best bird lens if you pls

[athena]

would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls.

birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon.

do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you

 

[AlanF]

You will get many different opinions and prejudices.

I owned the Tamron 150-600mm for a year. It was very good on my 5DIII but lost a lot on the 7DII though still gave good results if the frame was filled. I bought the 100-400 II, which remains glued to my 7DII and a second one for when I go out with my wife and we take the 5DIII with us as well. I have compared the 100-400 II with the Sigma 150-600 C and S. on both cameras. The Sigmas are very good as well.

From 100-400, the 100-400 II is the best optically and has incredible AF. There are reports in CR and elsewhere of the Sigma and Tamron having AF problems, but may users are happy. The 100-400 II + 1.4xTC is as good optically as the Sigmas at 150-600mm and the Tamron in the centre. The Tamron is good in the centre but poorer at the edges. For lowest weight and smallest size, the 100-400 II is the winner.

 

[scyrene]

As is often the case, the answer is 'it depends'...

What kinds of birds? Bigger things - large raptors, waterfowl, waders (or more exotic stuff like cranes, pelicans) will require a shorter focal length - especially in flight. Passerines especially you may want a longer lens.

Budget? If money is no object, the 600L or 200-400+1.4x are probably unsurpassed as prime and zoom options, if you don't mind the weight, which brings me to...

Weight - some people object to carrying supertelephoto lenses around. Or if you are planning on taking them on flights, the largest lenses are more awkward. In that case the 100-400L (II) or 300L 2.8 (or even the 400L 5.6 or 300L 4).

Flexibility - do you want a lens that can do for other subjects? The 100-400 will do lots of subjects at the wider end, while the longer primes are more limiting.

 

[Don Haines]

would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls.

birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon.

do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you

The one truth about bird photography is that you can never have a long enough lens.....

The best lens is the 600F4.... but few of us mere mortals can afford it.

The best AFFORDABLE lens is the sigma 150-600...., closely followed by the Tamron 150-600

The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...

Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....

 

[rpt]

I agree with all the responses you got so far. I sold my 100-400 V1 and got a 100-400 V2. I have used it on my 5D3 and my 7D2 with and without the 1.4x III extender. Works well for me.

 

[AlanF]

I should also add that it also depends on whether or not you use a tripod or monopod. If you are mainly hand holding, the 100-400 II is not heavy but the Sigma S is frankly too unbalanced and heavy, and the C and the Tamron a little heavy. The old 400/5.6 is even lighter and fine for BIF in good light and on a tripod at lower speeds.

I personally don't think the 300mm f/4 is up to it - too short and loses too much IQ with a 1.4xTC.

Again in my personal opinion, 600mm is too long on a 7DII for BIF and 400mm gives a wider field of view for capturing hast moving birds. Of course, 600mm is great when you don't have to be quick.

 

[athena]

thanks for the intell so far.

I currently have 100-400 version one. she works great. was not sure if v2 was much of a change? yes? no?

I would love to be in the 600s.

it would be my on the body 24/7. it's the only thing I do. birds vary in size and stance. mostly one the water or flats.

does that help for more input

 

[9VIII]

If you have the 100-400 version 1 then I would maybe try to sell it and get version 2, but if re-sale value is low then you might just want to keep it for a vacation lens.
If your lens is a good copy then it'll probably only be significantly weak in the corners, so as long as you can frame your subject there might not be huge IQ gains.
Version 2 will be sharper, but you have to decide how much that extra sharpness is worth to you.

The reasons I want the 100-400 version 2 are for the close focus ability, and because I've never owned a long zoom lens. That makes it worth purchasing outright even though I own the 400f5.6 prime (which is still the best dedicated BIF lens since it weighs less, is sharp across the frame, and IS isn't an advantage there).
If you already have the 100-400 version 1 and your primary subjects are out on the water or in fields, it sounds like you're at 400mm 99.9% of the time, so there aren't any significant upgrades for less than $8,000.
The 400f4DO gets you access to a TC without the AF penalty, but quite frankly it only cost a few thousand less than the 500f4 so I would just go for the full Big White experience at that point.
Nikon just released a 500f5.6 that looks to be an excellent lens, but they don't have anything like the 7D2, your best bet there would be a D810 in crop mode (the D7200 does not have a good buffer). That combo would cost about $4200.

 

[takesome1]

would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls.

birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon.

do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you

It appears you're only looking at new. Maybe your budget is limited to those lenses.

But do not overlook a used version of the 500mm F/4 L IS original. IMO it's a better choice than the two lens you listed, although it will cost between 4-5K US.

 

[athena]

totally open to used. a used 500 is a great idea. thank you.

 

[alben]

I have the 100-400 mark 1, it is decent, but not with the 1.4 extender. The mark 2 on the images I have seen seems great with or without the 1.4 extender. Do not even consider the 2x extender unless you get a 2.8 300mm or similar.

 

[cycleraw]

The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...

Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....
[/quote]

Agree with Don. I own the Sigma 150-600 sport and the Canon 100-400 V2 and the Canon even with a 1.4X teleconverter I find to be sharper than the bare Sigma. Using a teleconverter on the Sigma is a disaster. The Sigma is very good up to around 450mm but then gets soft.

 

[viggen61]

Probably you'll want to get the 100-400 Mk II. I know I do! It also seems to be the lens I see most often paired with a 7DII...

You might consider upgrading to that lens, which would be great with your 7DII and a Canon EF 1.4 Extender III. For special occasions, you can always rent a 500 Mk II or 600 Mk II. Very reasonable rates out there.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...

Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....

