Hello all,
I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT with a 100-300mm zoom lens at the moment. This is alright for taking photos of birds and the like that I can get somewhat close to, but what about the far off stuff? How can I capture a falcon that is in flight and fairly high in the sky or a Heron that is on the other side of the lake? I want to get some good zoom without breaking the bank here as well. What is my next step in lenses or converters? I also want to have good picture quality and don't know if a converter will harm that? Anything is much appreciated. Thanks.
I'm not a bird photographer myself so hopefully someone from the Avian community can sound off here as well, but I would recommend you check out Arthur Morris's "The Art of Bird Photography" book as a great primer.
Guy
Posted by Steve Foss on February 20, 2007 at 8:33 AM
I second Guy's advice. There's a lot of value in that book.
To get the best quality you can, I'd avoid the zoom lenses in your next purchase. Canon makes an excellent 100-400 L series image stabilizer, which I own and use a lot, but at max focal length, shot wide open, it's a little soft. The rule of thumb is that avian photographers need at least 400mm, and I've found that to be true in many situations, though you can get away with less sometimes. Canon makes one L series 400 mm fixed focal length lens that's affordable, the f5.6 non image stabilizer. It's a bit over $1,000. It's quite good. You'll need a tripod or at least a monopod to help it perform at its best.
However, going from 300mm to 400mm isn't a huge boost, though it's valuable to have that reach. You still have to develop a good, quiet, slow-moving manner while you're out there to enable you to get close enough for bird portraits. That would be true even if you had the 600 f4 L IS and teleconverters. Environmental portraits, which can be just as compelling as the tight full-frame portraits so many people seem to want, make less demand on max focal length.
Good luck!
Posted by William Lloyd on February 20, 2007 at 10:14 AM
"The Art of Bird Photography II" is available now on CD: http://www.birdsasart.com/ABPII.htm an is extremely worthwhile.
As Steve said, the 400mm f/5.6 lens gives better results than the 100-400 does at 400mm, and this is expecially so with the 1.4EX used to get 560mm - however, the use of the 1.4EX means you will loose autofocus on your camera, only the 1-series pro bodies autofocus at f/8.
The extender does degrade the quality slightly, however, but is more tolerable on the prime 400mm lens then on the 100-400.
For fixed position birds, you cannot have too rigid a platform for your camera/lens. Again, reading 'The Art of Bird Photography II' will give you all you could wish for, and more, regarding this and flight photography. The illustrations alone are worth the purchase price.
For free: http://www.birdsasart.com/#BIRD%20AS%20ART%20ON-LINE%20BULLETINS
Subscribe to Arthur Morris' bulletins newsletters - more terrific images, up to date technical information, every bulletin is like a mini-seminar in bird photography, and it's free.
So if you have a 400mm fixed focal length lens then how can you get the frame you want with avian photography? Do you just hope that the bird gets in the right range for the photo? I would think this would be very difficult without being able to zoom in and out to change the frame of the photo to what you would want it to be.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 26, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Kyle, that's just the ongoing conundrum revisited. The flexibility of the zoom vs the slight increase in sharpness of the prime. Often, going with a prime also means a couple stop increase in aperture performance, which can be a huge advantage, but between the 100-400 and fixed 400 f5.6L that's not a consideration. I chose the zoom because I needed that fexibility, and because the zoom, when either bumped down to 350mm or stopped down to f7.1 or more, looses that small amount of softness. At least that's how my copy works. If I'm six feet from a nuthatch shooting tight portrait shots and a deer steps from the woods 30 feet away, I'm not stuck shooting its head/neck, like I would be with the prime. I can suck in the zoom and shoot full figured shots.
I will say that with avian photography I'm far more likely to want the additional reach than I am the zoom flexibility. When shooting larger birds that don't mind you being close, the zoom is nice, but there aren't really that many large bird species that allow such proximity, and many of the small birds are wary and don't like us near them, so reach can be a big issue. The other factor causing the need for more reach is that, while many avian photographers love birds and photography, only the most dedicated have the combination of excellent woodscraft and patience needed to get nice tight images of smaller wary birds with only 400mm of lens.
