The budget photographer's 400mm dilemma

[Don Haines]

Well its clear that MJ has made his decision and bought himself a very good lens. Congrats and I look forward to some results. Also am still hoping that I am wrong and the the 100-400ii is in fact better than my Sigma so that I can switch. I'm always happy to buy new gear. ;D

Tom, I think you are slightly confused. It is not the lens that is not sharp at 500-600 for BIF, it is your (and by that I mean all of us that are not freakishly strong and steady) ability to hand hold the lens steady enough. It is extremely difficult to pan and keep pace with fast flying birds in general. When you introduce human error, shaking or not panning at the perfect speed to keep up with your bird then things get even harder. That issue is compounded greatly by the extra magnification. In addition you are shooting with no IS as well at 600mm. Unless you have a very high shutter speed and perfect technique your results will not be tack sharp. So I think that considering the conditions that you did very well. Working out more is funny enough a great way to improve your BIF shots with large and awkward lenses that are fully extended. Now I am not calling you weak so please take no offense. It is just that the Tamron is a large and heavy lens. When fully extended it is far from easy to hold steady. If you add fast moving birds and any degree of wind then that complicates matters even more. I think these are pros for the Canon by the way. A bit lighter and shorter of a lens, better IS for BIF and weight is distributed better so easier to hold steady while panning.

I've said this before elsewhere, but is it really a matter of strength? I am decidedly weak, especially my hands and wrists, but I use my 500L handheld all the time. Birds in flight, not all that much, but I have done plenty over the years. Maybe it's a matter of developing a technique that works for you - though I've no doubt building muscle strength would help. Just my experience.

(The biggest problem I have with BIF is finding/keeping the bird in the frame, especially smaller ones with unpredictable flight paths).

I can say that when I was shooting with my 400 5.6 L that it felt like there was nothing attached to the camera. Very light and easy to carry and use. My Tamron and now Sigma are much heavier, and longer. When fully extended they are very top heavy. Any wind in the area will catch hold of the lens hood and push it around like a sail. I know that I get tired holding this thing up for long periods of time and I am quite fit. 43, 5'10" and 165 pounds. I have tried a friends 500 L ii and it is balanced much better than the long zooms so it is therefore easier to hand hold despite the added weight. I know that for me, I suffer from some fatigue after long periods of time of hand holding and any extra strength helps with keeping things steady while panning or hold still while photographing a bird coming straight at me. That combined with proper technique is the key.

I am 6'2" and for fun go paddle my canoe solo for 20+ K...... Last weekend I carried my canoe over 9K of portages (Cedar-canvas, twice the weight of those modern light weight ones), so I think it is safe to say I have sufficient upper body strength...... I find the Tamron 150-600 to be heavy.

For stabilizing the lens better than just hand-holding it, lean against something and you will be more steady. If you can lean the lens barrel/supporting hand against a tree, side of a building, pole, whatever, your camera/lens becomes a lot easier to hold and the stabilization is greatly improved again.... Shooting a long lens is different technique than a short lens.

 

[Isaac Grant]

Well its clear that MJ has made his decision and bought himself a very good lens. Congrats and I look forward to some results. Also am still hoping that I am wrong and the the 100-400ii is in fact better than my Sigma so that I can switch. I'm always happy to buy new gear. ;D

Tom, I think you are slightly confused. It is not the lens that is not sharp at 500-600 for BIF, it is your (and by that I mean all of us that are not freakishly strong and steady) ability to hand hold the lens steady enough. It is extremely difficult to pan and keep pace with fast flying birds in general. When you introduce human error, shaking or not panning at the perfect speed to keep up with your bird then things get even harder. That issue is compounded greatly by the extra magnification. In addition you are shooting with no IS as well at 600mm. Unless you have a very high shutter speed and perfect technique your results will not be tack sharp. So I think that considering the conditions that you did very well. Working out more is funny enough a great way to improve your BIF shots with large and awkward lenses that are fully extended. Now I am not calling you weak so please take no offense. It is just that the Tamron is a large and heavy lens. When fully extended it is far from easy to hold steady. If you add fast moving birds and any degree of wind then that complicates matters even more. I think these are pros for the Canon by the way. A bit lighter and shorter of a lens, better IS for BIF and weight is distributed better so easier to hold steady while panning.

