Posted by Jim Reese on February 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I started this hobby last year in January. My current equipment is a Canon Rebel XTI - and the lens I am currently using is a Canon EF 75-300. I have not been very happy with the results of the Lens which is understandable due to the low quality glass.
I decided to wait a year to make sure this hobby is going to be a long term hobby before I decided that I was willing to invest into better equipment now after saying that I am ready to drop some cash on a new lens.
My question is will there be a substancial increase in the sharpness and the quality of my images using the Canon 100-400 IS USM lens even with the current Camera body ?
question #2 My real passion is Waterfowl and Game bird Photography will the 100-400 with an 1.4x be suitable for this type of photography for awhile until I am able to invest into the 500mm or will I get frustrated pretty quickly ?
question #3 How much will of a Difference will there be when I decide to upgrade the Camera body to a 50d compared to the Rebel ?
That is all for now.
Thank you in advanced
Jim Reese
Posted by Steve Foss on February 13, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Hey Jim, welcome to NPN. Great to have you here!
Here's some food for thought. I shot the 100-400 hard for four years for avian and other nature photography on 1.6 crop bodies.
Will there be a substantial increase in the sharpness and the quality of my images using the Canon 100-400 IS USM lens even with the current Camera body ?
Yes, a very large difference.
My real passion is Waterfowl and Game bird Photography. Will the 100-400 with an 1.4x be suitable for this type of photography for awhile until I am able to invest into the 500mm?
No. Image quality in the 100-400 degrades too much with a 1.4 added, IMO, unless the light is very good, the subject close and the iso low. And you lose autofocus capability with the combo on your body. Only "1" series Canon bodies will autofocus lens/TC combos with a max aperture of f8. However, if game birds and ducks are your passion, you may already possess the woodscraft needed to get close enough for 400mm on a 1.6 crop body to serve you well. If not, it's never a waste of time to go in camo and develop woodscraft skills. More often than not, those skills overcome a perceived focal length deficit.
How much will of a difference will there be when I decide to upgrade the Camera body to a 50d compared to the Rebel ?
There will be some differences in IQ, but that is not the prime consideration. The 50D offers the avian photographer a LOT more in terms of autofocus performance and burst rate compared with the XTi. Your native IQ on the XTi is excellent, and if you have sharp glass you can make prints to 20x30 and beyond, depending on the subject, so you've got great IQ potential on your existing body. The 50D simply offers a lot more speed where it counts for an avian photographer, so the 100-400 and 50D is your eventual go-to combo.
Now, time to change gears just a bit. I love the 100-400 for its flexibility, and while tight portraits of birds are all the rage with a lot of avian photographers, I tend to prefer striking habitat portraits, which generally require wider angles. This is where the 100-400 shines. So often these opportunities present themselves without a moment's notice, so even after you add the 500 to your kit, keep the 100-400 on another body, because that zoom flexibility cannot be over-valued.
And the IS of the 100-400 wedded to a sturdy monopod is a perfect marriage. There will be times you want a tripod, like when you're set up in a duck blind and any extra movement to get your camera up and ready to shoot might spook those spooky ducks, but in many situations the monopod adds just enough stabilization to get you where you need to be with the slow (aperture wise) 100-400, and it's much more portable than a tripod.
Nowadays, I shoot the 400 f5.6L, which is a decent bit cheaper than the 100-400, a bit more sharp and a bit lighter. It really needs a monopod or tripod, however, unless I'm shooting birds in flight, because of the slow max aperture and lack of IS. I only made the change because I retain that prized flexibility by keeping a 70-200 or 200 f2.8L on a second body. If you feel like the 400 f5.6L is an option, you could opt for that and then slap the 75-300 on the XTi and the 400 on the 50D when you add that body. Until you add the second body, however, you still would have some zoom flexibility but would have to swap lenses, sometimes very quickly, to get those environmental images. If you really, really want those tight shots only, the 400 f5.6L might be the better option right out of the gate.
Posted by Jim Reese on February 13, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Thank you I didnt even think of that option
The most important option for me right now is I want my images to be pin sharp and crisp. If I am reading correctly it sounds like the 400 f5.6 is sharper than the 100-400. I will be shooting at 400 pretty much all the time. Next year I will probably add the 70-200 f2.8 to replace the 75-300.
I have a Bobcat that has been visiting my backyard over the last couple of months and it has beeen very frustrating that I am not able to get a sharp enough image of him while standing 40 yards away with the current lens I have.
Jim Reese .
Posted by Steve Foss on February 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Jim, the 400 f5.6 is a bit sharper than the 100-400, but you should consider whether that will make a big difference for you. The IS of the zoom is a key item not to be overlooked. There are some situations, particularly in low light, when you'll get sharper images with the zoom because of the IS than you will with the 400 f5.6. And while IS is considered by some to be an encouragement for laziness of steadying technique, it can make quite a difference. And I have sold a goodly number of images to glossy magazines (they tend to have high standards for IQ) shot with the 100-400.
You will experience a fairly steep learning curve upgrading from the 75-300 to either the 100-400L or the 400 f5.6, and the difference between those two L lenses when it comes to sharpness is not as noticeable as some online reviews would have you believe. After making print after print with both lenses, I can assure you of this.
In the end, you will not likely be disappointed with either lens. And if you are, the great news about Canon L glass is that it holds its value wonderfully. If you come to believe you've made the wrong choice, it's a pretty simple matter to sell either lens and buy the other. Both are very popular lenses.
Instead of buying one and hoping it's right for you, however, you should look into renting each. Rent one for a week and shoot the crap out of it. Then rent the other and do the same. Then look carefully at your images. Not just pixel peeping on your screen, which is a poor way to evaluate IQ, but by making comparative prints. It's printing that really separates the sheep from the goats. Take those steps, not hurrying, and then buy your lens.
