Value Lens for birding

[jeanluc]

Just wondering if anyone has any advice about a (relatively) inexpensive strategy for casual bird shooting.

Right now I use a 5D3 or 5D2 for most of my work (landscapes) but I do some wildlife/bird shooting as well. I use a 7D with the 70-300L for this. It has produced some very good results. The low light performance of the 7D is good, but obviously not 5D caliber. The 7D shoots faster, but there is no doubt the AF on it misses significantly more than the 5D3.

I have used the 5D3/70-300L combo, it focuses great, low light not a problem but of course the reach isn't there, and cropping seems like a wash if you compare both.

Huge white lenses are too expensive and too bulky for the amount I would use them.

So I was thinking of getting a 400 5.6L for the 5D3 to remedy the above. Any thoughts if this makes sense? Anybody try it for this scenario? I realize there is no IS and it's not the fastest , which is too bad since bird photography for me means hand holding the combo because at least around here, they fly around a lot, so a tripod is out.........

Does this make sense? The other option I guess is to trade the 7D for either a 70D or wait for the 7D2. Only problem there is I am not sure it makes $ense to get another APS-C body just for this type of shooting.

Thanks for any advice, and if anybody has any experience with the 5D3/400 5.6 used as above that I would like to hear about it.

 

[Dylan777]

Check out these threads:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18571.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17958.0

 

[kinawa]

Hi ,

I've been using the 5D3 + 400 5.6 for some time now and the only thing I miss is IS.
Ofcourse more reach would be great since 400mm is not much on FF.
This is the lightest & cheapest tele combo for the 5d3.
It is very sharp if enough light & > shutter speeds.
Good value and not as heavy makes it a winner if you ask me.

PS don't experiment with cheaper lenses & extenders , they are not worth it, I tried ;-)

 

[20Dave]

I shoot birds almost exclusively (hobbyist, not a pro). I have the 400 f/5.6 and a Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter on my 5DIII virtually all of the time. I've been very happy with it, but with two caveats:
1) I can't use AFMA with this setup. Fortunately, the focus has been good enough without needing to adjust it with my particular setup.
2) Being well into my second year with this setup, I am starting to long for IS. I have very shaky hands, so I need to set the shutter speed at or near 1/2000 for sharp images at the 640mm focal length. With the f/8 maximum aperture of this combo (and I prefer f/11 for a reasonable depth of field), that means that the ISO is usually well into the thousands unless it's a sunny day and not in the woods.

I think that the 400 is a great balance of price/performance, and it's actually the reason why I choose Canon rather than Nikon when I entered the DSLR world about 8 years ago (with a 20D). And if you really start getting into birding, I think that you'll find that you'll eventually want a 1.4x extender of some sort.

I'm really hoping for a new 400 with IS or a 100-400 Mark II sometime this year. At the same time I may upgrade to the Canon 1.4x to get AFMA. As a side note, I gave up waiting for the 7DII last winter and splurged on a 5DIII. I have no regrets on that front, and will continue happily shooting with my current setup as I wait for the next batch of telephotos (that aren't in the $10k range).

Dave

 

[Steve]

Look into that new Tamron 150-600. Dylan's links go to thread discussions and by all accounts its a tremendous lens for entry level wildlife photography. I started out with a 400 f5.6 on a crop (40D and 7D) and its great but if the Tammy had been around when I was first getting into birding I would have gone for that in a heartbeat. I mean seriously, IQ that matches or beats Canon's 100-400, an extra 200mm on the long end and IS for just over 1000USD. What's not to love (other than the slow aperture at 600 but, eh, tradeoffs)?

 

[jprusa]

Hi ,

I've been using the 5D3 + 400 5.6 for some time now and the only thing I miss is IS.
Ofcourse more reach would be great since 400mm is not much on FF.
This is the lightest & cheapest tele combo for the 5d3.
It is very sharp if enough light & > shutter speeds.
Good value and not as heavy makes it a winner if you ask me.

PS don't experiment with cheaper lenses & extenders , they are not worth it, I tried ;-)

+1

 

[Old Sarge]

Look into that new Tamron 150-600. Dylan's links go to thread discussions and by all accounts its a tremendous lens for entry level wildlife photography. I started out with a 400 f5.6 on a crop (40D and 7D) and its great but if the Tammy had been around when I was first getting into birding I would have gone for that in a heartbeat. I mean seriously, IQ that matches or beats Canon's 100-400, an extra 200mm on the long end and IS for just over 1000USD. What's not to love (other than the slow aperture at 600 but, eh, tradeoffs)?

I read both threads on the Tamron 150-600 and developed a real interest in buying it but can't locate one in stock anywhere. Thought about buying one from Adorama or B&H but I would get the most use out of it while on vacation and my spring/summer trip may arrive before the lens would. Fall trip I probably won't need it so it may be another year before I get one.