Shooting a wide variety of nature images, and having to meet framing and compositional needs that change from moment to moment, led me to the zoom. And a constricted budget keeps me from adding the 400 f2.8L, 500 f4L or 600 f4L and the extra reach and speed they provide, especially when coupled with a TC.
Which is best for you? That's for you to decide, fella. It's your money. Whichever lens you choose, the 100-400 or 400 f5.6 will provide significant increases in image and build quality over your current lens. In other words, whichever of the two you choose, you won't loose.
Discussion
5 repliesI have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT with a 100-300mm zoom lens at the moment. This is alright for taking photos of birds and the like that I can get somewhat close to, but what about the far off stuff? How can I capture a falcon that is in flight and fairly high in the sky or a Heron that is on the other side of the lake? I want to get some good zoom without breaking the bank here as well. What is my next step in lenses or converters? I also want to have good picture quality and don't know if a converter will harm that? Anything is much appreciated. Thanks.
Guy
To get the best quality you can, I'd avoid the zoom lenses in your next purchase. Canon makes an excellent 100-400 L series image stabilizer, which I own and use a lot, but at max focal length, shot wide open, it's a little soft. The rule of thumb is that avian photographers need at least 400mm, and I've found that to be true in many situations, though you can get away with less sometimes. Canon makes one L series 400 mm fixed focal length lens that's affordable, the f5.6 non image stabilizer. It's a bit over $1,000. It's quite good. You'll need a tripod or at least a monopod to help it perform at its best.
However, going from 300mm to 400mm isn't a huge boost, though it's valuable to have that reach. You still have to develop a good, quiet, slow-moving manner while you're out there to enable you to get close enough for bird portraits. That would be true even if you had the 600 f4 L IS and teleconverters. Environmental portraits, which can be just as compelling as the tight full-frame portraits so many people seem to want, make less demand on max focal length.
Good luck!
As Steve said, the 400mm f/5.6 lens gives better results than the 100-400 does at 400mm, and this is expecially so with the 1.4EX used to get 560mm - however, the use of the 1.4EX means you will loose autofocus on your camera, only the 1-series pro bodies autofocus at f/8.
The extender does degrade the quality slightly, however, but is more tolerable on the prime 400mm lens then on the 100-400.
For fixed position birds, you cannot have too rigid a platform for your camera/lens. Again, reading 'The Art of Bird Photography II' will give you all you could wish for, and more, regarding this and flight photography. The illustrations alone are worth the purchase price.
For free: http://www.birdsasart.com/#BIRD%20AS%20ART%20ON-LINE%20BULLETINS
Subscribe to Arthur Morris' bulletins newsletters - more terrific images, up to date technical information, every bulletin is like a mini-seminar in bird photography, and it's free.
Good shooting.
I will say that with avian photography I'm far more likely to want the additional reach than I am the zoom flexibility. When shooting larger birds that don't mind you being close, the zoom is nice, but there aren't really that many large bird species that allow such proximity, and many of the small birds are wary and don't like us near them, so reach can be a big issue. The other factor causing the need for more reach is that, while many avian photographers love birds and photography, only the most dedicated have the combination of excellent woodscraft and patience needed to get nice tight images of smaller wary birds with only 400mm of lens.
Shooting a wide variety of nature images, and having to meet framing and compositional needs that change from moment to moment, led me to the zoom. And a constricted budget keeps me from adding the 400 f2.8L, 500 f4L or 600 f4L and the extra reach and speed they provide, especially when coupled with a TC.
Which is best for you? That's for you to decide, fella. It's your money. Whichever lens you choose, the 100-400 or 400 f5.6 will provide significant increases in image and build quality over your current lens. In other words, whichever of the two you choose, you won't loose.