Budget lens for birding ?

[jdramirez]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

 

[steven kessel]

I've had the 100-400 for over a year and have taken over 10,000 photos with it. I love the lens, it is sharp, easy to use, very light and portable for its reach, and produces great images for me. I shoot exclusively hand held and use it mostly for bird photography. With IS I can get useable images down to about 1/100. My only regret is that it doesn't work with the 1.4 or 2 teleconverter.

 

[Krob78]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

I've had my 100-400L for over 2.5 years and had my 17-55mm f/2.8 for over 2 years and have no dust in them at all... I use them all the time, especially the 100-400L. I used it today in fact.

That being said, I do keep good B&H filters on them at all times. Not only is my 100-400 crazy sharp and dust free, I guess it's overdue for regular servicing maintenance! Maybe I should send it in for a check up and clean up!

 

[Random Orbits]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors. The rumors did their job!

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump." None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens. If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item. The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

 

[Krob78]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors. The rumors did their job!

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump." None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens. If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item. The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

+10 Additonally, we have no idea if these people reporting these issues have a clue as how to properly switch a lens out with another one or even just to take a lens off to put the gear up.

My dad taught me almost 30 years ago with my AE1 and F-1 that the most crucial thing I did with his cameras was putting on and/or taking off lenses. He drilled it into me and I've always taken great care and maximized my speed and efficiency at switching lenses in the field. I guard the openings like they are my last dollar! I check everything twice before I start a change and then do it very safely and very quickly. I've never had dust issues.. just haven't.

My uncle on the other hand, very good photographer yet all his images are filled with dust particles, with lenses not "known" for being dust pumps!

 

[jdramirez]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors. The rumors did their job!

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump." None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens. If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item. The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

I wasn't interested in the 17-55 because I knew at some point I was going full frame... so that was NEVER on my radar screen. As for the 100-400... I just don't like the pump... it's wholly irrational, but it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[Krob78]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors. The rumors did their job!

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump." None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens. If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item. The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

I wasn't interested in the 17-55 because I knew at some point I was going full frame... so that was NEVER on my radar screen. As for the 100-400... I just don't like the pump... it's wholly irrational, but it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

I quite honestly didn't like the slide action of the 100-400mm either. I bought it because that was the only way it came and I needed the flexibility out in the field to go back to 100mm or 200mm without changing lenses. The 100-400mm served that purpose. A little MFA on both my bodies and it's been a wonderful lens and a joy to use. I got used to the sliding telephoto action quite easily and I've never regretted the purchase, although I had a lot of doubts when I ordered it, due to the sliding barrel, before using it, it just didn't set well with me.

I would be an adopter of the next generation for sure. That being said, although I am well acustom to the slide, I'd much prefer the next version to not slide... ;D

 

[ReedZ]

thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?

Hi Vikram, I am glad you made your decision which lens you wish to buy, the Canon EF100-400mm is a very good lens for wildlife photography, I have been using it for about 4 years, the "dust hog" you have been hearing from the others aren't true. The lens is partially weathershield and have dust and moisture resistance. Trust me you will love the lens.

 

[vikram1988]

Thanks a lot Reed and other wonderful people who helped me

Cheers !

Vikram