Canon wildlife lenses

[Dronfield]

Hi

I am new to this board and having read many posts re the best canon lens for wildlife am getting a bit confused re what will be the best option for myself.

I presently use a 40D and will one day upgrade to the 7D.

The lens I use for wildlife is the Sigma 170-500mm and I am now looking to upgrade.

Majority of my wildlife photography is either in the garden or at RSPB/WWT reserves.

The options I am looking at - based on advise given on this board are;

300mm F4 prime with 1.4 convertor - and adding the 400mm prime at a later date, Or the 100 - 400mm zoom.

Various people have said the prime lenses are beter than the zoom - does this apply to the 300mm with the convertor attached?

Also, what sort of results am I likley to get with the 100-400mm with the 1.4 convertor?

Majority of the time I use a monopod or tripod, but do want to be able to take BIF - such as the Gannets at Bempton Cliffs etc, and so IS is a key factor here.

Whilst I know I will never earn a living from photography, I would still like to be able to take the odd photo that is good enough to be entered into competitions such as BBC Countryfile etc, and so image quality is important to me.

I accept the uestions I have asked have been discussed before - I guess the decision is going to be based on what people think aboutthe 100-400mm lens and particularly with the convertor on it.

Many thanks for any help you can offer here.

Richard

[Foz]

Hi Richard,
one bit of advice would be to forget using any extender with the 100-400L.
On its own its an OK lens, 2 stops IS, fair focus speed, fair IQ.
It can be a little soft in poor light and wider than f8.
On the 40D you would also lose AF unless you tape the pins and the lens would spend a lot of time hunting, causing possible damage to the USM.
The EF300f4LIS works very well with the Mk2 and Mk3 extenders.
You just have to get used to using a prime lens.
Focus speed is good, IQ is excellent, IS excellent and its light compared to the "pump", but not as flexible due to the fixed focal length.
The EF400f5.6L is a cracking lens for BIF shots.
Quick focus speed, great IQ, its light, but no IS.
Keep the shutter speed quicker than the focal length and you shouldnt need IS.
So if I was looking for a 400mm-ish lens I would go straight for the EF400f5.6L.

[squishy]

There is or used to be (some people say it's much better now) a fair bit of copy variation in the 100-400L.

The copies that are up to scratch seem to be as sharp as the 300 + 1.4x combo.
But if you as around some people will say they had a 100-400 that was softer than a sigma 150-500, and some will say it is as sharp as the 400 prime.

The 100-400 I have produces great images even with open at 400mm.

I would have quite liked the 300 f/4 and 1.4x because it focussed closer, but this worked out significantly more expensive when I was buying (prices have probably changed now).

I think slimrbp is the person to ask about the 100-400 vs 300 f/4 (/1.4x), he's posted some good comparisons in the past.

If you can do without IS and closer focussing, the 400/5.6L certainly has the best image quality available in this price range. Seems to be the lens for bird in flight shots, being light and very fast focussing.

It's a tricky choice because each lens has it's strengths and weaknesses (plus conflicting reports on 100-400 image quality), but they're all great lenses anyway.

[glsammy]

I certainly wouldn't worry about the lack of IS with the 400mm F5.6L, especially for BIF. I love going to Bempton with mine and I can't think of any time when I wished for or needed IS!
Don't forget your usually moving anyway when taking those types of shots and with the right conditions you've usually got sufficient shutter speed to make the IS redundant.
The real big advantage the 400mm F5.6L has over the 300mm with a 1.4 is AF speed. I had that set up for a while and although I couldn't fault the image quality I didn't like the AF performance.

[Foz]

glsammy,
I think that with the new Mk3 extenders from Canon you would notice a big leap in AF speed on the EF300f4LIS.
I even use the 2x on this lens for peregrine stoop shots, its a lot lighter than swinging a 500 or 600mm around.
But I still agree that the 400f5.6L is one of the best BIF lens around for the price.

[Dronfield]

Hi Foz, Squishy & Graham

Thanks for the excellent advice - I have not had internet access for past 3 days and so only just read your posts.

I think I will go for ther 400mm and also buy a 1.4 convertor.

We have been down at WWT Slimbridge, and tried to photograph a couple of Buzzards that were sitting in trees, and am very disappointed with the results from the Sigma 170-500mm - yes the birds were some way away, but on cropping the pics, the images are not acceptable.

Appreciate all your comments here guys.

Thanks

Richard

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I certainly wouldn't worry about the lack of IS with the 400mm F5.6L, especially for BIF. I love going to Bempton with mine and I can't think of any time when I wished for or needed IS!
Don't forget your usually moving anyway when taking those types of shots and with the right conditions you've usually got sufficient shutter speed to make the IS redundant.
The real big advantage the 400mm F5.6L has over the 300mm with a 1.4 is AF speed. I had that set up for a while and although I couldn't fault the image quality I didn't like the AF performance.

I certainly endorse what Graham (glsammy) says about the 400mm f5.6L for bird in flight shots. It's a lens that can't be beaten for in flight work. It's light and very fast to focus and the image quality is second to none.

I use both the 400mm F5.6L without IS and the 500mm F4 with IS for birds in flight and quite honestly the lack of IS on the 400mm F5.6L is not a problem.

You mentioned that you would be upgrading to a 7D at some point. The 400mm F5.6L and a 7D are a great combination. One of the best birding set ups you will get.

[Foz]

Hi Roger,
I do agree that the 400f5.6L is a great BIF lens, but I do think that the 300f4LIS is equal on AF speed using the Mk3 converters.
And in very poor light ( shooting down to 1/60 sec at f4) the 300 wins easily.
As for value, the 400 is the best.
Its a few 100£ cheaper, and the Mk3 converters are very expensive at the moment.
I dont have a 7D to try the combo's on though, I only owned one for one day before selling it and going back to my trusted Mk3 and Mk4 bodies.

[The_Moaner]

I bought the 400 f5.6 and it is a Great lens. But after seeing the images from two friends new 100-400mm I wish I had bought that instead.
All those who said the 100-400 was soft at the 400 end are Wrong with the newer ones. If you buy the 400, you won't regret it, but you will regret it when the bird you want comes closer to you. I would say buy the 100-400 and forget the converter.
Good Luck.

[johnf3f]

Originally Posted by The_Moaner

I bought the 400 f5.6 and it is a Great lens. But after seeing the images from two friends new 100-400mm I wish I had bought that instead.
All those who said the 100-400 was soft at the 400 end are Wrong with the newer ones. If you buy the 400, you won't regret it, but you will regret it when the bird you want comes closer to you. I would say buy the 100-400 and forget the converter.
Good Luck.

Sorry Dennis I disagree - the 100-400 is a great lens (had mine for 5 1/2 years!) but either the 300mm F4 IS or 400mm F5.6 will significantly out perform it for wildlife work. However if you want to do a bit of landscape etc the 100-400's versatility really comes into it's own! The 100-400 is a really great general purpose telephoto lens, but (in IMHO) the 300 or 400 are significantly better for wildlife.