The budget photographer's 400mm dilemma

[MJ]

Hello everybody,

There have never been more choices for the Canon wildlife photographer on a tight budget, yet I find myself longing for something else... something better!



My current set:

A crop body with a 70-200mm IS II and both teleconverters III
The bare lens is stellar but I see a strong degradation in image quality until stopping down to 6.3 when using the 1.4x TC, and to f11 with the 2x TC. Under difficult light such small apertures present a challenge.

And constantly having to mount/dismount the teleconverters in the wild makes capturing wildlife in difficult light conditions difficult.



Here are the current "inexpensive" Canon offerings (excluding previous versions and third party offerings):

400mm f5.6L - this lens is almost as old as I am. It's a good performer wide open, light and smallish, no IS... same old broken record you know already...
Rumors of a stabilized version have been out for a while but I'm not getting any younger waiting.

300mm f4 L IS + 1.4 teleconverter - the younger and shorter brother of the 400 5.6 by three years, similar good performance, light & small. Fumbling with the TC to get beyond 400mm is painful when out in the wild. According to other people for optimal sharpness one would have to shoot around f8 (IMHO not a plus).

100-400mm L IS II - apparently image quality at 400mm is equal to the 400mm prime.
Though variable aperture and retracting front element were the reasons I sold all my EF-S lenses.
It's rated to have good weather sealing but in a truly dusty (desert) environment I'd still be concerned.
There have also been reports of the long end not being "true" 400mm, except for distant subjects. Price wise it's the most expensive of the ones listed here.

70-300mm IS USM / DO / L / - the older shorter brothers of the 100-400 with an aversion towards Canon teleconverters. This one is honestly too short for my liking.

the newly released 400mm DO IS II would be fab, but is price wise out of my league for now...



Is there any substantial gain in image quality at 400mm with any of the lenses listed above, compared to my current one to justify a separate purchase? We are talking about ~1000-2.200 here, or hold off until better options become available?

I really love wildlife photography, but as of right now I don't make any money from my passion (yet).
What's a girl to do? :

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I had the same set up you currently have and I found that I got better images cropping with the bare 70-200/2.8 II that using the TC 2X III. With the TC 1.4X III it was bit better. However, AF speed remaind as an issue.
Now, I sold both TC's and saving to get the new 100-400 II.

 

[monkey44]

IF you're asking this question - go with the 100-400 v2. 'Awesome' is not descriptive enough, but I can't think of a better word.

The best answer most generally cost the most money. You gotta ask yourself: If I buy something less effective, will I later wish I'd done it differently. Lenses like this are forever ... you won't have to upgrade from it for a very long time. It also likes the TC's especially the 1.4 --

And, don't ask necessarily what the lens cost, figure out the "difference" in cost between the alternatives and the 100-400 v2 ... sometimes the difference it less when you think of it in those terms. "What do you actually get in performance" and is that performance worth the difference in cost, and not just the cost of the lens itself.

 

[Omni Images]

No question about it .. save up for the version II 100-400.
New gen IS ... killer.
min focus 0.98m ... killer
IQ ... killer ... good even with the 1.4III
Build quality fantastic ... to... you guessed it .. Killer.

 

[danski0224]

Is there any substantial gain in image quality at 400mm with any of the lenses listed above, compared to my current one to justify a separate purchase? We are talking about ~1000-2.200 here, or hold off until better options become available?

I really love wildlife photography, but as of right now I don't make any money from my passion (yet).
What's a girl to do? :

The only current/supported OEM (Canon) options in your list are the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400II.

The 300 f/4 IS is a great lens but AF speed takes a huge hit with a TC on the lens.

Adding a 1.4x TC to either 400mm option may not have a big IQ hit, but you will have a big hit in AF speed and the number of available AF points- limited to the one in the center (assuming that you use a Canon TC and do not tape the pins or use a 3rd party TC).

Using an APS-C body, you really need to be at 2x the focal length for minimum shutter speed in order to get the best image/sharpness, but except for the 7DII, "high ISO" introduces noise that cancels IQ. The IS on the 100-400 would help here.

The 400 f/5.6 is supposed to be a great lens.

Of the two 400mm options, the 100-400 IS II would be an easy choice.