I've said this before elsewhere, but is it really a matter of strength? I am decidedly weak, especially my hands and wrists, but I use my 500L handheld all the time. Birds in flight, not all that much, but I have done plenty over the years. Maybe it's a matter of developing a technique that works for you - though I've no doubt building muscle strength would help. Just my experience.

(The biggest problem I have with BIF is finding/keeping the bird in the frame, especially smaller ones with unpredictable flight paths).

I can say that when I was shooting with my 400 5.6 L that it felt like there was nothing attached to the camera. Very light and easy to carry and use. My Tamron and now Sigma are much heavier, and longer. When fully extended they are very top heavy. Any wind in the area will catch hold of the lens hood and push it around like a sail. I know that I get tired holding this thing up for long periods of time and I am quite fit. 43, 5'10" and 165 pounds. I have tried a friends 500 L ii and it is balanced much better than the long zooms so it is therefore easier to hand hold despite the added weight. I know that for me, I suffer from some fatigue after long periods of time of hand holding and any extra strength helps with keeping things steady while panning or hold still while photographing a bird coming straight at me. That combined with proper technique is the key.

I am 6'2" and for fun go paddle my canoe solo for 20+ K...... Last weekend I carried my canoe over 9K of portages (Cedar-canvas, twice the weight of those modern light weight ones), so I think it is safe to say I have sufficient upper body strength...... I find the Tamron 150-600 to be heavy.

For stabilizing the lens better than just hand-holding it, lean against something and you will be more steady. If you can lean the lens barrel/supporting hand against a tree, side of a building, pole, whatever, your camera/lens becomes a lot easier to hold and the stabilization is greatly improved again.... Shooting a long lens is different technique than a short lens.

I totally agree and don't think it can be over stated just difficult getting perfect technique for fast flying birds at long focal lengths with top heavy lenses really is. There is a reason that so few tack sharp shots like those are out there. And even more so for the fast flyers (unless there is a great deal of distance between you and the birds).

All of what we are describing is a major pro for the Canon as I have already stated. By biggest reason for not getting one is that I shoot in close very often and use more than the middle 5 focus points all the time. For that reason the Canon combo just does not work for me as I would not be able to properly frame my shots.

For example. Used a focus point on the top and far right on this shot at 600mm
Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

and on the top and left side on this shot. Could not get these framed this way if I had the canon and 1.4x
Ruddy Turnstone by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

 

[scyrene]

If we're talking about technique, I should say, it's a lot easier to lift, point, and shoot (even for a few minutes) than keep the camera/lens raised and aimed at a fairly static target for long periods (like a bird feeder). The latter case is ideal for a monopod or tripod.

Birds in flight are fine but after a while (tens of minutes to an hour or two) it is exhausting - air shows are similar. But I personally see no use for tripods in that situation - birds especially move too fast/unpredictably for a fixed camera (sure, bigger birds like gulls, geese, etc are easier but still).

 

[Isaac Grant]

If we're talking about technique, I should say, it's a lot easier to lift, point, and shoot (even for a few minutes) than keep the camera/lens raised and aimed at a fairly static target for long periods (like a bird feeder). The latter case is ideal for a monopod or tripod.

Birds in flight are fine but after a while (tens of minutes to an hour or two) it is exhausting - air shows are similar. But I personally see no use for tripods in that situation - birds especially move too fast/unpredictably for a fixed camera (sure, bigger birds like gulls, geese, etc are easier but still).

