best bird lens if you pls

[candc]

The sigma dock: great to have it, sucks that you need it. I have the 120-300 and 18-35. Af on Both were really out of whack. They both required AF adjustment at all 16 settings, shoot, unmount, mount to dock, run software x100. You get the idea, whole Saturday wasted. I have spent more time fiddling with each.of those lenses than the other dozen or so that i own combined.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Boy, sounds like "to each his own" relative to that big zoom. The main thing is that the views are public for anyone making the decision, eyes wide open, and that's great. CR, as always a valuable forum.

Jack

 

[Isaac Grant]

Boy, sounds like "to each his own" relative to that big zoom. The main thing is that the views are public for anyone making the decision, eyes wide open, and that's great. CR, as always a valuable forum.

Jack

For clarity I did not have to do any afma on my lens. I agree that process sounds miserable. My Sigma was spot on at all focal lengths out of the box. My comments were solely based off of using the dock to set the firmware, OS and focus priority. Those settings only take a few minutes with the dock.

 

[tron]

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.

Think of the big weight and size advantage of 400 DO though. If you have to hike the DO is much easier. If you can use it close to your car then the 500 4 L IS II has the advantage.

 

[AlanF]

Bryan Carnathan of TDP made his choice for birding and nature for his latest trip:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=16000
He plumped for the 100-400mm II, 600mm f/4 II and the 5DS R.

I am sorely tempted by the 5DS R. The sharpness of the sensor without low-pass filter and the resolution of a crop sensor but the field of view of full frame offers a versatility that makes up for the slower frame rate.

 

[Eldar]

Bryan Carnathan of TDP made his choice for birding and nature for his latest trip:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=16000
He plumped for the 100-400mm II, 600mm f/4 II and the 5DS R.

I am sorely tempted by the 5DS R. The sharpness of the sensor without low-pass filter and the resolution of a crop sensor but the field of view of full frame offers a versatility that makes up for the slower frame rate.

You´d love it, I know I do!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Eldar, it would seem like an excellent setup but based on my 6D I am not sure about the FPS. What's your opinion on that aspect?

Jack

 

[Eldar]

Eldar, it would seem like an excellent setup but based on my 6D I am not sure about the FPS. What's your opinion on that aspect?

Jack

At 80MP/frame, 5 fps fills up your cards fast enough
Seriously, if I need more I use the 1DX. If I did not have that option I might find 5 fps to be a limiting factor, but not very often.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Eldar, my thoughts were along the lines of how much you'd still be depending on the 1DX. Do you have plans to upgrade to 1DX II when it's out given you now also have a 7D II? I'm almost satisfied enough with the 1D4 that I could keep it given I didn't pay a huge price, but that seems to vary from day to day.

Jack

 

[Eldar]

Thanks Eldar, my thoughts were along the lines of how much you'd still be depending on the 1DX. Do you have plans to upgrade to 1DX II when it's out given you now also have a 7D II? I'm almost satisfied enough with the 1D4 that I could keep it given I didn't pay a huge price, but that seems to vary from day to day.

Jack

The 1DX/5DSR combo is a very potent combo. The 7DII has one advantage and that is to have the AF points spread across the whole viewer. That makes for example a bird in flight situation easier and it gives you a high frame rate. But from a resolution point of view, I can crop the 5DSR and get approximately the same result.

There are very few situations where the 1DX/5DSR does not solve whatever the situation may require. So for me to buy the 1DX-II (for anything but pure GAS) it would have to bring something special to the table. Resolution, dynamic range, high ISO improvements, wider spread of AF points and improved tracking of fast moving objects would be highest on my wish list. I´m fine with 12fps and I don´t give a s*** about video.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Helpful as usual, thanks.

Jack

 

[Tony5787]

Since Nikon recently updated their 300mm f4 with phase fresnel optics to reduce size do you guys think Canon will follow suit soon, perhaps with a DO model?

 

[Greatland]

My 200-400 is an unbelievable lens, but heavy to try to handhold...but on a monopod or tri-pod its versatility for wildlife is pretty damned hard to beat...but for the purposes of this thread i would probably say the 100-400 VII

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since Nikon recently updated their 300mm f4 with phase fresnel optics to reduce size do you guys think Canon will follow suit soon, perhaps with a DO model?