I should also add that it may not be inherent IQ of your lens that has led to image softness. Technique plays a big part in any capture, and without seeing an image, and having exif data to see as well, it's not possible to determine whether it's your technique or your glass that needs upgrading.
Go with what Steve says all the way. Especially, double-check your steadying methods. It really makes a big difference with or without IS lenses. Exciting. Good luck– this "hobby" can quickly become a passion!
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 14, 2009 at 2:43 AM
What about a 300mm f4 IS plus a 1.4x? Seems to me you gain very fast focus speed, IS, and the 1.4x option in decent light. Is the 100-400mm lens USM? How about a used 40D body to save money that would be better spent on the lens?
Kent in SD
Posted by Jim Reese on February 14, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Thank you again for the advice - thats exactly what I was planning on doing before purchase is renting both lenses for a week at a time.
Catherine - I love your shot of the Snow geese that is the type of clarity I am looking for. I was up there last year in the middle of them when a juvenile Bald Eagle decided bring in a strike package. I was totally unprepard and suddenly a Baldy swooped in and they all instantly took off I have never been so startled in my life. It took awhile to get rid of the shakes just from shear number that hit the air at the same time there was at least 5000 of them in one of the fields I was in. Thats when I realized I live in one the greatest states for this Hobby which has already for sure turned into a passion. Most of my time is spent in the Snohomish River valley where I live.
Thanks again for the feedback
I will have alot more questions as I develope this skill.
Jim
Posted by Ed Cordes on February 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Jim, I'll add my $0.02. I started off with the 75-300 and soon found it was not long enough or sharp enough. I quickly bought a 100-400 for my then relatively new 10D. The 100-400 is a great lens, but with a 1.4 TC is not good unless you shoot at f 11 or so. However, the 100-400 is and has been my bread and butter walk around lens due to its versatility. After 2 years I upgraded to the then new 1D Mark II. The 100-400 was still my go to versatile lens for large birds, butterflies (with extension tubes) and was very useful in Africa. Now, keep in mind that I also have a 500 f4 and use it for all small birds and those situations where 400 is just not enough.
One thing you will have to get used to is the weight and size of a 100-400. Coming from a 75-300 the lens seems huge at first. While it is not nearly as large nor nearly as heavy as a 500 or 600 it is a big step up from a smaller consumer zoom.
My wife recently got a 40D and I got her a 300 f4. She has been using it with a 1.4 TC as Kent has suggested and loves it. While not quite as versatile as the 100-400, it is at 300 sharper than the zoom and with the 1.4 TC she has 420 mm with equal sharpness to the 100-400 @ 400. It is an effective 5.6 with the TC so it creates a lens similar to the 400 f 5.6 prime, but with IS. The rig is lighter by a lot compared to my 1DMK2 and 100-400.
So, there are choices. My choice is that I would not want to give up the zoom for those fast developing situations. However, now that we also have the 300 f4 I am looking forward to using it as my dragonfly and butterfly lens this coming summer.
Hope this helps.
Ed
Posted by Steve Foss on February 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Some good thoughts on the 300 f4L IS and 1.4 TC. I had forgotten about that option, even though I've used it several times. Must be age creeping up.
Cost is one factor that Jim has mentioned, and that combo will cost a shade under $1,500 new. The 400 f5.6 is going for just over $1,100, and the 100-400 is $1,450.
The 300 f4/1.4 TC combo doesn't focus faster than the 100-400. It felt like the same focus speed to me. The 400 f5.6 does focus slightly faster than the 100-400, but it's a small difference, and one that often gets magnified in online reviews. I shot BIF with the 100-400 for four years on 20D/30D bodies and had no trouble getting sharp images of birds flying toward me. I second Kent's advice on picking up a used 40D to save money.
I also use the 1.4 on the 400 f5.6 when manual focus is workable, and I find manual focus is appropriate in more situations than I'd previously thought when one practices to get good at it. IQ is as good as any other Canon supertele prime with the TC mounted. The 400/TC combo puts the cost back up to about $1,400.
I'm not actually coming down on the side of the 400 f5.6L here, just exploring more options for Jim.
Shooting at 400mm (or higher with the TC) demands very good steadying technique, especially with the slow-aperture lenses and lens/TC combos we're talking about here. Many who graduate to those long focal lengths are unhappy at first with their image quality, and some end up feeling they must have gotten a soft copy of their lens. Almost always, it's simply because there's a pretty steep learning curve. When your subject fills the frame or nearly fills it, and when you're using a long lens, small movements of the hand/lens or the subject have added impact on sharpness. A tripod or monopod will help, as will practice and discipline of technique.
Have fun with it, Jim. Avian is a blast, and sooooo addicting.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Jim--
I never rent photo gear any more. It's expensive. What I now do is buy a used one on eBay, then resell when I'm done. This time of year prices on photogear are at a low ebb. Buy something now, and resell when prices typically start to rise in mid April if you're unhappy with it. There's always a buyer for the 100-400mm or 300mm f4 lenses.
Kent in SD
Posted by Steve Foss on February 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Like Kent, I don't hesitate to buy used. Once you've settled on a preferred lens, eBay can be a good option.
Just scroll down to the "classifieds-sell" board and look around. You'll see right away that there are pages and pages of all types of Canon and Canon-compatible gear. Any of the three of the lenses mentioned can be had in excellent condition used for $200 to $300 less than new. I've done a lot of buying/selling on that site with great results each time.
Even if you don't end up doing business there, browsing will give you a good idea of what used L glass and Canon bodies are going for, which will be a help if you pursue eBay.
Posted by Jim Reese on February 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM
My budget is around $2000.00 - So I was already planning on purchasing a TC with the lens I choose. I have a decent tripod from the 80s that seems to work. Another Item I was thinking about purchasing is image software. I curently been using Picasa from Google.
