For birds: 500 f/4L II or ?

[AlanF]

It's silly? You are puzzled? You have asked me to explain. Well, it was a humorous riposte to your implication that we are medically unfit if we can't or don't wish to heave huge lenses. Just as some of us haven't the strength or desire to hand hold an 800mm f/5.6 Canon, perhaps you are in the same situation vis-a-vis even bigger lenses.

 

[Asher]

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

Lovely detail on the feathers! I definitely *want* the 500mm, but I think I'll use the 100-400 much more, and all the high praise of the zoom from people who also own a great white is encouraging.

Maybe I'll get the 500 for my 50th birthday. Wait, my twins start college that year. So, perhaps my 60th? ;D

Thanks to everyone for the input!

 

[NancyP]

That famous snap of the photographer hand-holding the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 bazooka lens needs no excuse.

And I keep meaning to try out a Big White, but I have been on a big macro kick lately and don't do much bird photography at the moment. I am still working on stronger arms, but I hand-hold that old 180mm f/3.5L no-IS with a decent rate of success in relatively well lit (natural light, no flash assistance) 1:2 magnification macro scenes, and do OK with the no-IS 400 f/5.6L.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

It's silly? You are puzzled? You have asked me to explain. Well, it was a humorous riposte to your implication that we are medically unfit if we can't or don't wish to heave huge lenses. Just as some of us haven't the strength or desire to hand hold an 800mm f/5.6 Canon, perhaps you are in the same situation vis-a-vis even bigger lenses.

Still puzzled AlanF. I was stating that we/I can hold large lenses if we want/need to unless there are good reasons why not - such as medical conditions eg. Arthritis -which I have.

The OP is looking at a Canon 500 Mk2 - hardly a major load for the vast majority of us - with a little practice.

If is was a joke then I missed it - as many miss my attempts at humour! I value your posts and insights so I was a bit caught out by this one - I thought it was a dig. Glad to hear I was wrong.

Toys back in the pram

 

[arthurbikemad]

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

Lovely detail on the feathers! I definitely *want* the 500mm, but I think I'll use the 100-400 much more, and all the high praise of the zoom from people who also own a great white is encouraging.

Maybe I'll get the 500 for my 50th birthday. Wait, my twins start college that year. So, perhaps my 60th? ;D

Thanks to everyone for the input!

The shot was just for fun, I am not dissing the 1200D in anyway at all, for a £250.00 camera I think it takes brilliant photos, its just how many people use a 1200D on a 500/4ii? Tell you what though the little 1200D and the 500ii is an amazing combo weight wise! Its the body's that pack in Kg's the lens weighs little imo! Stick on the 1DX2 and its a HEAVY combo to lug all day, and yeah you can use it hand held for pop shots but not for long, i.e holding the big twins to the sky for long periods of time is hard work. Re the 100-400ii it is truly an amazing lens, MFD is SUPERB and detail, well you will never not be happy! The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach and so the debate begins, how much reach is Sir's pleasure!

 

[AlanF]

John - thanks! I never use emoticons to indicate I am making a joke.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

John - thanks! I never use emoticons to indicate I am making a joke.

No worries - the stick had two ends, guess which one I got?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The brown end? ;D

 

[langdonb]

Great thread! I have too been looking to acquire a 500 f4 lens and was excited about the Sigma. There are not so many actual hands on reviews but those have been positive. However my concern would be Brian's' review that found that the focus point went from front to back focus as the f stop was changed. That would stop me from buying now. Time to see what other hands on reviews surface!

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach...

Naaah - just get close enough that the MFD actually matters:

Uncropped at 560mm.

 

[arthurbikemad]

The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach...

Naaah - just get close enough that the MFD actually matters:

Uncropped at 560mm.

Nice shot Sir, it's funny here where I am (live on a brickyard) the small birds come and land on the forklift when we move stuff around, they find comfort in the loudness of the forklift and get used to people being busy while they snap up small grubs now exposed to the open air after pallets of bricks have been moved aside, they often land inches away from me, sit and look, I take in the fine detail of the birds by eye and observe how they behave, I ALWAYS think whats the point of the big lens when they land so close, I could nearly use a 100mm macro at MFD at times haha, some use the same reverse psychology if you like and take to camouflage to get up close, cheaper by far and often giving stunning results like yours, I have set up the camera in the past and used remote triggers to get good detailed shots... all good fun....

Remote trigger 100-400ii/5d3.

 

[triggermike]

For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.

The 100-400 v2 lens is excellent, but your reason to purchase it should be for it's 100-400 zoom versatility and the IS you would use while hand holding for STATIONARY subjects.

You might want to start with the 5DIV decision or even the looming 6DII. Your ability to push into higher ISOs will negate the f5.6 disadvantage and allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action/low light. Also, the autofocus system of the 5DIV is excellent (not sure how the 6DII will be.) The 400 f5.6 is a VERY capable lens.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.

Some of us strongly disagree, though - active IS stabilises the subject in the VF, making it much easier to track.

 

[Asher]

For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.

The 100-400 v2 lens is excellent, but your reason to purchase it should be for it's 100-400 zoom versatility and the IS you would use while hand holding for STATIONARY subjects.

You might want to start with the 5DIV decision or even the looming 6DII. Your ability to push into higher ISOs will negate the f5.6 disadvantage and allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action/low light. Also, the autofocus system of the 5DIV is excellent (not sure how the 6DII will be.) The 400 f5.6 is a VERY capable lens.

