Hey everyone,
Currently I have a plain jane Canon 75-300mm zoom lens (the $300 dollar one) and am wanting to upgrade to another lens for avian photography.
I am wondering what route I should take? Zoom or fixed focal? How much zoom is necessary for good shots of sparrow-sized passerines. I want to be able to take good shots of smaller birds, it's just that some are so skiddish that it's really difficult with my 300mm capability.
There is a 100-400mm zoom lens with IS that Canon has to offer, is this a good option or do I need more zoom than that? Should I get a fixed focal length lens at 500 or 600mm?
I'm just confused on what my best option is. What do you all think??
Thanks!!
Kyle
Posted by Steve Foss on November 21, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Kyle, since you mentioned Canon's big guns, I'll assume you have the budget for the 500 or the 600.
The 500 is very popular with avian photographers. Significantly more reach than 400mm, but way lighter than the 600mm. And you can strap a 1.4 TC on it and not degrade image quality enough to matter.
You'll need a strong tripod and head for that lens.
I shoot the 100-400 a lot for birds, both in the field and set up in my backyard blind. I opted for that lens because I was on a budget and I need a lot of flexbility for my nature and other types of photography. Zooms by definition provide options that fixed focal lengths do not. While many, many avian photographers strive for tight portrait shots, I like enviornmentals a lot, and there have been times using the zoom I was able to zoom out a good bit and get an environmental I liked better than the tight stuff. From the blind, I also like how close the focus is (to just under six feet), which, on a 1.6 crop body, allows me to fill more than half the frame with birds as small as a chickadee.
If avian is what you want to concentrate on, however, I'd recommend that 500. That's what I'd pick if I didn't have budget concerns and wanted to focus most strongly on avian. No matter which Canon body you're shooting, the 500 and 1.4 TC (combined max aperture of f5.6) will autofocus, and that's a big consideration. "1" series bodies will autofocus lens/TC combos up to f8, but anything below that will only autofocus the combos up to f5.6.
Posted by Terry Sohl on November 21, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Best option for avian...buy the longest focal length you can afford, and don't look back!
No matter what with avian photography, the majority of the time, the problem is getting close enough to the bird to fill the frame to your satisfaction. No matter how long a lens you have, you'll often wish you had even more reach.
I simply can't afford the 500mm or 600mm. So, I bought the longest lens I could, the Canon 400mm 5.6L. Zoom or prime? Sure, you lose some flexibility with a prime, but my 400mm is as sharp as can be, and undoubtedly will perform better than a 100-400mm at full extension.
No matter what you decide on, you'll soon come to the realization that while focal length helps, it's your approach to finding and getting close to birds that has more to do with a successful photo.
I shoot mostly with a 100-400 IS. I really like it and I like the flexibility. I walk and shoot a lot and any larger and it would be a burden. Shooting this way you need flexibility and of course there is a sacrifice...sharpness. Not that much but I like sharpness a lot and if I was sitting in a blind or not moving so much I'd start saving for a 500.
Rick T
Posted by Pat Sampson on November 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Kyle,
I've used pretty much all the Canon lenses for birds now and this is where I've ended up. If I were always willing and able to shoot from a tripod or a car window, Id buy the 600. It's almost never too much reach for any of the shots I've wanted. If I wanted to be able to shoot hand held, at least for flight shots, I'd go with the 500. If I were backpacking I'd take the 400. Ideally you'd own all of them. (Hey, it's not that much more expensive than a good bass boat - smile) Good luck and good hunting.
Well...I didn't quite realize how much the 500 and 600mm lenses would hit my bank account. I think that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM for 1500 bucks or so is all I can afford right now.
Will this lens greatly outperform my current 75-300mm EF Zoom lens? I'd hate to spend all that cash on a lens that doesn't kick my $300 lens in the butt.
Posted by Josh Anderson on November 24, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Although the quality of the image will be improved, you are are not gaining much focal length. You may want to try one out before you buy to make sure its what you want. If you truly want to focus on avian subjects, I would save for the 500 or 600mm. I use the 600mm usually with a 1.4tc and sometimes stacked tc's. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 24, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Kyle, same size fits all, and the 100-400 is much better than the 75-300. Canon L lenses, increased sharpness aside, tend to vastly outperform "consumer" grade equivalent lenses when it comes to contrast, saturation and build quality. There are a few exceptions, but not in this case.
For a 100-400 for under $1,500, check out www.canogacamera.com. I've been buying exclusively from them for four years (only exception is when I need something RIGHT NOW and they are out of stock.) Prices are good and service is excellent. You can get the 100-400 at Canoga for under $1,300 with an instant rebate. Not sure how long that instant rebate will last, though.
If you don't already have one, I'd also consider picking up the optional Canon battery grip for the XT (about $130) when you can afford it. In moving up to an image stabilized lens, you can expect it to drain batteries faster, and the optional grip doubles your battery capability, not to mention allows you to shoot vertically in comfort because of the separate vertical controls. How much faster IS eats battery life is variable depending on the lens and the habits of the shooter, but in general the ballpark figure is 30 percent faster. The grip also improves the balance when shooting a heavier telephoto, and my hands, while not being monstrous, are big enough (with chunky fingers) that I'm a lot happier shooting the XT with the grip than without.
And if you want a supplier for excellent knockoff Canon batteries that last a long time, don't hurt the camera and are cheap, check out www.sterlingtek.com.
I use the XT as one of my backup bodies, and it performs nicely with the 100-400. You will be taking quite a step up from your 75-300. You also should be able to get some change from your 75-300 if it's in good shape by selling it.