One suggestion is to seek out a nice copy of the 500 f/4.5 USM but non-IS lens. The drawback is that it is no longer serviced by Canon, so if it breaks, you are truly SOL as this lens is focus by wire. It will not focus without power (camera on) even in "manual focus" mode and parts to fix it are essentially not available. There are many of these lenses being used today and nice looking ones are still out there (nice looking may mean that it has been taken care of). This lens also needs a camera body with AFMA for best results. It also has a 5 meter minimum focus distance.

If you can work with manual focus lenses (significantly different from using almost all Canon EF lenses in manual mode), you can adapt older Nikon long lenses with a simple and inexpensive adapter to Canon EOS and many Canon FD lenses can be used with an Ed Mika kit to convert the lens mount.

Your only other options without venturing into VI or VII Canon IS supertelephoto lenses are 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc.

 

[candc]

i agree that the 100-400ii is a good choice. if you are mostly interested in wildlife you might want to consider selling the 70-200. although its a superb lens i don't find the fl that useful.

 

[Tyroop]

This seems to be quite a frequent dilemma.

Although it was a better choice on paper (300mm f/4 or 420mm f/5.6 + IS) my personal experience with the 300mm f/4L IS plus 1.4x converter combo was a nightmare. It may have been my copy of the lens - even though it was checked out at Canon's Singapore service centre - and other people have had better experiences.

The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.

I would go for the 100-400mm L Mark II if you can get hold of one and the price isn't prohibitive. Otherwise, a 400mm f/5.6L.

There are probably a lot of people like me who are happy 400mm f/5.6L owners, but who would like to upgrade to the new 100-400mm. Thus, there will probably be quite a lot of good used lenses available soon.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_400F56L.html

 

[TeT]

skip the 300 4 L + 1.4x, That lens while stellar, wants no accompaniment.

go with the 400 5.6, cheap and another stellar performer

 

[Random Orbits]

My current set:

A crop body with a 70-200mm IS II and both teleconverters III
The bare lens is stellar but I see a strong degradation in image quality until stopping down to 6.3 when using the 1.4x TC, and to f11 with the 2x TC. Under difficult light such small apertures present a challenge.

And constantly having to mount/dismount the teleconverters in the wild makes capturing wildlife in difficult light conditions difficult.

Did you AFMA with each of the TCs mounted? It should perform about as well as the 70-300L at 280 f/4 and about as well as the 100-400L (original) at f/5.6. You do take a AF focusing hit, but the IQ was comparable.

 

[photonius]

Hello everybody,

There have never been more choices for the Canon wildlife photographer on a tight budget, yet I find myself longing for something else... something better!



400mm f5.6L - this lens is almost as old as I am. It's a good performer wide open, light and smallish, no IS... same old broken record you know already...
Rumors of a stabilized version have been out for a while but I'm not getting any younger waiting.


100-400mm L IS II - apparently image quality at 400mm is equal to the 400mm prime.
Though variable aperture and retracting front element were the reasons I sold all my EF-S lenses.
It's rated to have good weather sealing but in a truly dusty (desert) environment I'd still be concerned.
There have also been reports of the long end not being "true" 400mm, except for distant subjects. Price wise it's the most expensive of the ones listed here.

All the internal focusing lenses "change" their focal lengths upon closer focusing, the closer the stronger the effect.

So, the 400mm f5.6 has a minimal focusing distance of 3.5 meters with magnification of 0.12x.
That corresponds to about 335mm when using the single thin lens formula.

The 100-400 Mark II has a minimal focusing distance of 0.98m with magnification of 0.31x = 177mm..
But, I measured it at different distances, at 3.58m it is actually 300mm (0.1x mag), so not that different from the 400mm prime

So, while the change with the 100-400 may appear shocking, it's only because it goes much closer than most other lenses.

 

[wyldeguy]

So I may get flamed here but I would suggest the Tamron 150-600 or if you have a bigger budget and don't mind the extra weight the Sigma 150-600. I own the Tamron and it's great. The focus is pretty fast and the lens is pretty sharp. I love bird photography and it was the cheapest option with the longest range. I had heard a lot of good reviews on it including one from Matt Granger. First shots out of it were fantastic and I was satisfied with my purchase. Since then I bought a 7D2 and have gotten even better shots. Would easily recommend the Tamron to anyone wanting reach on a budget.

 

[jrista]

I'm with Wyldguy here...why is the Tamron 150-600 not on your list? It's a great performer, lots of pictures on the bird pictures forum taken with that camera and a variety of Canon bodies (primarily the 7D and 7D II.) I would say for wildlife and birds, it is very, very tough to get a better focal range than the Tamron offers, and certainly not for that price. The Sigma 150-600 might offer slightly better IQ for a little more, but both are cheaper than Canon's new 100-400 II as far as I know.