Jim
Posted by Steve Foss on February 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Jim, if you buy used you can easily pick up any of the lens or lens/TC combos mentioned and a used 40D for $2,000.
Typical used prices at POTN for the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 are around $950
The 100-400 goes for around $1,100 used.
The 40D typically runs around $700 to $750 used.
The Canon 1.4 TC is usually in the neighborhood of $225 used.
Buying used does take a bit more time when buying from an individual, but if you opt for used, you'll be able to get what you want within your budget and will have two bodies, which is always a good thing. On that POTN board, the three lenses mentioned come up now and then, with the 100-400 the most frequent, but none of them last long after they're posted. They are popular lenses and get snapped up in a hurry, which is typical of L glass.
Also, I see a copy of Photoshop Elements 6 on POTN for $40. Many, many photographers use Elements. Even new with the latest version I think it's only around $150 (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Here's some more food for thought.
If you're determined to pick up the 1.4 TC, and IF you go the used route and get a body, lens and TC, you may want to discard the notion of the 300 f4, mostly because of reach, and also because you can put your 75-300 on your current body. Typically a lens that's a little soft is a bit more OK for environmental portraits, which is what you'd have that lens on your second body for.
And the 1.4 on the 300 gets you to 420mm, but the 1.4 on the 400 gets you to 560mm, a noticeable difference (again noting, however, that autofocus capability will be lost). And if you've got zoom flexibility with the 75-300 on your second body, it probably makes the most sense to put the 400 f5.6 on your primary body.
As always, this type of advice reflects the preferences of the person giving the advice, and it may not work as well for you as it would work for me, just because we're different folks with possibly very different styles. You'll notice right away that what I described wouldn't give you any IS lenses, and that alone might properly lead you to take a different route.
But that's some more for you to chew on, anyway. It's also worth noting that, whichever lens/TC combo you get, you will like the results once you dial in your steadying technique with the new gear. Among the three lens options detailed in this thread, there are no bad choices.
Sure is fun spending other people's money for them.
Posted by William Lloyd on February 14, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I would give a strong recommendation to the 400 f/5.6 as your next lens. Works quite well with the 1.4EX, that can't be said about the 100-400. In a either/or choice, I would rather have the sharp reach of the prime lens, as you will likely be using the 100-400 at 400mm anyway, for birds.
At that point, working on your technique has priority over getting new equipment (once you get the lens). Getting some sort of gimbal head, allowing you controlled movement, and developing lens steadying techniques, ought to take priority over new glass. All the IS in the world (and the 100-400 is a couple generations old now) won't overcome gross camera movement. IS really shines when you've got the basics down....
I would recommend a visit to birdsasart.com to sign up for the free newsletters. The CD book, "Art of Bird Photography 2" is well worth the expense, and can be kept on your laptop for reference while on trips. Be aware that the author is quite comfortable with extensive photo manipulation post-processing, which is fairly controversal. That's another discussion, and doesn't detract from the solid value of the book for bird photographers....
Well, my additional advice, fwiw, will run up the price a lot, Jim. But I've always favored long glass with IS and a wider maximum aperature. Here in the NW, where light is often NOT bright, I think it's better in the long run for the lens to be able to gather as much light as possible. It will allow for lower ISO, faster shutter speed– and hopefully, more shots taken home than left behind.
But again, as Steve says, it sure is a blast spending other people's money! Are you totally confused?
Posted by Jim Reese on February 15, 2009 at 4:54 AM
I know what you mean - The perfect lens for me would be the 400mm f2.8 plus I believe I could use either 1.4 or 2x TC without to much degrade. It would be perfect when shooting under the westside forest canopy where lighting is a major issue as well as overcast days. You will notice that once the passion gets into my hobby I can get pretty OCD. The nice thing about this hobby the equipment is a one time expense where as like for example Golf you can spend 4 to 5 grand a year doing 3 rounds a week year round which I have been known to do in the past. Plus the big benefit for my situation this hobby includes my wife where golfing did not.
but all seriousness I decided in the next couple weeks I am going to rent 400mm f5.6 with 1.4 tc and then I will rent a 100-400 and then I will rent a 400mm f2.8 and see if there is a 5k difference in performance with the latter and then decide. I Looked at all my images to see where the breakdown is occuring and I have come to the conclusion it has been either glass issue and or I was shooting under 1/80 handheld I think there will be a huge difference with the extra f stops plus correct me if I am wrong I could use 2x which would bring the lens to a 800mm focal length at f5.6. I know the 400mm f2.8 is a end game lens. and the price is well above what most people would pay but it would be a lens that would last the rest of my life.
Jim
Posted by Steve Foss on February 15, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Jim, your willingness to consider the 400 f2.8L IS tells me you are not as limited budget-wise as I'd previously thought, so that might change things. I'm gong to assume for a moment in the "Let's spend Jim's money" game that you are willing to finance several thousand dollars worth of gear as your hobby becomes an obsession. You are quite right that the 400 f2.8 would be a lifetime lens, as would other big L glass.
I've shot all the bodies and lenses mentioned below, so I'm offering hands-on perspective, but I'll also point out yet again that it's all colored by my personal preferences, which may be very different than yours.
So, here goes, buddy. You might want to grab a cup of coffee, because I can get wordy, and you'll have some things to think about.
The 400 f2.8 is a rock of a lens, and a great one, preferred mightily by sports shooters. The 1.4 TC on it produces excellent IQ. The 2x showed me some image degradation, but it was better if I was able to stop down to f8 or f11. That's not much of an option in the low light conditions you describe, however, and I think your results with the 2X will be borderline for sharpness.
