best bird lens if you pls

[Don Haines]

... 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.

True!

My best bird pictures have been with a 17-55.......

 

[candc]

there seems to be a rule that the smaller the bird the closer you can get. Seems there is a constant distance size ratio. 560 or 600 on a crop body is right for me most of the time. The ff shooters I know always seem to be using the 1.4x on the 600. I don't use over 600 on a crop body often.

 

[candc]

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.

 

[tron]

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.

Ha ha yes. This has happened to me too (I have photographed half a pigeon, half a duck, etc).
We can declare them portraits though... ;D

 

[candc]

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.

Ha ha yes. This has happened to me too (I have photographed half a pigeon, half a duck, etc).
We can declare them portraits though... ;D

Should start a new thread "too much lens, shoulda had a zoom!" I have gotten some pretty good "portrait" and super tight crops that way too.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The right lens is the one you have on your camera. I've owned a large assortment of cameras and lenses from cheapies to big whites.

70-200mm f/2.8L II at f/2.8 and 200mm. Iso 400, 1/80 sec.

100-400mmL MK I

70-200mm f/4L IS with 1.4X TC

100-400mmL MK I

$125 Nikon 500mm Mirror Reflex Lens

$125 Tokina 400mm

Canon 600mm f/4L (Non IS)

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 at 155mm

 

[Isaac Grant]

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.

Thanks for the link. I have seen these before. What I should have said is that the test charts say one thing but the bird images that I see say something else. I have personally not seen shots with the 100-400 ii and especially plus extender that I think are way better than what the Sigma C (the one that I have) can deliver.

 

[NancyP]

I use a 400 f/5.6L no-IS for BIF, on a 60D (soon to be 7D2). You can't beat the light weight if you are walking or hiking. On the other hand, f/5.6.... and, no IS. Still, it's a fun lens to shoot with. I aspire to an f/4 500 or 600mm lens, but unless that's the 500mm f/4 L IS II, I am not sure if I can handle it hand-held. Yes, I use a tripod and half-gimbal on occasion (Custom Brackets Basic Gimbal attachment put on a ball head - like the Wimberley Sidekick).

 

[quod]

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.

I agree 100%. I had a bald eagle fly toward and by me last weekend within 40-50 feet of my position. I was testing the 7D2 with the 500/4 II + 1.4x extender. Needless to say, I didn't get the shot. My significant other had my 5D3 with a 100-400 II and nailed amazing shots. The 100-400 II is an awesome lens (the 100-400 I is decent, too).

 

[Don Haines]

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.

Yes..... sometimes the birds can get a bit too close for a long lens......

 

[candc]

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.

Yes..... sometimes the birds can get a bit too close for a long lens......

That's where you need a mirror lens, or maybe it doesn't work like that?

 

[Jack Douglas]

Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.

Wandering around in the countryside, I seldom need a zoom and usually would be 6D 300 2.8 II X2 III or 1D4 300 2.8 II X1.4 III if I anticipate BIF (sometimes X2).

From a blind where both small and large birds appear, sometimes quite close, I like 1D4 70-200 2.8 II X1.4III but when they are back a bit I'm again wishing for more reach. I've been wondering about 100-400 II myself.

Jack

 

[Isaac Grant]

Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.

Wandering around in the countryside, I seldom need a zoom and usually would be 6D 300 2.8 II X2 III or 1D4 300 2.8 II X1.4 III if I anticipate BIF (sometimes X2).

From a blind where both small and large birds appear, sometimes quite close, I like 1D4 70-200 2.8 II X1.4III but when they are back a bit I'm again wishing for more reach. I've been wondering about 100-400 II myself.

Jack

Thanks for the kind words. All are cropped but no doubt that the lens performs better when not cropped too much. In order of the shots I posted.

Song Sparrow = 16.4 MP so cropped about 19%
Tufted Titmouse = 15.2 MP so cropped about 25%
Sanderling is about 16 MP so cropped about 21% (could not find specifics in exif)
Turnstone is about the same as Sanderling
Great-tailed Grackle = 18.7MP so cropped only 7.5%
Least Sandpiper = 18.9 MP so cropped only 6.5%
Purple Martin = 13 MP so cropped 36%

I find that a 35-40% crop is the maximum that I can do and still have a very sharp shot. I picked those shots randomly to show different focal lengths and how the lens performs. Pretty much every shot out of the lens when taken relatively close, in nice light and with proper exposure and technique is the same. Here are a few more examples from recently that to me show how the Sigma is such an amazing bargain and one that people should take seriously when considering what is the best all around birding lens. It is certainly a hell of a lot easier to sneak up on a bird on climb out on a jetty when just a camera and lens hanging around your neck as opposed to a huge lens and a tripod.