 

[miah]

I too use the 400 f/5.6 with Kenko 1.4x on my 5D3 for birds. I don't miss IS too much because BIF shooting requires a high shutter speed anyway. In low light I use a tripod/gimbal. This lens is light, small, sharp and the AF is very fast. I especially like the built-in lens hood. I bought mine from Canon through their online store: refurb $900. Recommended.

 

[surapon]

Dear friends.
Sorry, I am not the Birder, But If I go to shoot the birds in the wild, I use 100-400mm + 2X for portable on the airplane, and 600 mm + 2X for driving in the car.
Enjoy.
Surapon

 

[Velo Steve]

I would suggest turning off the IS on your existing lens and trying it under a range of conditions. It's a cheap way to know whether the loss of IS will bother you much. I find myself shooting at 1/250th and slower fairly often when the light isn't great, so IS is a big deal to me. And no - my birds won't sit still for a tripod shot either.

I'm not saying this is the best choice for you, but my most common setup for birds is a 300 F4 L IS with a 1.4x II extender. That was my attempt to stay away from 5-digit lens prices. It's not too bad, but I find that I have to stop down to F8 to get acceptable* sharpness with the extender, and F11 is better. That means higher ISO and lower shutter speeds than I would like, most of the time.

*Okay, "acceptable" is relative. If the goal is to clearly identify the bird and keep a record of it, F5.6 is plenty sharp. If the goal is a print worth framing, it's not.

If I were shopping now, I would avoid anything that has to be stopped down below F5.6. The 400 F4 would fit the bill, but I'm not willing to give up IS.

I've attached an example of the compromises I end up making. It's a White-eared Jacamar on a cloudy day in the Amazon. You could argue with the exact settings, but here's what happened: ISO 3200, F8, 1/400 second, 420mm (300 x 1.4), on a 5DIII. Taken from a small boat, or I would have used a lower shutter speed and ISO.

It's a pretty noisy shot, but I didn't have the option to wait for a sunnier day. I could have bought the 600 F4, but then I couldn't have afforded the trip to the Amazon .

 

[justaCanonuser]

As others in this thread I can recommend the 5D3 + 400/5.6 combo, too. I use it as a lighter gear (+ a 7D) when I don't want to carry my 500mm prime with me. For birders the 400/5.6 has the advantage that it delivers 1st class prime sharpness at 400 mm with no compromises, and as birder you mostly shoot at longest possible focal length. It is also quite light and very good balanced with a 5D or 7D body, it is a real pleasure to hold it. Another nice thing is that it is not as prone to AF pumping if you shoot a bird in front of a vivid background as e.g. the EF 300/4. On the downside it has virtually no macro capabilities with 3.5 m minimum distance.

That said, I promise you that you will have to face a steep learning curve due the lack of IS and the quite small angle of view. So you need to be patient on the first photo tours. Once you are adapted to this combo you will love it. If you think about using a teleconverter I highly recommend you Canon's 1.4x Mark III TC. I upgraded from a Kenko Teleplus 300 1.4x TC, and Canon's TC is really superior both in image quality and AF performance. When you shoot birds in flight you get much more in-focus keepers than with Kenko's TC.

 

[jeanluc]

Actually, its a great shot, and I agree, its more important to spend $$ on going to cool places so you can make use of the gear you already have.

Sounds like the 400 5.6 is great if there is a lot of light, which is what I figured, but the lack of IS is an issue. For that price, obviously you don't get it all. Right now, the 7d and 70-300L combo also works great in good light WITH IS, so whether I really gain using the 5D3/400 5.6 combo vs the 7d/70-300L combo is debateable (aside from better AF).

I really wish they would make a new version of this lens with IS, even at a few hundred more I suspect it would sell well, since the next thing up the ladder is the 400 f4 DO, which is a lot pricier.

I may rent one of the 400's to try it out.

If the fabled 7d2 ever comes out, hopefully it has better high ISO/AF performance than its predecessor. If it does, after the first price drop on it happens, the most cost effective option may end up being just getting the newbody for the 70-300L as a dedicated APS-C birding body.

I think that any of the FF 400+/IS options right now would cost quite a bit more than the price difference between a 7D and 7D2, so this may end up being the cheapest solution for 640mm of reach.......

 

[jthomson]

I've used the 5D3 with the 400 mm F5.6 with both the kenko 300 1.4x and the canon 1.4x III. Didn't notice much difference between the two converters. I definitely felt the need for the converter to get the reach that was lost moving from crop to full frame.

I've also used the Tamron 150-600mm. I'm quite impressed with this lens. The AF isn't as fast as the Canon 400, but the image quality is as good as the canon with the 1.4x converter. 600mm at f8 gives a very usable picture. It's not the Canon 600mm F4L, but it doesn't cost $12,000. I think this lens is very suitable for casual birding. It's got the reach, it zooms and it has VC.

