemad]

500ii is an amazing lens! Even at 700mm (1.4iii) on a simple 1200D the results are brilliant! The 100-400ii is a superb lens, ultra sharp, compact and so on, but the fixed aperture of the 500/4ii offers something else when coupled with the 1.4iii and 2.0iii you will not find in other lenses. 700mm F5.6 or 1000mm F8!

I don't have a 5D4 (Have the 5D3) but I'd guess the two together would be amazing, the 5D3 is stunning with the 500ii, the 1DX2 offers extreme speed but IQ in the right light the 5D3 is GREAT, just a shame good light is hard to come by 80% of the time for me.

1200D at 700mm, just for the hell of it.

 

[AlanF]

I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!

Unless there is a medical reason not to hand hold big lenses, then a little practice will get you going!

OK macho man, let's see you do this with the 34.54 lb (15.67 kg) Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8.

And after your body building, get to work on the 132 lb (60 kg) Leica.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!

Unless there is a medical reason not to hand hold big lenses, then a little practice will get you going!

OK macho man, let's see you do this with the 34.54 lb (15.67 kg) Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8.

And after your body building, get to work on the 132 lb (60 kg) Leica.

That was a rather silly post AlanF. I really thought better of you than that - still I am often wrong as you post proves.

If you care to re-read my post you will see that I often hand hold a 4.5 Kilo lens with a (max) 1.5 kilo camera attached. If a 58 year old, chronically unfit, arthritic, diabetic can do this then I simply do not see your point! When I was a little younger (with fewer medical issues) I often hand held my heavier 600 F4 L IS and, before that my 6+ kilo 400 F2.8. As to the petite lady with the Nikon 500 F4 (MK1 not the lighter Mk2) she managed 3 hours solid last time I saw her shooting at the Red Kite Center at Llandeusant. I can't do that with my slightly heavier 800mm so if I am a "Macho Man" is this small middle aged lady a Super Hero?

Puzzled at you post - perhaps a little more water with it next time?