 

[candc]

tis true what wyldeguy and jrista say. the tamron is indeed worthy of consideration.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A Good lens costs $$$S. There are budget lenses out there, but, if you want something better than the 100-400mm II, be prepared to shell out. If you want something almost as good, you have lots of choices.

 

[JonAustin]

Like the majority of respondents here, I will echo my vote for the 100-400 II (provided it's within your budget); I bought one in December and am very impressed by it.

My experience with the 70-200 + TCs mirrored yours: I found that I needed to mount and dismount my 1.4x TC II periodically while "in the wild," and that was too much hassle, too easy to drop equipment, damage something or introduce contaminants into the optical path. I sold my TC along with my 70-200/2.8IS when I upgraded to the vII model last summer.

Although the 400/5.6 has been recommended by some here, I wouldn't recommend it for you, since you stated that you find you need to mount and dismount a TC on your 70-200. That suggests to me that you need the flexible FL range of a zoom. If your budget won't support the 100-400 II, I would recommend that you look for a good copy of the original 100-400. You get the full zoom range (and just a little bit more on the long end, compared to the vII, from what I've read), as well as Image Stabilization, albeit it an earlier and less capable implementation.

I will disagree a bit with Monkey44, who writes that "Lenses ... are forever ..." They can be, if you want them to, but since they hold their value well, you don't have to be "married" to a lens that doesn't suit your needs, or that you "outgrow" ... easy enough to sell or trade in on a lens that you think will work better for your style of shooting.

(And personally, I've never used a 3rd party lens, so I can't comment on the Tamron recommendations.)

 

[ScottO]

My vote goes to the 100-400 v2. I owned the the v1 of the lens since it was first released it was always a good performer. Yes IS was a little slow and the image stabilization could've been better but it always performed. The v2 is head and shoulders better the the v1. Within one week of Receiving the v2 I sold my 300 F4, 400 F5.6, and my Tamron 150-600. Not that any of them were bad lenses the new 100-400 is just better in my opinion.

While I liked the Tamron autofocus was inconsistent on the 7d mk II, 5d mk III, as well as my 1Dx. When it nailed focus it was great, but the 100-400 mk II with Canon 1.4x mk III extender provided slightly better image quality and more consistent autofocus. At least for me.

 

[Dylan777]

I recently bought 100-400 mrk II. To be honest, I didn't expect this lens to give excellent IQ due to zoom FL.

Well, the new 100-400 proved me wrong. These were shots with 1Dx: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Huntington-Beach-Surfing-testi/i-RJ33pvS

With 7D II AF, I think this could be a great combo for those with lower budget and want to shoot outdoor sports and wildlife. Not to mention, the flexibility of zoom, lighter weight and cost effective when compared to big whites.

 

[lescrane]

MJ, you're not specific on what you mean by wildlife...

For me, wildlife is birds, and after using 100-400, 400 5.6, 300 L + 1.4xc for years, I bought the aforementioned Tamron 150-600 . It's a no brainer for me because I now get shots I simply could not get before. Especially songbirds, birds in flight, etc. I even get more larger birds because I can stay further away from them.. Sneaking up/stalking a bird usually results in bird taking off.

I'm happy with the sharpness, as long as I stop down one. I hear the Sigma 150-600 C is comparable, the "Sports" is sharper than the Tamron

Now if I were shooting large mammals not too far away, or content to shoot herons and waterfowl, I'd probably go with the 10-400 II.

good luck.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Sharpness isn't everything. I've used a 70-200 f2.8 II LIS with 2x TC's quite often. It's a heavy combo and it's AF is slower. But it the AF gets a good lock then its very sharp stopped down of f6.3 and quite sharp wide open.
Only you can decide if the 100-400 II LIS is worth the spend for the extra sharpness.
For me at the moment, it's not. But your mileage might vary.

 

[BeenThere]

In your situation I would try the 400mm f/5.6 for a year or so. Then you will be able to tell if it is suitable for you or where it falls short and the characteristics you want in a follow on lens. Buy the 400mm used and you will get your money back if you decide to sell and trade up later.

I have used this lens a lot and it's great. I have some of the newer options on your list too but have not used them a lot yet and they are quite a bit more expensive.