Canon has a 70-300mm DO Zoom and the 400mm f/4 DO II. They were showing a 600mm mockup at photo shows recently, so they are developing the expensive models. I don't think Canon understands inexpensive when it comes to DO lenses.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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.

THis is the same experience by many.

 

[antshrike]

The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.

While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.

I have always wanted, and always will want, an EF-S 400/500/600 range f/4 or f/5.6 L quality prime. There is an entire world of crop-body bird photographers out there carrying around 2.5x as much lens weight as they are utilizing.

Weight really is the top factor for me, within lenses that have enough reach and image quality. I would pay $3000-4000 for a EF-S 500 or 600/5.6 with modern IS that weighed significantly less than the 100-400v2 or the 400/5.6.

 

[AlanF]

The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.

While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.

I have always wanted, and always will want, an EF-S 400/500/600 range f/4 or f/5.6 L quality prime. There is an entire world of crop-body bird photographers out there carrying around 2.5x as much lens weight as they are utilizing.

Weight really is the top factor for me, within lenses that have enough reach and image quality. I would pay $3000-4000 for a EF-S 500 or 600/5.6 with modern IS that weighed significantly less than the 100-400v2 or the 400/5.6.

A 500 or 600/5.6 lens has the same size front element on a crop or FF since the f-number is given by (focal length)/(lens diameter), which is the same for crop or FF. Or, in other words, an EF-S lens will have the same heavy front element as an EF lens. It will probably weigh very similar on the crop as FF and most certainly not 2.5x less. You will need to go over to new technology such as Fresnel lenses to reduce weight, and both crop and FF will be lighter.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.

While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.

I have always wanted, and always will want, an EF-S 400/500/600 range f/4 or f/5.6 L quality prime. There is an entire world of crop-body bird photographers out there carrying around 2.5x as much lens weight as they are utilizing.

Weight really is the top factor for me, within lenses that have enough reach and image quality. I would pay $3000-4000 for a EF-S 500 or 600/5.6 with modern IS that weighed significantly less than the 100-400v2 or the 400/5.6.

Interesting perspective!! Sounds like FF or 1.6 crop are not what you're looking for if size/weight is paramount. How about someone to carry your gear.

Jack

 

[Sabaki]

The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.

While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.

I have always wanted, and always will want, an EF-S 400/500/600 range f/4 or f/5.6 L quality prime. There is an entire world of crop-body bird photographers out there carrying around 2.5x as much lens weight as they are utilizing.

Weight really is the top factor for me, within lenses that have enough reach and image quality. I would pay $3000-4000 for a EF-S 500 or 600/5.6 with modern IS that weighed significantly less than the 100-400v2 or the 400/5.6.

I again, am a photographer first.

I am seriously debating selling my 400 f/5.6 and picking up a 100-400 mkii.

Why? Well, as a photographer first, I am intent on the most compelling composition I can produce. A few experiences this year has made me aware of the shortcomings of a fixed focal length and how it can limit you.

Here's a few examples:

* I do quite a lot of my bif from a hide at our local wetland. Depending on season, there are certain species that flies from the bank to the breeding island but shooting with my 400mm on my 7Dii, far too many of my images have feet, wings or bills cut off.
* I did a safari earlier this year and we came across a pride of lions. Being lions, they pretty much laid in one place for about 30 minutes. The only shots I could get with my 400mm was 'portraits' of the lions.

It's actually quite a bitter sweet decision I'm playing with as my copy of the 400mm is pin sharp and has delivered me some very good images (well, for my ability that is).

I have heard, however that the new 100-400 is as sharp as the 400mm but also offers the ability to zoom along with IS.

Bare in mind that as a photographer first, I want to create images without restrictions and I have hit a wall a few times with my 400

 

[scottkinfw]

Very timely question, and I am embarrassed to give my story/input.

This past weekend I went out to a known waterfowl spot with my trusty 5D III and 300 mm 2.8 II. I also tried the rig with and without 1.4X extender. Results- disaster.

The focus was slowed, and IQ was decreased. Due to the unique features of the venue, I couldn't get that close and I guess the subject footprint on the sensor was simply too small, with/without extender. I didn't get a single keeper shot, and needless to say, it wasn't fun.

I would steer you away from the 300 mm and toward a longer lens, and if you can, stay away from extenders if IQ is a paramount concern.

Hope this helps.

sek