 

[20Dave]

I really wish they would make a new version of this lens with IS, even at a few hundred more I suspect it would sell well, since the next thing up the ladder is the 400 f4 DO, which is a lot pricier.

Just a SWAG based on the price increase between the 70-200 MkI and MkII, I'm guessing that any new 400mm IS (whether a prime or 100ish-400 zoom) will be in the $3k range. Still more affordable than a DO, but with pent up demand for such a lens, I think that they could get a fair revenue stream even at that level.

 

[icassell]

I have been shooting birds with my 7D and 400/5.6 for several years. Even after buying my Canon 500/4, I find myself frequently going back to the 400 as it remains an outstanding optic and ideal for birds-in flight. It is also a lot easier to carry when I travel.
I have never really missed IS on the lens. It is lighter than the 100-400 and sharper and easier to handhold. I have often seen used ones in excellent condition for sale in th $1K range.

 

[AlanF]

400 is simply too short on full frame. I use either the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on the 5DIII or 70D or the Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DIII (with plenty of offerings in the Bird Portraits or the BIF threads). Both are great fun for hand held shots with the Tammy being the best bang for bucks by a country mile and the Canon having the edge at the limits of resolution. In my opinion both the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm, both great lenses in their day and ones that I have owned, have been superseded by the Tammy. You can still take great photos with the Canons 400s but the Tammy gives extra reach and IS and is cheaper or similarly priced. The 300mm is very expensive but is worth every cent or penny if you want that bit extra.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Actually, its a great shot, and I agree, its more important to spend $$ on going to cool places so you can make use of the gear you already have.

Sounds like the 400 5.6 is great if there is a lot of light, which is what I figured, but the lack of IS is an issue. For that price, obviously you don't get it all. Right now, the 7d and 70-300L combo also works great in good light WITH IS, so whether I really gain using the 5D3/400 5.6 combo vs the 7d/70-300L combo is debateable (aside from better AF).

I really wish they would make a new version of this lens with IS, even at a few hundred more I suspect it would sell well, since the next thing up the ladder is the 400 f4 DO, which is a lot pricier.

I may rent one of the 400's to try it out.

If the fabled 7d2 ever comes out, hopefully it has better high ISO/AF performance than its predecessor. If it does, after the first price drop on it happens, the most cost effective option may end up being just getting the newbody for the 70-300L as a dedicated APS-C birding body.

I think that any of the FF 400+/IS options right now would cost quite a bit more than the price difference between a 7D and 7D2, so this may end up being the cheapest solution for 640mm of reach.......

I wouldn't get too hung up on the lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 as with the 5D3 you can go to higher ISO to reduce the effect of the lack of IS. Remember that for many (wildlife?) situations the shutter speed you need is more than the 400mm focal length would dictate.
Currently my "Long" lens is a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - well it's not an IS anymore as the IS system is playing up! 4 months ago I turned the IS off and decided to get it repaired. Since then I have just carried on shooting and the only difference is that my AF is faster! True I have to keep shutter speeds above 1/500 sec, but if I am perfectly happy with an 800mm with (effectively) no IS I don't think you will have an issue with a 400mm.
Note I do, hand hold this lens - after several deep breaths!

 

[TexPhoto]

The 400 5.6 has a wonderful reputation. The Tamron 150-600 certainly looks like a contender. Here is a great review that includes both. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk&list=PLwIVS3_dKVpsjSZrQ7H-Nw8GQ7ZuDYyaD

 

[streestandtheatres]

I bought a 400 5.6 for my 600d and I haven't noticed the lack of IS. OK, I live in a sunny country, but the autofocus on the 600 isn't exactly stellar, nor the iso performance, and I haven't had any problems. I mostly get away with 1/1250-1/1600 at f5.6-7.1 and iso under 800. For me, not having to fuss over zooming makes my life easier, as there are fewer options for composition, which is what I need with quick moving animals. (It's fun for surfing portraits too! 1/1200, 5.6, 400)
I bought the lens second hand for a very good price, too, cheaper than I could buy the Tamron...

 

[bholliman]

I bought a 400 5.6 for my 600d and I haven't noticed the lack of IS. OK, I live in a sunny country, but the autofocus on the 600 isn't exactly stellar, nor the iso performance, and I haven't had any problems. I mostly get away with 1/1250-1/1600 at f5.6-7.1 and iso under 800. For me, not having to fuss over zooming makes my life easier, as there are fewer options for composition, which is what I need with quick moving animals. (It's fun for surfing portraits too! 1/1200, 5.6, 400)
I bought the lens second hand for a very good price, too, cheaper than I could buy the Tamron...

Excellent shots, love the light in the second one!