Many avian photographers rejoiced when Canon came out with the 500 f4L IS, because it gave them significantly more reach with a lens that weighs 4 pounds less than the 400 f2.8, and was significantly less expensive than the 400 and the 600 (the 600, like the 400, weighs in at about 12 pounds). While you lose one stop with the 500, you'll still get autofocus performance with the 1.4 TC at 700mm, and that's pretty damn good for avian. Now, assuming reach being king, the 600 is best. If you're pondering spending the jing for the 400 f2.8, it's not fantastically more expensive to go for the 600. If you want to compare the 600 with the 400 f2.8, they weigh the same, so the same sturdy tripod and gimbal head would be needed, but with the 600 you get almost the same focal length as the 400 f2.8/1.4 TC at the same aperture, but without needing the TC, which does slightly slow autofocus. Minimum focus distance also is a factor if you plan to operate with feeding/watering stations and perch setups for small birds, and in the case of all three of these superteles, you'll generally need the 1.4 added to fill enough of the frame to satisfy you.
You'll probably notice an improvement in autofocus performance on the 400 f2.8 over the 400 f5.6 or 100-400 with your XT, because the Rebel and xxD series and the 5D offer better autofocusing (faster and more precise) when the center focus point is selected on a lens with a max aperture of f2.8 or wider.
Maybe I've gone the long way around to get to this point, but my preference for avian lenses, money not being a prime factor, is the 600 f4L IS first, the 500 f4L IS second and the 400 f2.8L last, with the 100-400 a dynamite flexible lens to put on a second body. This reflects the ongoing need for reach that most avian photographers labor under.
I'm going to make another recommendation here, too. I think you might just be happier with a used 1D Mk2 or Mk2n, which are going for $1,100 to $1,500, than with a 40D or a 50D. Until you put a "1" series body on a piece of Canon's prime supertele glass and mount it on a strong tripod with a gimbal head, you don't really appreciate what those lenses can do. Those combinations are utter machines of autofocus performance and burst rate, particularly with the 1D Mk2, Mk2n and Mk3, which are geared more toward the stern demands of sports shooters, but which also benefit avian photographers. And at 8 Mp on a 1.3 crop sensor (yes, you lose a little reach over a 1.6 crop sensor), it's easy to make very large prints in most cases. With shutter actuation ratings of 200,000 to 300,000, it's actually just as economical as far as camera life goes to invest in a "1" series body if you have the money than in a less expensive body with a lower number of rated shutters.
I'm a guy who always emphasizes patience and knowledge of the subject and your gear over getting the latest or the most expensive gear. Any of the three budget pieces of L glass that have been mentioned previously in this thread combined with the XT will give you great IQ and allow you to make stunning art and large prints. It really IS the heart, mind and eye of the photographer, not the highest end gear, that makes art out of nature. That being said, I do feel it's more fun to use the top stuff whenever possible, particularly in the very demanding niche of avian photography, and there are situations where without top gear you're not going to get the image, or at least not without a TON more work.
So if I had the jing, I'd outfit myself for avian with:
1. 1D Mk2n (the 1D Mk3 had those pesky autofocus issues), 600 f4L IS, 1.4 TC for when it's needed, strong carbon fiber tripod, Wimberly II gimbal head, strong monopod for situations when tripod is not a viable option.
2. 1D Mk2n or 1Ds Mk2, 100-400L IS, with or without monopod, for those instant situations when you need a zoom to get a great environmental portrait, or a scene develops right in front of you that's too close for the big glass or you can't get the big glass in position fast enough. Since this is your flexible combo, you won't need a crop sensor to get you more reach, thus the full frame 1Ds Mk2. Also, with that camera, you get a lot more megapixels for times when you might want that, and it's a dynamite landscape camera as well.
At any rate, you're at a great place in the life of a photographer. You've got a lot of enjoyment ahead of you, and that's what got pretty much all of us into this in the first place.
And as a final note, your stating that you were shooting images from the 75-300 handheld at 1/80 tells me it was likely technique that led to some soft ones. Unless you're braced well or have truly excellent technique, it's darn had to get sharp images of birds at 1/80 and 300mm.
Boy, when people start asking about the BIG Canon glass, it gets REALLY fun spending their money.
Posted by Jim Reese on February 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Steve
Do you have an email that I can send a couple of photos to you so you can critique them.
My last post above got me in trouble LOL with the Minister of Finance if you know what I mean.
So here is the deal I am only allowed to purchase one lens and a TC - so it will be either the 100-400 or the 400 f5 which is tough decision I like to walk and shoot handheld so the IS would be beneficial but at the same time I want what I call HD quality photos.
I had to make a deal where I can only purchase big item per year. So my 2k is my current limit for this year.
Man I am lucky to have a wife that keeps my OCD in check.
Again thank you for your opinions it is always wise to consult a multitude of counselors
Jim Reese
p.s. - your images on your website what lens was used ?
Posted by Steve Foss on February 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Jim, the images on my Web site and associated galleries (assuming you're talking about the telephoto work), were captured with the 100-400, 400 f5.6, 400 f2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4. The majority were with the 100-400, which I shot for four years, then the next largest contingent with the 400 f5.6, then the others. A few were captured with the 300 f2.8.
At need, I've either rented or borrowed from CPS the really big glass that I can't afford to buy, but the fact is the budget L glass is plenty for 90 percent of the situations you'll encounter as an avian/wildlife photographer if you develop patience and woodscraft skills.
If you only get $2,000, my recommendation is you pick up a used 1Dmk2 and used 400 f5.6L. That probably will put you $100 or $200 over the $2,000, but I bet you could talk your wife into it. If that won't fly, get a used 40D and the same lens. Forget about the TC for now. Put it on next year's list and channel your borderline OCD into getting quiet and blending in and learning the habits of your subjects instead of into gear. Woodscraft knowledge, over time, is far more valuable than a teleconverter or a 600 f4.
You can e-mail me by clicking the e-mail icon along the row of icons at the bottom of any of my posts. If you want to bypass that, just e-mail me directly at stevefossimages@yahoo.com.
