Posted by Alex Kirschel on October 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
I photograph small birds mainly in dark rainforest environments, but also at times in most other conditions and environments, but always handheld. I've been stuck for years not buying equipment because it seems the ideal lens does not exist either from Nikon or Canon. What I believe I would need is a 400mm lens that is fairly light with IS / VR. I've used Nikon's 80-400 VR which is horribly slow focusing. Canon's 100-400 IS is faster and sharper but the push-pull extension leads to condensation and fogs up the glass in tropical environments. Canon's 400/5.6 is light and sharp but has no IS so won't shoot at fast shutter speeds in the dark forest. Has anyone experience with such lenses handheld in really dark primary rainforest or is there a preference for something smaller, like a 300/4 IS or even 70/300 IS or VR. These of course have less reach and would require additional cropping on small birds, so I would need to get a body with many MPs. I have not mentioned third party lenses because I'm unconvinced by their sharpness. Really appreciate any discussion on this. I've been waiting a long time for Nikon or Canon to come out with an updated lens but there is still no sign of it.
If you could bear the weight, I'd sure be tempted by a 300 f/2.8 with IS/VR. Yeah, you lose a little reach, but that's more than overcome if you're using a camera without full frame sensor. A bonus for the f/2.8 over and above low light capabilitis is the further reduction in DOF. That's important to me when trying to isolate subjects from disracting backgrounds.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I would think the perfect lens would be the 300mm f2.8 VR plus a TC-17E. I'm waiting for Nikon to come out with a 300mm f4 VR myself. I already have the TC-17E. I have the 80-400mm VR and it is a good lens, but you are right that the AF is it's weakness.
The Nikon 200mm f2 is another good choice in low light situations.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM
With a TC-20E it would become a 400mm f4 VR and no push/pull. Not as heavy as a 400mm f2.8, I don't think.
Kent in SD
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 11, 2008 at 8:40 PM
The Canon 400mm DO has IS and is fairly light. While I have never used it I understand that bright specular highlights in the BG can look a bit different, bu the lens has a good rep for being sharp and easy to handle. I would suspect that in the dark of a forrest it would be ideal.
Posted by Alex Kirschel on October 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Some of the lenses mentioned would be too heavy for my purposes. The 400mm DO at about 4 lb is definitely at the higher end of weight that might work. It is not a cheap lens though and it supposedly isn't as sharp as the 400/5.6 which is 1/5 the price and a lot lighter (but no IS, so not suitable for dark forests). Any comments by 400/4 DO owners? Also wondering how 300/4 IS owners rate that lens. On the Nikon side I really don't think there is anything more appropriate than the 70-300/VR which is a sad state of affairs for an owner of a Nikon body.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM
The 400 DO from Canon is plenty sharp. The knock against it is not sharpness, but that it doesn't offer the nice contrast you get from L glass, and I've found that to be true when I've shot this lens. Easily corrected in post processing (or using the camera's picture styles if shooting in jpeg mode.)
Alex, if four pounds is getting on the heavy side for an effective supertelephoto in darker rainforests, you are asking the impossible -- low weight, lots of focal length and a fairly wide aperture, and in a prime lens the 400 DO is the best combo you'll find. Plus, with its IS, if you shoot it from a sturdy monopod it's a deadly combination. Not to mention, with the monopod attached it's easy to carry it over your shoulder with the lens pointing down your back.
I habitually carry the 400 f5.6L, and with a solid monopod and good steadying technique I am able to get plenty of keepers even in darker conditions. You also can get more shutter speed than you could before by using the new 50D or 5D Mk2. High iso performance is excellent on those bodies, according to actual production model images I've seen from a 50D and test images posted online from a 5D2. Iso 800 is no problem, and 1600 is quite clean. Nothing like high iso performance to turn a slow lens into a fast one. Think of shooting the 400 f5.6L at iso1600 on a 50D, which appears roughly comparable to shooting it at iso400 on a 30D. Suddenly, it's like shooting f2.8 glass on the 30D because you've got the 50D. You've also got the boost in apparent focal length because of the 1.6 crop sensor on the 50D.
I'm not one to recommend upgrading bodies over upgrading glass, but as sensors continue to get better and better and better at high iso performance, that slow glass with great IQ is really going to come into its own. You can pick up a 400 f5.6L, solid monopod and 50D/grip for far less than the 400 DO.