There's a bit of a learning curve with IS and a much heavier lens, so don't be bashful about posting questions once you take delivery of your first L. Quite a few 100-400 users here. I also like to punctuate equipment talk with the exclamation point that upgrading equipment can be very important, but continuing to update your photographer's eye is even more important. And while the 500 and 600, of course, offer lots more focal length (especially when coupled with TCs), I've found that developing a competent woodscraft will get you in close enough to get the shot quite often. And when it doesn't, there are always those environmental compositions.
I vote for the 100-400 with or without the 1.4 extender for the most versitality, then a wide angle for your waterfalls and scenics. I use the 100-400 almost exclusively for avian and flowers and 28-135 IS for my scenics. Get those you'll have the full range covered.
Discussion
10 repliesCurrently I have a plain jane Canon 75-300mm zoom lens (the $300 dollar one) and am wanting to upgrade to another lens for avian photography.
I am wondering what route I should take? Zoom or fixed focal? How much zoom is necessary for good shots of sparrow-sized passerines. I want to be able to take good shots of smaller birds, it's just that some are so skiddish that it's really difficult with my 300mm capability.
There is a 100-400mm zoom lens with IS that Canon has to offer, is this a good option or do I need more zoom than that? Should I get a fixed focal length lens at 500 or 600mm?
I'm just confused on what my best option is. What do you all think??
Thanks!!
Kyle
The 500 is very popular with avian photographers. Significantly more reach than 400mm, but way lighter than the 600mm. And you can strap a 1.4 TC on it and not degrade image quality enough to matter.
You'll need a strong tripod and head for that lens.
I shoot the 100-400 a lot for birds, both in the field and set up in my backyard blind. I opted for that lens because I was on a budget and I need a lot of flexbility for my nature and other types of photography. Zooms by definition provide options that fixed focal lengths do not. While many, many avian photographers strive for tight portrait shots, I like enviornmentals a lot, and there have been times using the zoom I was able to zoom out a good bit and get an environmental I liked better than the tight stuff. From the blind, I also like how close the focus is (to just under six feet), which, on a 1.6 crop body, allows me to fill more than half the frame with birds as small as a chickadee.
If avian is what you want to concentrate on, however, I'd recommend that 500. That's what I'd pick if I didn't have budget concerns and wanted to focus most strongly on avian. No matter which Canon body you're shooting, the 500 and 1.4 TC (combined max aperture of f5.6) will autofocus, and that's a big consideration. "1" series bodies will autofocus lens/TC combos up to f8, but anything below that will only autofocus the combos up to f5.6.
No matter what with avian photography, the majority of the time, the problem is getting close enough to the bird to fill the frame to your satisfaction. No matter how long a lens you have, you'll often wish you had even more reach.
I simply can't afford the 500mm or 600mm. So, I bought the longest lens I could, the Canon 400mm 5.6L. Zoom or prime? Sure, you lose some flexibility with a prime, but my 400mm is as sharp as can be, and undoubtedly will perform better than a 100-400mm at full extension.
No matter what you decide on, you'll soon come to the realization that while focal length helps, it's your approach to finding and getting close to birds that has more to do with a successful photo.
Rick T
I've used pretty much all the Canon lenses for birds now and this is where I've ended up. If I were always willing and able to shoot from a tripod or a car window, Id buy the 600. It's almost never too much reach for any of the shots I've wanted. If I wanted to be able to shoot hand held, at least for flight shots, I'd go with the 500. If I were backpacking I'd take the 400. Ideally you'd own all of them. (Hey, it's not that much more expensive than a good bass boat - smile) Good luck and good hunting.
Pat
Will this lens greatly outperform my current 75-300mm EF Zoom lens? I'd hate to spend all that cash on a lens that doesn't kick my $300 lens in the butt.
Thanks!!
Rick T
Thanks!!
For a 100-400 for under $1,500, check out www.canogacamera.com. I've been buying exclusively from them for four years (only exception is when I need something RIGHT NOW and they are out of stock.) Prices are good and service is excellent. You can get the 100-400 at Canoga for under $1,300 with an instant rebate. Not sure how long that instant rebate will last, though.
If you don't already have one, I'd also consider picking up the optional Canon battery grip for the XT (about $130) when you can afford it. In moving up to an image stabilized lens, you can expect it to drain batteries faster, and the optional grip doubles your battery capability, not to mention allows you to shoot vertically in comfort because of the separate vertical controls. How much faster IS eats battery life is variable depending on the lens and the habits of the shooter, but in general the ballpark figure is 30 percent faster. The grip also improves the balance when shooting a heavier telephoto, and my hands, while not being monstrous, are big enough (with chunky fingers) that I'm a lot happier shooting the XT with the grip than without.
And if you want a supplier for excellent knockoff Canon batteries that last a long time, don't hurt the camera and are cheap, check out www.sterlingtek.com.
I use the XT as one of my backup bodies, and it performs nicely with the 100-400. You will be taking quite a step up from your 75-300. You also should be able to get some change from your 75-300 if it's in good shape by selling it.
There's a bit of a learning curve with IS and a much heavier lens, so don't be bashful about posting questions once you take delivery of your first L. Quite a few 100-400 users here. I also like to punctuate equipment talk with the exclamation point that upgrading equipment can be very important, but continuing to update your photographer's eye is even more important. And while the 500 and 600, of course, offer lots more focal length (especially when coupled with TCs), I've found that developing a competent woodscraft will get you in close enough to get the shot quite often. And when it doesn't, there are always those environmental compositions.