I'm happy to critique a few of your images privately, but simply make sure they are jpegs with the exif still in them (if you use the "Save for Web" feature on some post processing software, you strip exif data.) Better yet, send me three or four captures in their native state with no post processing at all. If you shot them RAW, just convert to jpeg and send them that way. You may have to do it in more than one e-mail if your or my system limits us to 10 Mb per e-mail.
And, lastly, don't be afraid to post your images on the avian board here for critique. There are a lot of sophisticated observers here who started as you did and have learned through a lot of trial and error, and you'll generally find a few willing to give you some hard-won perspective on the critique boards. They won't take your head off, you know.
Posted by Bryan Hix on February 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Steve,
Just to join in on this conversation, do you really think there is a huge difference between a 50D and the 1DMK2? I have a 40D and 50D when I go out to shoot birds with my 500mm f/4 and I have read a lot of reviews about the 1D bodies. I mean they are a lot of $$$, but what more do I get for that besides a faster shutter rate? Pixel sizes are double in the 1D, so I would think there is something to be said in that area. Thanks.
-Bryan
Posted by Steve Foss on February 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Bryan, I don't worry about Mp count/pixel size much at all. From entry level on up, any of the DSLRs sold in the last two or three years can produce stunning image quality. My 8 Mp images shot with the 20D/30D/1DMk2(n) in most cases easily go to 20x30, and will go beyond, and that's plenty for me. I shoot weddings, portraits, guide nature photo excursions, do commercial, realty and product photography, with some magazine/newspaper clients thrown in, pretty much the full gamut, and 8 Mp is enough for all of that. Now, you can obviously crop more away from a 15 Mp capture and still get a usable print than from an 8 Mp image, so that's one difference.
A "huge" difference between the 50D and 1Dmk2(n)? Well, I did not use that word, but for avian, which is what we're talking about, I'd answer both "yes" and "no". I've used a borrowed 50D body to do avian, and even though the autofocus seems a bit better than the 30D bodies I use from day to day, it's neither as fast nor as sophisticated as the good ole 1Dmk2 or mk2n. As with sports (avian has always seemed to me like the sports equivalent of nature photography), even small differences in equipment performance can be magnified by the stern needs of capturing fast action. And autofocus performance and burst rate, while only two of the differences between the "1" and xxD series cameras, are important differences in some cases.
I'm not in any way saying that gorgeous photos of birds aren't gotten every day with xxD series bodies on nice glass (I better not say that, since those are the bodies I usually use), nor that owning a "1" series body will make a person a better photographer. I generally preach pretty hard that it's the eye, mind and heart of a person that makes the photo, not differences in gear quality. But I'd also rather shoot with the equipment best suited to the job when I can afford it. There are times when better/more sophisticated equipment WILL allow you to get the shot when other gear won't, and avian photography, like sports, seems to me to produce more examples of this. That being said, discipline in technique and mastering woodscraft and your subjects' habits are still the best ways to get sharp images of close birds with any gear.
One of the great blessings of this big and ongoing battle for supremacy between Canon and Nikon is that top bodies two generations old (like the 1Dmk2) or one generation old (like the mk2n), are seen by many as obsolete as soon as a new version comes out, and they come down in price dramatically. So, because of my specific photographic needs, getting a lightly used 1Dmk2 for the same price (or less) than a gripped 50D is definitely the way I'd go. Because I'm building my business without incurring a big debt load, I have been waiting for the 1Dmk2 and mk2n to keep dropping, and now they are within reach.
Hope that helps explain my approach. It's not necessarily right or wrong as approaches go, just one of many.
Posted by Bryan Hix on February 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Steve, thanks. That is a bit of my frustration right now with "action" avian photos. They're fine and easily captured just sitting on a branch, but for me action shots of birds feeding, flying, fighting, etc. is where I see the potential for uniqueness and the "wow" factor to come out. 10 fps is a big difference from 6.5. Thanks for your input. I thought golf was a pricey sport until I went on the quest for better bird photos. Unfortunately most of the time that problem is solved with expensive glass, then expensive support, then new bodies, and on and on!
Discussion
21 repliesI decided to wait a year to make sure this hobby is going to be a long term hobby before I decided that I was willing to invest into better equipment now after saying that I am ready to drop some cash on a new lens.
My question is will there be a substancial increase in the sharpness and the quality of my images using the Canon 100-400 IS USM lens even with the current Camera body ?
question #2 My real passion is Waterfowl and Game bird Photography will the 100-400 with an 1.4x be suitable for this type of photography for awhile until I am able to invest into the 500mm or will I get frustrated pretty quickly ?
question #3 How much will of a Difference will there be when I decide to upgrade the Camera body to a 50d compared to the Rebel ?
That is all for now.
Thank you in advanced
Jim Reese
Here's some food for thought. I shot the 100-400 hard for four years for avian and other nature photography on 1.6 crop bodies.
Yes, a very large difference.
No. Image quality in the 100-400 degrades too much with a 1.4 added, IMO, unless the light is very good, the subject close and the iso low. And you lose autofocus capability with the combo on your body. Only "1" series Canon bodies will autofocus lens/TC combos with a max aperture of f8. However, if game birds and ducks are your passion, you may already possess the woodscraft needed to get close enough for 400mm on a 1.6 crop body to serve you well. If not, it's never a waste of time to go in camo and develop woodscraft skills. More often than not, those skills overcome a perceived focal length deficit.
There will be some differences in IQ, but that is not the prime consideration. The 50D offers the avian photographer a LOT more in terms of autofocus performance and burst rate compared with the XTi. Your native IQ on the XTi is excellent, and if you have sharp glass you can make prints to 20x30 and beyond, depending on the subject, so you've got great IQ potential on your existing body. The 50D simply offers a lot more speed where it counts for an avian photographer, so the 100-400 and 50D is your eventual go-to combo.