What is the downside on the Nikon 200-400 VR? It is an S lens so should be really quick on focus if it is like my 500 S. I'm not sure about the weight though, so that may be a problem. I agree on the 80-400VR as being terribly slow on focus. That has got me hankering for the 200-400 myself but as of now the price is holding me back. I would check it out though.
Ray Dove
Comer, Ga
Posted by Alex Kirschel on October 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Some interesting posts. Thanks. Still be interested if anyone would comment on 300/4 IS in particular and how it compares to 400/5.6 or 400/4 DO. The 200-400 VR is super heavy. 7.2 lb. Nice lens, yes, but not for my purposes. I think the only way I would stay with Nikon is either to get the 70-300 VR or Sigma something or other if any good, but I've given up on Nikon every producing my ideal lens (update the 80-400 VR or bring out a 400/5.6 VR) but they do have some nice bodies available now (D300, D700).
I need a lens I can carry around for several miles in rainforest, along with other equipment at least as heavy, and a backpack with rain gear, water etc. I think a monopod would not work as it would just bang into all my other stuff, get caught on vegatation etc. I have a feeling I will follow all my friends and switch over to Canon (Nikon are you listening?) and get the 50D despite its annoying toy mode knob that turns on its own so you end up shooting in night-time-flower-mode instead of manual, and decide on which lens as they do at least have 3-4 to choose from and are more likely to update their 100-400 IS than Nikon are to bring out any lens in that class.
You keep saying that the 400mm f5.6 has no IS. That is a given.
The rule I have always shot by is that you don't shoot speed at less then the leght of the lens - 400 or ISO 400?
If you are shooting at a 400th of a second IS doesn't really come into play much.
Have you tried the 400mm f 5.6? It is a really great lens. I use it a lot since I got it.
It would be worth renting if you don't know someone who will loan it to you.
The disadvantage is low light situations and then you would have to compensate with a higher end DSLR though the new 50 D and %D II have reported awesome low light results.
Discussion
10 repliesKent in SD
Kent in SD
Alex, if four pounds is getting on the heavy side for an effective supertelephoto in darker rainforests, you are asking the impossible -- low weight, lots of focal length and a fairly wide aperture, and in a prime lens the 400 DO is the best combo you'll find. Plus, with its IS, if you shoot it from a sturdy monopod it's a deadly combination. Not to mention, with the monopod attached it's easy to carry it over your shoulder with the lens pointing down your back.
I habitually carry the 400 f5.6L, and with a solid monopod and good steadying technique I am able to get plenty of keepers even in darker conditions. You also can get more shutter speed than you could before by using the new 50D or 5D Mk2. High iso performance is excellent on those bodies, according to actual production model images I've seen from a 50D and test images posted online from a 5D2. Iso 800 is no problem, and 1600 is quite clean. Nothing like high iso performance to turn a slow lens into a fast one. Think of shooting the 400 f5.6L at iso1600 on a 50D, which appears roughly comparable to shooting it at iso400 on a 30D. Suddenly, it's like shooting f2.8 glass on the 30D because you've got the 50D. You've also got the boost in apparent focal length because of the 1.6 crop sensor on the 50D.
I'm not one to recommend upgrading bodies over upgrading glass, but as sensors continue to get better and better and better at high iso performance, that slow glass with great IQ is really going to come into its own. You can pick up a 400 f5.6L, solid monopod and 50D/grip for far less than the 400 DO.
Ray Dove
Comer, Ga
I need a lens I can carry around for several miles in rainforest, along with other equipment at least as heavy, and a backpack with rain gear, water etc. I think a monopod would not work as it would just bang into all my other stuff, get caught on vegatation etc. I have a feeling I will follow all my friends and switch over to Canon (Nikon are you listening?) and get the 50D despite its annoying toy mode knob that turns on its own so you end up shooting in night-time-flower-mode instead of manual, and decide on which lens as they do at least have 3-4 to choose from and are more likely to update their 100-400 IS than Nikon are to bring out any lens in that class.
The rule I have always shot by is that you don't shoot speed at less then the leght of the lens - 400 or ISO 400?
If you are shooting at a 400th of a second IS doesn't really come into play much.
Have you tried the 400mm f 5.6? It is a really great lens. I use it a lot since I got it.
It would be worth renting if you don't know someone who will loan it to you.
The disadvantage is low light situations and then you would have to compensate with a higher end DSLR though the new 50 D and %D II have reported awesome low light results.