252mm
Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

531mm
Tufted Titmouse by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm
Common Yellowthroat by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm
Semipalmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

435mm
Semi-palmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[Jack Douglas]

Isaac, valid points and you have reason to be satisfied. Thanks for the details!

With bird photography we have some different perspectives. One might be an artistic presentation another might be a sharp detailed close up partly for ID purposes. Pleasing shots are to be had with all the better lenses and the most impressive artistic shots are not going to be that dependent on the lens - more on the shooter.

On CR, myself included, it's easy to get carried away with who has the craziest sharp picture, even if it's artistically a dud. I'm now trying to be more objective than in the past as far as composition is concerned - background, subject positioning, interesting activities, secondary subjects, etc. Sure I still want reasonably sharp but that isn't the be all and end all.

Jack

 

[PBear]

Hi

I recently did a trip to Scandinavia, the Arctic Circle and Iceland. I took my 5DmkIII, 100-400 II and a 1.4 mkIII extender for this trip. This specific kit was taken with wildlife as the focus. I have since bought a 7D mkII body as this will provide further reach due to the 1.6 crop factor. Weight was a factor when considering what to take as cabin baggage.

 

[tomscott]

Have a read through these threads plenty of good information on the more budget side of things up to the 100-400mm MKII

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25918.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.45;topicseen

 

[Sabaki]

Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.

Wandering around in the countryside, I seldom need a zoom and usually would be 6D 300 2.8 II X2 III or 1D4 300 2.8 II X1.4 III if I anticipate BIF (sometimes X2).

From a blind where both small and large birds appear, sometimes quite close, I like 1D4 70-200 2.8 II X1.4III but when they are back a bit I'm again wishing for more reach. I've been wondering about 100-400 II myself.

Jack

Thanks for the kind words. All are cropped but no doubt that the lens performs better when not cropped too much. In order of the shots I posted.

Song Sparrow = 16.4 MP so cropped about 19%
Tufted Titmouse = 15.2 MP so cropped about 25%
Sanderling is about 16 MP so cropped about 21% (could not find specifics in exif)
Turnstone is about the same as Sanderling
Great-tailed Grackle = 18.7MP so cropped only 7.5%
Least Sandpiper = 18.9 MP so cropped only 6.5%
Purple Martin = 13 MP so cropped 36%

I find that a 35-40% crop is the maximum that I can do and still have a very sharp shot. I picked those shots randomly to show different focal lengths and how the lens performs. Pretty much every shot out of the lens when taken relatively close, in nice light and with proper exposure and technique is the same. Here are a few more examples from recently that to me show how the Sigma is such an amazing bargain and one that people should take seriously when considering what is the best all around birding lens. It is certainly a hell of a lot easier to sneak up on a bird on climb out on a jetty when just a camera and lens hanging around your neck as opposed to a huge lens and a tripod.

252mm
Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

531mm
Tufted Titmouse by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm
Common Yellowthroat by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm
Semipalmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

435mm
Semi-palmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

You're very good at this! Those martin shots are hard! Well done mate

 

[Sabaki]

I'm thinking of replacing my 400 f/5.6 with a 100-400ii.

I understand that the IQ of both lenses are very similar but with the IS of the 100-400, keeper rate may be higher

Anybody have experiences with both these lenses?

 

[scyrene]

The right lens is the one you have on your camera.

Well not really.

While your point - that good photos can be taken with many lenses, even unlikely-seeming ones, in the right circumstances - is true, you can't photograph any subject with any lens you happen to have. If I only have a phone on me, or only take out a short lens (<200mm), then if I see a bird, I usually won't even bother trying, because a few pixels on target aren't enough to warrant it (unless it's highly notable/unusual and still identifiable in shot, or very very close, but that's almost never the case for those focal lengths). Equally, if I just have a 500mm lens, I can't photograph a landscape, however pretty it is (stitched panoramas are possible, but require too many shots at very long focal lengths if you want to cover much of the field of view to do handheld/manually; you can pick out points of interest of course, but that's not landscape work in the same sense).

 

[AlanF]

24-600mm (equivalent) on my Powershot G3 X, which will accompany me on a brief trip to NYC tomorrow, covers pretty much the whole range I need with pretty good quality.