Now, time to change gears just a bit. I love the 100-400 for its flexibility, and while tight portraits of birds are all the rage with a lot of avian photographers, I tend to prefer striking habitat portraits, which generally require wider angles. This is where the 100-400 shines. So often these opportunities present themselves without a moment's notice, so even after you add the 500 to your kit, keep the 100-400 on another body, because that zoom flexibility cannot be over-valued.
And the IS of the 100-400 wedded to a sturdy monopod is a perfect marriage. There will be times you want a tripod, like when you're set up in a duck blind and any extra movement to get your camera up and ready to shoot might spook those spooky ducks, but in many situations the monopod adds just enough stabilization to get you where you need to be with the slow (aperture wise) 100-400, and it's much more portable than a tripod.
Nowadays, I shoot the 400 f5.6L, which is a decent bit cheaper than the 100-400, a bit more sharp and a bit lighter. It really needs a monopod or tripod, however, unless I'm shooting birds in flight, because of the slow max aperture and lack of IS. I only made the change because I retain that prized flexibility by keeping a 70-200 or 200 f2.8L on a second body. If you feel like the 400 f5.6L is an option, you could opt for that and then slap the 75-300 on the XTi and the 400 on the 50D when you add that body. Until you add the second body, however, you still would have some zoom flexibility but would have to swap lenses, sometimes very quickly, to get those environmental images. If you really, really want those tight shots only, the 400 f5.6L might be the better option right out of the gate.
The most important option for me right now is I want my images to be pin sharp and crisp. If I am reading correctly it sounds like the 400 f5.6 is sharper than the 100-400. I will be shooting at 400 pretty much all the time. Next year I will probably add the 70-200 f2.8 to replace the 75-300.
I have a Bobcat that has been visiting my backyard over the last couple of months and it has beeen very frustrating that I am not able to get a sharp enough image of him while standing 40 yards away with the current lens I have.
Jim Reese .
You will experience a fairly steep learning curve upgrading from the 75-300 to either the 100-400L or the 400 f5.6, and the difference between those two L lenses when it comes to sharpness is not as noticeable as some online reviews would have you believe. After making print after print with both lenses, I can assure you of this.
In the end, you will not likely be disappointed with either lens. And if you are, the great news about Canon L glass is that it holds its value wonderfully. If you come to believe you've made the wrong choice, it's a pretty simple matter to sell either lens and buy the other. Both are very popular lenses.
Instead of buying one and hoping it's right for you, however, you should look into renting each. Rent one for a week and shoot the crap out of it. Then rent the other and do the same. Then look carefully at your images. Not just pixel peeping on your screen, which is a poor way to evaluate IQ, but by making comparative prints. It's printing that really separates the sheep from the goats. Take those steps, not hurrying, and then buy your lens.
I should also add that it may not be inherent IQ of your lens that has led to image softness. Technique plays a big part in any capture, and without seeing an image, and having exif data to see as well, it's not possible to determine whether it's your technique or your glass that needs upgrading.
Kent in SD
Catherine - I love your shot of the Snow geese that is the type of clarity I am looking for. I was up there last year in the middle of them when a juvenile Bald Eagle decided bring in a strike package. I was totally unprepard and suddenly a Baldy swooped in and they all instantly took off I have never been so startled in my life. It took awhile to get rid of the shakes just from shear number that hit the air at the same time there was at least 5000 of them in one of the fields I was in. Thats when I realized I live in one the greatest states for this Hobby which has already for sure turned into a passion. Most of my time is spent in the Snohomish River valley where I live.
Thanks again for the feedback
I will have alot more questions as I develope this skill.
Jim
One thing you will have to get used to is the weight and size of a 100-400. Coming from a 75-300 the lens seems huge at first. While it is not nearly as large nor nearly as heavy as a 500 or 600 it is a big step up from a smaller consumer zoom.
My wife recently got a 40D and I got her a 300 f4. She has been using it with a 1.4 TC as Kent has suggested and loves it. While not quite as versatile as the 100-400, it is at 300 sharper than the zoom and with the 1.4 TC she has 420 mm with equal sharpness to the 100-400 @ 400. It is an effective 5.6 with the TC so it creates a lens similar to the 400 f 5.6 prime, but with IS. The rig is lighter by a lot compared to my 1DMK2 and 100-400.
So, there are choices. My choice is that I would not want to give up the zoom for those fast developing situations. However, now that we also have the 300 f4 I am looking forward to using it as my dragonfly and butterfly lens this coming summer.
Hope this helps.
Ed
Cost is one factor that Jim has mentioned, and that combo will cost a shade under $1,500 new. The 400 f5.6 is going for just over $1,100, and the 100-400 is $1,450.
The 300 f4/1.4 TC combo doesn't focus faster than the 100-400. It felt like the same focus speed to me. The 400 f5.6 does focus slightly faster than the 100-400, but it's a small difference, and one that often gets magnified in online reviews. I shot BIF with the 100-400 for four years on 20D/30D bodies and had no trouble getting sharp images of birds flying toward me. I second Kent's advice on picking up a used 40D to save money.
I also use the 1.4 on the 400 f5.6 when manual focus is workable, and I find manual focus is appropriate in more situations than I'd previously thought when one practices to get good at it. IQ is as good as any other Canon supertele prime with the TC mounted. The 400/TC combo puts the cost back up to about $1,400.
I'm not actually coming down on the side of the 400 f5.6L here, just exploring more options for Jim.
Shooting at 400mm (or higher with the TC) demands very good steadying technique, especially with the slow-aperture lenses and lens/TC combos we're talking about here. Many who graduate to those long focal lengths are unhappy at first with their image quality, and some end up feeling they must have gotten a soft copy of their lens. Almost always, it's simply because there's a pretty steep learning curve. When your subject fills the frame or nearly fills it, and when you're using a long lens, small movements of the hand/lens or the subject have added impact on sharpness. A tripod or monopod will help, as will practice and discipline of technique.