Totally agree. I had a very hard time photographing the turnstone and sanderlings above. They were in a tight group for many hours on a jetty. Every once in a while one would break off from the group for a few moments before slowly being swallowed up again. If you were not ready when it was on its own with a clean background then you would have missed the shot. There were many times where I just had to let the camera hang off my side as I could not hold it steady any longer. And I'm not too proud to admit that my front shoulders were sore the next day from holding the camera up off and on for about 3 hours. To further complicate matters, I was standing in the ocean, getting hit by waves and it was windy. Times like that have made me think long and hard about a shorter and smaller lens like the 100-400 ii. I have used my monopod twice. Once in my yard where I have loads of shade and waited a really long time for a sparrow to come out in the sun. And once on the beach in a really strong wind while photographing redpolls. There was no way that on my own I could have held the camera steady. But technique is so important when hand holding at high magnifications. Often it makes all the difference between a sharp shot or not.

 

[Don Haines]

I totally agree and don't think it can be over stated just difficult getting perfect technique for fast flying birds at long focal lengths with top heavy lenses really is. There is a reason that so few tack sharp shots like those are out there. And even more so for the fast flyers (unless there is a great deal of distance between you and the birds).

All of what we are describing is a major pro for the Canon as I have already stated. By biggest reason for not getting one is that I shoot in close very often and use more than the middle 5 focus points all the time. For that reason the Canon combo just does not work for me as I would not be able to properly frame my shots.

For example. Used a focus point on the top and far right on this shot at 600mm

and on the top and left side on this shot. Could not get these framed this way if I had the canon and 1.4x

you can always focus with the centre point (half press), shift the camera to the desired framing, and then press the shutter the rest of the way..... However, Like you, I prefer to have the framing and the focus point at the same time.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.

I have IS switched on all the time with my 500L, except on the rare occasions I'm using it on a tripod for astro work. It helps counteract body movement no matter how much light/whatever the subject matter, and offers no downside in my experience. I still have to keep the shutter speed up above 1/250-320 minimum for non-flying birds, but that's still below the traditional 1/focal length (especially when an extender is attached). Incidentally, it also stabilises the image in the viewfinder, which can help a lot when tracking/keeping a subject in the frame.

I have found that IS slows AF lock by a fraction of a second - not much but enough to have cost me shots! Also whilst IS is great for keeping moving subjects stable in the viewfinder it is also good at keeping them unstable on the sensor! When tracking moving (especially fast moving) subjects you are fighting the IS as it tries to stabilise the image. You can use Mode 2 but what if it is crossing at 45 degrees? Or coming straight overhead?
My Canon 800 F5.6 L IS has the second latest (4 stop) IS system that Canon offer and I have used a few Mk2 Superteles with their latest system, add to that the Sigma and Nikon Superteles that I have used and I always find I get more keepers with IS off on moving subjects.
On static subjects I will use IS if shutter speeds drop too low and I am hand holding - eg 1/500 sec or slower when hand holding my 800mm. Unfortunately is the light is that bad then I am unlikely to get a good shot - but I do try occasionally!
If using the IS on your 500mm suits you then that's great but my experience strongly suggests that you may be better off with it turned off for normal use. Give it a go sometime - you can always turn it back on!
I only mention this business of turning IS off as it has significantly raised my keeper rate and given me images that I may otherwise have missed (due to the split second delay in AF acquisition) and others will probably benefit from giving it a go. I certainly have.

 

[scyrene]

I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.

I have IS switched on all the time with my 500L, except on the rare occasions I'm using it on a tripod for astro work. It helps counteract body movement no matter how much light/whatever the subject matter, and offers no downside in my experience. I still have to keep the shutter speed up above 1/250-320 minimum for non-flying birds, but that's still below the traditional 1/focal length (especially when an extender is attached). Incidentally, it also stabilises the image in the viewfinder, which can help a lot when tracking/keeping a subject in the frame.