I ordered the 5DIV and 100-400 ii today, but I'm not planning to sell the 400/5.6 yet. As you say, it's a great lens that will become even better with the 5DIV's lower-light capability, and I'll be able to autofocus with a 1.4x attached as well.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I'm happy to admit being in a minority (essentially never using a monopod or tripod with my 500L) but I am not strong. I'm really not! As others have said, it's learning a technique that works for you, and I guess just accepting that it's fairly heavy and sometimes awkward. But I'm a walkabout bird photographer mostly - 95% of the time I'm carrying the lens/camera like a bag by its tripod foot, and only aiming and firing sometimes. I once tried doing an airshow with it - two hours of holding it up and pointing, following the planes - that was horrible. Ditto a fixed bird target, like feeders - holding the thing up without support for long periods is not tenable and that's when a tripod is useful.

Incidentally, I find it too long for BIF mostly, the field of view a little too narrow - and it's hard to track fast-moving targets with such a big lens (but I've never had the opportunity to do BIF with large birds like raptors - rather I've tried, and mostly failed, with martins and swifts, which admittedly are some of the hardest in that regard). I found the 70-200+extender much more workable in that regard, although the reach was less.

 

[Don Haines]

For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.

The 100-400 v2 lens is excellent, but your reason to purchase it should be for it's 100-400 zoom versatility and the IS you would use while hand holding for STATIONARY subjects.

You might want to start with the 5DIV decision or even the looming 6DII. Your ability to push into higher ISOs will negate the f5.6 disadvantage and allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action/low light. Also, the autofocus system of the 5DIV is excellent (not sure how the 6DII will be.) The 400 f5.6 is a VERY capable lens.

I ordered the 5DIV and 100-400 ii today, but I'm not planning to sell the 400/5.6 yet. As you say, it's a great lens that will become even better with the 5DIV's lower-light capability, and I'll be able to autofocus with a 1.4x attached as well.

The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, does not pump air in and out with zooming. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....

 

[unfocused]

The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, does not pump air in and out with zooming. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....

Don, I'm not picking on you. It's just your quote provides a handy reference.

I would love to see some authoritative source or reference for the "pumping dust" onto the sensor stuff. All I can find doing a quick internet search are similar discussions on similar discussion boards from people who say this without any proof other than they have dust on their sensor and they think it is because of a zoom lens.

I trust LensRentals.com and the only thing I could find on their blog was a general statement regarding lens dust, where they said they don't notice any more dust on zoom lenses than on primes.

If people are going to make the claim that zooming can push dust into the camera body and then onto the sensor, I'd like to see some backup for that other than anecdotal evidence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If people are going to make the claim that zooming can push dust into the camera body and then onto the sensor, I'd like to see some backup for that other than anecdotal evidence.

Granted that it's anecdotal, but set a zoom lens to the long end, hold it up to your eye (just the bare lens) and retract it. Bet you blink. Certainly, the 24-105 and 100-400 push a fair amount of air toward the sensor.

But your point is taken - we use a rocket blower to remove dust from the sensor, so maybe zooms help keep sensors clean!

 

[Don Haines]

The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, does not pump air in and out with zooming. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....

Don, I'm not picking on you. It's just your quote provides a handy reference.

I would love to see some authoritative source or reference for the "pumping dust" onto the sensor stuff. All I can find doing a quick internet search are similar discussions on similar discussion boards from people who say this without any proof other than they have dust on their sensor and they think it is because of a zoom lens.

I trust LensRentals.com and the only thing I could find on their blog was a general statement regarding lens dust, where they said they don't notice any more dust on zoom lenses than on primes.

If people are going to make the claim that zooming can push dust into the camera body and then onto the sensor, I'd like to see some backup for that other than anecdotal evidence.

Dust on the sensor isn't much of a problem as a quick puff from a rocket blower and you are ready to go, but the dust does tend to work it's way up towards the big element of the lens where it is very hard to get out. What I worry more about is sea air and salt buildup inside the lens and body..... the blower does not help there....

Some people recommend that when you head inside from a dusty area that you pump your lens in and out several times to clear out some of the dust. I guess if dust pumps in, then it can also pump out.... it sort of makes sense but I have a long zoom with lots of dust behind the big element and it does not seem to help any

 

[nc0b]

I was was shooting perched and BIF last weekend in my back yard with both a 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400mm II. As usual as long as the red tailed hawk was perched, the zoom with IS was best. Once the raptor took off, I got one shot before the zoom decided to focus to 3 meters. No way to reacquire focus, where the prime set to 8.5m focus limit would have had a much better chance relocking focus. I had the zoom on because I was also shooting 9 horses in the adjacent field. On the other hand, the perched shots of the hawk are rock steady in the viewfinder with the lens with IS. What I'll do next weekend is have the prime on my 6D and the zoom on my 5DsR. The raptors are usually 200 to 500 feet away until they decide to fly really high in the sky. When they are 1000 feet in the air, forget it!

Shooting small birds in flight are virtually impossible for me. The barn swallows flitting around the house catching bugs are like in warp drive. I can never follow and focus on them when they are a few 10s of feet away. There are at least four of them around now, plus all the meadow larks and killdeer. At least the killdeer just walk around most of the time and are easy to shoot.