Have fun with it, Jim. Avian is a blast, and sooooo addicting.
I never rent photo gear any more. It's expensive. What I now do is buy a used one on eBay, then resell when I'm done. This time of year prices on photogear are at a low ebb. Buy something now, and resell when prices typically start to rise in mid April if you're unhappy with it. There's always a buyer for the 100-400mm or 300mm f4 lenses.
Kent in SD
Also, a very active and reliable buy/sell board that specializes in Canon can be found at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
Just scroll down to the "classifieds-sell" board and look around. You'll see right away that there are pages and pages of all types of Canon and Canon-compatible gear. Any of the three of the lenses mentioned can be had in excellent condition used for $200 to $300 less than new. I've done a lot of buying/selling on that site with great results each time.
Even if you don't end up doing business there, browsing will give you a good idea of what used L glass and Canon bodies are going for, which will be a help if you pursue eBay.
Jim
Typical used prices at POTN for the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 are around $950
The 100-400 goes for around $1,100 used.
The 40D typically runs around $700 to $750 used.
The Canon 1.4 TC is usually in the neighborhood of $225 used.
Buying used does take a bit more time when buying from an individual, but if you opt for used, you'll be able to get what you want within your budget and will have two bodies, which is always a good thing. On that POTN board, the three lenses mentioned come up now and then, with the 100-400 the most frequent, but none of them last long after they're posted. They are popular lenses and get snapped up in a hurry, which is typical of L glass.
Also, I see a copy of Photoshop Elements 6 on POTN for $40. Many, many photographers use Elements. Even new with the latest version I think it's only around $150 (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Here's some more food for thought.
If you're determined to pick up the 1.4 TC, and IF you go the used route and get a body, lens and TC, you may want to discard the notion of the 300 f4, mostly because of reach, and also because you can put your 75-300 on your current body. Typically a lens that's a little soft is a bit more OK for environmental portraits, which is what you'd have that lens on your second body for.
And the 1.4 on the 300 gets you to 420mm, but the 1.4 on the 400 gets you to 560mm, a noticeable difference (again noting, however, that autofocus capability will be lost). And if you've got zoom flexibility with the 75-300 on your second body, it probably makes the most sense to put the 400 f5.6 on your primary body.
As always, this type of advice reflects the preferences of the person giving the advice, and it may not work as well for you as it would work for me, just because we're different folks with possibly very different styles. You'll notice right away that what I described wouldn't give you any IS lenses, and that alone might properly lead you to take a different route.
But that's some more for you to chew on, anyway. It's also worth noting that, whichever lens/TC combo you get, you will like the results once you dial in your steadying technique with the new gear. Among the three lens options detailed in this thread, there are no bad choices.
Sure is fun spending other people's money for them.
At that point, working on your technique has priority over getting new equipment (once you get the lens). Getting some sort of gimbal head, allowing you controlled movement, and developing lens steadying techniques, ought to take priority over new glass. All the IS in the world (and the 100-400 is a couple generations old now) won't overcome gross camera movement. IS really shines when you've got the basics down....
I would recommend a visit to birdsasart.com to sign up for the free newsletters. The CD book, "Art of Bird Photography 2" is well worth the expense, and can be kept on your laptop for reference while on trips. Be aware that the author is quite comfortable with extensive photo manipulation post-processing, which is fairly controversal. That's another discussion, and doesn't detract from the solid value of the book for bird photographers....
But again, as Steve says, it sure is a blast spending other people's money!
but all seriousness I decided in the next couple weeks I am going to rent 400mm f5.6 with 1.4 tc and then I will rent a 100-400 and then I will rent a 400mm f2.8 and see if there is a 5k difference in performance with the latter and then decide. I Looked at all my images to see where the breakdown is occuring and I have come to the conclusion it has been either glass issue and or I was shooting under 1/80 handheld I think there will be a huge difference with the extra f stops plus correct me if I am wrong I could use 2x which would bring the lens to a 800mm focal length at f5.6. I know the 400mm f2.8 is a end game lens. and the price is well above what most people would pay but it would be a lens that would last the rest of my life.
Jim
I've shot all the bodies and lenses mentioned below, so I'm offering hands-on perspective, but I'll also point out yet again that it's all colored by my personal preferences, which may be very different than yours.
So, here goes, buddy. You might want to grab a cup of coffee, because I can get wordy, and you'll have some things to think about.
The 400 f2.8 is a rock of a lens, and a great one, preferred mightily by sports shooters. The 1.4 TC on it produces excellent IQ. The 2x showed me some image degradation, but it was better if I was able to stop down to f8 or f11. That's not much of an option in the low light conditions you describe, however, and I think your results with the 2X will be borderline for sharpness.
Many avian photographers rejoiced when Canon came out with the 500 f4L IS, because it gave them significantly more reach with a lens that weighs 4 pounds less than the 400 f2.8, and was significantly less expensive than the 400 and the 600 (the 600, like the 400, weighs in at about 12 pounds). While you lose one stop with the 500, you'll still get autofocus performance with the 1.4 TC at 700mm, and that's pretty damn good for avian. Now, assuming reach being king, the 600 is best. If you're pondering spending the jing for the 400 f2.8, it's not fantastically more expensive to go for the 600. If you want to compare the 600 with the 400 f2.8, they weigh the same, so the same sturdy tripod and gimbal head would be needed, but with the 600 you get almost the same focal length as the 400 f2.8/1.4 TC at the same aperture, but without needing the TC, which does slightly slow autofocus. Minimum focus distance also is a factor if you plan to operate with feeding/watering stations and perch setups for small birds, and in the case of all three of these superteles, you'll generally need the 1.4 added to fill enough of the frame to satisfy you.
