birds in flight - IS "a must" ?

[JohnLofy]

I have a 7D2 and 100-400 IS II, also 1.4x III, have been taking some birds in flight pictures, but always seems like I could use more reach.

So, not wanting to spend the bank, thinking about a used 600L F4, NON-IS.

Will the lack of IS preclude me from taking pictures of birds in flight ?

 

[privatebydesign]

I wouldn't invest in a pre IS telephoto. The parts to repair them are no longer available, Canon won't work on them and the AF is a fly by wire system that means if the AF motor has an issue you can't even use it in manual focus.

 

[AlanF]

The over-riding factor here is the weight of the lens. It's far too heavy to hand hold and you will have to use it on a massive tripod, which makes it nigh impossible to use for overhead shots or fast moving birds that are not miles away.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

BIF with a Big lens is fun - NOT!

It is certainly do-able - I frequently do so! However the birds do need to be further out (with the inevitable IQ compromises) but it can work well.

You must also factor in the extra weight and expense. It is not just the lens (the one you mention is a bit of a monster) but also a good gimbal head and a top quality tripod. All of this is heavy and expensive - trust me my primary set up is of this type but with the "lightweight" Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. The lack of IS on the lens is irrelevant for this sort of use - it just gets in the way and mucks up AF acquisition and tracking for BIF.

As another poster mentioned - you will be unlikely to get the 600 F4 L (non IS) repaired if it fails as parts are no longer made. That does not necessarily mean that you shouldn't buy it, just don't pay much!

My personal choices for BIF are the Canon 300 F4 L IS (IS off), Canon 400 F5.6 L, Canon 100-400 L IS Mk2 (IS off) or, if your arms are up to it, the Canon 300 F2.8 L (either IS version). The 300 F2.8 lenses are often shorter than what is ideal but they take 1.4 extenders remarkably well with little loss of AF performance (still better than the others mentioned) and when used as a bare lens are unbeatable IMO. Pretty much the best/fastest AF going and some of the sharpest lenses made.

Just my thoughts.

 

[JohnLofy]

Thanks, all, for the advise.

Will look into a smaller lens.

Had another thought, also - will review the "birds in flight" logs, see what are the typical gear that others are using to take THEIR pics !

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had the 600mm f/4 NON - IS along with the big wimberly head and a heavy tripod. It was a real expedition to lug that huge case into the back of my minivan, and then get setup The Wimberly plate would not fit on the foot in the case, so I had to put it on after opening the case and install all three screws every time. My lens was used for birding, but as noted above, not a lot of fun.

IS is of little help for BIF. It takes a while to lock on and stabilize, and your bird is long gone. For a far off stationary bird, it helps, but a high shutter speed helps more.

The new models are lighter, but I'd stick to 500mm or less. I'd certainly give the third party long lenses a careful look. My 100-400mmL MK II works well with a 1.4X TC and can be easily hand held. I put the TC on it when I first got the lens and forgot to take it off for a month. It focused quickly with sharp images, I was surprised when I realized it was still attached.

 

[takesome1]

BIF with a 7D2's small field of view with a huge lens that has to have a tripod does not sound like the way to go.

A better question to ask might be "what is the best option for X amount of dollars for bif?"

To answer the general question, no, IS is not a must have option. Two things come to mind, first when panning and tracking with the lens it is often easier to be steady in a moving motion. Second many of your bif pictures will be at higher shutter speeds, which is the natural way to over come camera shake.

 

[AlanF]

BIF with a Big lens is fun - NOT!

It is certainly do-able - I frequently do so! However the birds do need to be further out (with the inevitable IQ compromises) but it can work well.

You must also factor in the extra weight and expense. It is not just the lens (the one you mention is a bit of a monster) but also a good gimbal head and a top quality tripod. All of this is heavy and expensive - trust me my primary set up is of this type but with the "lightweight" Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. The lack of IS on the lens is irrelevant for this sort of use - it just gets in the way and mucks up AF acquisition and tracking for BIF.

As another poster mentioned - you will be unlikely to get the 600 F4 L (non IS) repaired if it fails as parts are no longer made. That does not necessarily mean that you shouldn't buy it, just don't pay much!

My personal choices for BIF are the Canon 300 F4 L IS (IS off), Canon 400 F5.6 L, Canon 100-400 L IS Mk2 (IS off) or, if your arms are up to it, the Canon 300 F2.8 L (either IS version). The 300 F2.8 lenses are often shorter than what is ideal but they take 1.4 extenders remarkably well with little loss of AF performance (still better than the others mentioned) and when used as a bare lens are unbeatable IMO. Pretty much the best/fastest AF going and some of the sharpest lenses made.

Just my thoughts.

I prefer the 400mm DO II to the 300mm f/2.8 II. It's 500g lighter than the 300 + 1.4xTC and focuses at least as fast. Choice of focal length depends also on whether you are using crop or FF because of the narrower field of view with crop.

 

[Helmi2010]

Hi,

A 7D MK II with 100-400 MK II and a 1.4 TC is, in my opinion, fine for BIF. More reach and less weight as a big white on a 1DX or 5D. What shutter speed and AF setup do you use? And, not unimportant, what birds are you photographing?

Best regards

helmut

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Some good points posted here!

The lens of choice is very much down to your personal needs and capabilities. All the lenses mentioned will do a good/very good job but they all have pros and cons!

My 100-400 Mk2 + 7D2 is an excellent lightweight setup. Attach a good strap and go off wombling - you will barely know it is there. On the other hand my 800 F5.6 L IS is really only for relatively static use - though it does give much greater range if the light is good.

The 300 F2.8/400DO are sort of in the middle. The 300 F2.8 gives aperture but loses reach whilst the 400 DO Mk2 is lighter and reaches further - though with one less stop.

Unfortunately there is no "Ultimate" BIF lens - it is all down to your personal needs/wants.

 

[Jopa]

As far as I know IS helps AF during tracking. When the object moves less jittery, it simplifies the tracking process significantly. Source: Canon.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

As far as I know IS helps AF during tracking. When the object moves less jittery, it simplifies the tracking process significantly. Source: Canon.

I think Canon must have sabotaged my lenses! I find IS slows AF lock and , depending on the lens, can really muck up tracking. To be fair on my newest IS system (100-400 Mk2) the IS is much improved - so much so that I consider it usable but only for static stuff.

We are all different so try IS off for yourself and see which works best for you.