I have found that IS slows AF lock by a fraction of a second - not much but enough to have cost me shots! Also whilst IS is great for keeping moving subjects stable in the viewfinder it is also good at keeping them unstable on the sensor! When tracking moving (especially fast moving) subjects you are fighting the IS as it tries to stabilise the image. You can use Mode 2 but what if it is crossing at 45 degrees? Or coming straight overhead?
My Canon 800 F5.6 L IS has the second latest (4 stop) IS system that Canon offer and I have used a few Mk2 Superteles with their latest system, add to that the Sigma and Nikon Superteles that I have used and I always find I get more keepers with IS off on moving subjects.
On static subjects I will use IS if shutter speeds drop too low and I am hand holding - eg 1/500 sec or slower when hand holding my 800mm. Unfortunately is the light is that bad then I am unlikely to get a good shot - but I do try occasionally!
If using the IS on your 500mm suits you then that's great but my experience strongly suggests that you may be better off with it turned off for normal use. Give it a go sometime - you can always turn it back on!
I only mention this business of turning IS off as it has significantly raised my keeper rate and given me images that I may otherwise have missed (due to the split second delay in AF acquisition) and others will probably benefit from giving it a go. I certainly have.

I hear what you're saying but I don't feel like I'm missing shots, due to that or anything else. But I am rarely shooting BIF anyhow, so maybe that's it.

 

[tomscott]

The 5D works slightly differently to the 7DMKII, you cant set ai focus to the af button on the 5D, you can decouple the af from the shutter but you have to select ai focus to use it in combination with which ever button you want to af with. You can set the dof preview button to one shot although just pressing af button once in ai servo will act like one shot but the 7D is a little more refined in that respect.

For birds I always use back button focus in ai servo with mode 6 which is subjects that move quickly and erratically. I like to use the 9 point expansion and the centre point with 4 expansion points.

I like the tammy for everything but BIF.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The 5D works slightly differently to the 7DMKII, you cant set ai focus to the af button on the 5D, you can decouple the af from the shutter but you have to select ai focus to use it in combination with which ever button you want to af with. You can set the dof preview button to one shot although just pressing af button once in ai servo will act like one shot but the 7D is a little more refined in that respect.

For birds I always use back button focus in ai servo with mode 6 which is subjects that move quickly and erratically. I like to use the 9 point expansion and the centre point with 4 expansion points.

I like the tammy for everything but BIF.

7d2 seems much more versatile for that action shooting as it is so highly customizable. But I fear we have strayed a bit from the topic of this thread ;D

 

[MJ]

Great, helpful tips from everybody and fantastic photos (hard work!!) tomscott and Isaac Grant!

 

[tomscott]

We have strayed but I think the techniques are even more important like you say at 600mm! So hopefully will be helpful to other looking at this focal length!

 

[Isaac Grant]

Great, helpful tips from everybody and fantastic photos (hard work!!) tomscott and Isaac Grant!

Just wanted to be sure we didn't hijack the thread too much. How heavy and how difficult these lenses are to use should really be a major factor when deciding which lens to purchase.

 

[MJ]

My budget solution is to get the excellent EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM and mount it on an SL1 (or 70D). This combo has been my go-to solution for the 100-400 range. Quality is surprisingly good.

I totally agree.. Funny enough some of my favorite opportunistic bird shots have been taken with that lens and I'm still torn on whether I should sell this little gem or not.


But having 70-200 IS 2.8 IS II & 100-400 II as well is kind of ridiculous...

 

[chrysoberyl]

This is a fascinating thread and my thanks to all. I am waiting for the 400 5.6 replacement. The 400 DO looks great, except for the price; too high for me. The Sigma 300 2.8 is also intriguing - no IS but fast and sharp, even in corners. But 1.5 lbs. heavier than the Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 Extender III. I am surprised it has not been mentioned here.

 

[tomscott]

I don't see owning the 70-200 and the 100-400mm ridiculous they are very different lenses but can be considered similar depends how you use them. My 70-200mm is a bread and butter wedding/portrait lens and the 100-400mm will be used for Motorsport and wildlife. My 70-200mm did both with a 2x extender because the mki 100-400 performed similarly now the 100-400mm is much better and it's focusing distance is amazing and the sharpness with a 1.4 is impressive its truely a versitile lens. Although owning both is costly if your making money with them it's not so much of an issue.

The 70-200mm with a 2x is a great combo imo but the bokeh is nasty and it's slow at times unless it locks on the first frame so I'm looking forward to getting the 100-400mm