Agree with Don. I own the Sigma 150-600 sport and the Canon 100-400 V2 and the Canon even with a 1.4X teleconverter I find to be sharper than the bare Sigma. Using a teleconverter on the Sigma is a disaster. The Sigma is very good up to around 450mm but then gets soft.
[/quote]

I have read so many times that the new 100-400 ii will resolve much better than the Sigma at 100-400 (Obviously between 100-150 there is no comparison ). Could you kindly point me to some images or perhaps share some that caused you to come to that conclusion. Again this is something that I have read over and over on so many forums, but not something that I see in actual images. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see what this is based on. I own the Sigma and have the financial means to easily pick up the new 100-400 for times that I do not need to get to 600mm, but based on what I have seen, there is not really a difference at all. Being that I am always itching to spend money, I would happily buy the Canon as a compliment.

I chose the Sigma for my bird shooting as it gives me the most flexibility without the need for a converter and is still plenty sharp.

In addition I should add that the Sigma is not very soft over 450mm as long as you stop down to f8. You would be at f8 with the 100-400ii + 1.4x anyway. Plus with the Sigma you get the advantage of using all focal points on the long end. This is something that you can not do with the Canon so that is a major advantage in framing the shot. Here are just a few shots I have gotten in the past few weeks with the Sigma that to my eye are very far from being soft above 450mm. Feel free to follow the link to flickr and zoom in on the images as much as possible to see the kind of detail you can get with the Sigma. Just to be clear, I am not saying this lens is better than the new Canon, only that I do not see that the Canon is much better at any focal length.

600mm
Song Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

531mm
Tufted Titmouse by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm
Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

500mm
Ruddy Turnstone by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

And a few at shorter focal lengths...

313mm
Great-tailed Grackle by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

403mm
Least Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

244mm
Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[candc]

The 400doii is the best bird/bif lens on the 7dii I have used. Its super sharp, the AF is great. I handles and takes extenders well (no need to stop down).

 

[AlanF]

I have read so many times that the new 100-400 ii will resolve much better than the Sigma at 100-400 (Obviously between 100-150 there is no comparison ). Could you kindly point me to some images or perhaps share some that caused you to come to that conclusion. Again this is something that I have read over and over on so many forums, but not something that I see in actual images. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see what this is based on. I own the Sigma and have the financial means to easily pick up the new 100-400 for times that I do not need to get to 600mm, but based on what I have seen, there is not really a difference at all. Being that I am always itching to spend money, I would happily buy the Canon as a compliment.

TDP has image quality of the Sigma S vs the 100-400 II on the 7DII

eg at 300 mm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

and so on at other lengths.

objektivtest.se has measured the MTFs of the Sigma S and 100-400 II for APS-C.

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/

Both sites have the 100-400 II sharper, but that doesn't mean that the Sigma isn't sharp enough! All it really means is that you have to be a bit closer to match quality.

 

[Eldar]

The problem with bird lenses is that you want as much reach as possible. I use a 600 f4L IS II with a 1.4xIII extender in 95% of all cases. And I still crop, often a lot! I hardly ever use the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for birds.

That being said, a 7DII/100-400L II combo is very good (my wife´s favourite, due to the combination of size, weight and IQ) and I fully support what others have said about it. And a benefit of the 7DII, compared to the full frame alternatives, is that the AF points cover pretty much the whole viewer. But, unless you´re very good at sneaking or have a good hide, I still believe you need more than 400. From a budget perspective, long whites get really expensive, but a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.

Don´t be mislead by the assumed flexibility of a zoom. You´ll use it at max focal range 99% of the time.

 

[Northbird]

I've always been a promoter of using the right tool for the job at hand. If you are a serious bird photographer, amateur or otherwise the fixed focal length super teles are the ticket. Yes, they are expensive, they are bulky, they draw unwanted attention, but the potential rewards exceed those considerations.

I use either the 300 2.8 or the 600 II usually with the 1.4 extender attached. Agree with others comments that it's tough to have too much reach for bird photography. I occasionally shoot the 600 with the 2X converter attached and the 7D II allows single center point auto focus at F8. Very useful when you need it to get the shot.


Rufous hummingbird ♀ (Selasphorus rufus) by Tony Varela Photography, on Flickr

 

[quod]

... a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.

Don´t be mislead by the assumed flexibility of a zoom. You´ll use it at max focal range 99% of the time.

I agree with most of your points. The 500/4 I prices have dropped a lot in the last year or two It's a great lens, but its sharpness with the 1.4x III is spotty compared to shots with the same lens combo with the 5D3. It's something to do with the sensor. I'm not sure if the same issue occurs with the 500/4 II (I have both lenses, but I havent shot the 7D2 with the 500/4 II much). My significant other shoots the 7D2 and swears that the 400/5.6 focus acquisition is better than with the 100-400 II, both alone and in conjunction with the 1.4x III.

 

[AlanF]

... a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.

Don´t be mislead by the assumed flexibility of a zoom. You´ll use it at max focal range 99% of the time.

I agree with most of your points. The 500/4 I prices have dropped a lot in the last year or two It's a great lens, but its sharpness with the 1.4x III is spotty compared to shots with the same lens combo with the 5D3. It's something to do with the sensor. I'm not sure if the same issue occurs with the 500/4 II (I have both lenses, but I havent shot the 7D2 with the 500/4 II much). My significant other shoots the 7D2 and swears that the 400/5.6 focus acquisition is better than with the 100-400 II, both alone and in conjunction with the 1.4x III.

True that perhaps 99% of the time you use max focal length. But, the other 1% is often when those feathered creatures get so close you can pick out every tiny detail, and the 1% can be your best ever shots. Many of my very best photos have been when I had the fortune to be so close I had to zoom out.