You'll probably notice an improvement in autofocus performance on the 400 f2.8 over the 400 f5.6 or 100-400 with your XT, because the Rebel and xxD series and the 5D offer better autofocusing (faster and more precise) when the center focus point is selected on a lens with a max aperture of f2.8 or wider.
Maybe I've gone the long way around to get to this point, but my preference for avian lenses, money not being a prime factor, is the 600 f4L IS first, the 500 f4L IS second and the 400 f2.8L last, with the 100-400 a dynamite flexible lens to put on a second body. This reflects the ongoing need for reach that most avian photographers labor under.
I'm going to make another recommendation here, too. I think you might just be happier with a used 1D Mk2 or Mk2n, which are going for $1,100 to $1,500, than with a 40D or a 50D. Until you put a "1" series body on a piece of Canon's prime supertele glass and mount it on a strong tripod with a gimbal head, you don't really appreciate what those lenses can do. Those combinations are utter machines of autofocus performance and burst rate, particularly with the 1D Mk2, Mk2n and Mk3, which are geared more toward the stern demands of sports shooters, but which also benefit avian photographers. And at 8 Mp on a 1.3 crop sensor (yes, you lose a little reach over a 1.6 crop sensor), it's easy to make very large prints in most cases. With shutter actuation ratings of 200,000 to 300,000, it's actually just as economical as far as camera life goes to invest in a "1" series body if you have the money than in a less expensive body with a lower number of rated shutters.
I'm a guy who always emphasizes patience and knowledge of the subject and your gear over getting the latest or the most expensive gear. Any of the three budget pieces of L glass that have been mentioned previously in this thread combined with the XT will give you great IQ and allow you to make stunning art and large prints. It really IS the heart, mind and eye of the photographer, not the highest end gear, that makes art out of nature. That being said, I do feel it's more fun to use the top stuff whenever possible, particularly in the very demanding niche of avian photography, and there are situations where without top gear you're not going to get the image, or at least not without a TON more work.
So if I had the jing, I'd outfit myself for avian with:
1. 1D Mk2n (the 1D Mk3 had those pesky autofocus issues), 600 f4L IS, 1.4 TC for when it's needed, strong carbon fiber tripod, Wimberly II gimbal head, strong monopod for situations when tripod is not a viable option.
2. 1D Mk2n or 1Ds Mk2, 100-400L IS, with or without monopod, for those instant situations when you need a zoom to get a great environmental portrait, or a scene develops right in front of you that's too close for the big glass or you can't get the big glass in position fast enough. Since this is your flexible combo, you won't need a crop sensor to get you more reach, thus the full frame 1Ds Mk2. Also, with that camera, you get a lot more megapixels for times when you might want that, and it's a dynamite landscape camera as well.
At any rate, you're at a great place in the life of a photographer. You've got a lot of enjoyment ahead of you, and that's what got pretty much all of us into this in the first place.
And as a final note, your stating that you were shooting images from the 75-300 handheld at 1/80 tells me it was likely technique that led to some soft ones. Unless you're braced well or have truly excellent technique, it's darn had to get sharp images of birds at 1/80 and 300mm.
Boy, when people start asking about the BIG Canon glass, it gets REALLY fun spending their money.
Do you have an email that I can send a couple of photos to you so you can critique them.
My last post above got me in trouble LOL with the Minister of Finance if you know what I mean.
So here is the deal I am only allowed to purchase one lens and a TC - so it will be either the 100-400 or the 400 f5 which is tough decision I like to walk and shoot handheld so the IS would be beneficial but at the same time I want what I call HD quality photos.
I had to make a deal where I can only purchase big item per year. So my 2k is my current limit for this year.
Man I am lucky to have a wife that keeps my OCD in check.
Again thank you for your opinions it is always wise to consult a multitude of counselors
Jim Reese
p.s. - your images on your website what lens was used ?
At need, I've either rented or borrowed from CPS the really big glass that I can't afford to buy, but the fact is the budget L glass is plenty for 90 percent of the situations you'll encounter as an avian/wildlife photographer if you develop patience and woodscraft skills.
If you only get $2,000, my recommendation is you pick up a used 1Dmk2 and used 400 f5.6L. That probably will put you $100 or $200 over the $2,000, but I bet you could talk your wife into it. If that won't fly, get a used 40D and the same lens. Forget about the TC for now. Put it on next year's list and channel your borderline OCD into getting quiet and blending in and learning the habits of your subjects instead of into gear. Woodscraft knowledge, over time, is far more valuable than a teleconverter or a 600 f4.
You can e-mail me by clicking the e-mail icon along the row of icons at the bottom of any of my posts. If you want to bypass that, just e-mail me directly at stevefossimages@yahoo.com.
I'm happy to critique a few of your images privately, but simply make sure they are jpegs with the exif still in them (if you use the "Save for Web" feature on some post processing software, you strip exif data.) Better yet, send me three or four captures in their native state with no post processing at all. If you shot them RAW, just convert to jpeg and send them that way. You may have to do it in more than one e-mail if your or my system limits us to 10 Mb per e-mail.
And, lastly, don't be afraid to post your images on the avian board here for critique. There are a lot of sophisticated observers here who started as you did and have learned through a lot of trial and error, and you'll generally find a few willing to give you some hard-won perspective on the critique boards. They won't take your head off, you know.
Just to join in on this conversation, do you really think there is a huge difference between a 50D and the 1DMK2? I have a 40D and 50D when I go out to shoot birds with my 500mm f/4 and I have read a lot of reviews about the 1D bodies. I mean they are a lot of $$$, but what more do I get for that besides a faster shutter rate? Pixel sizes are double in the 1D, so I would think there is something to be said in that area. Thanks.
-Bryan
A "huge" difference between the 50D and 1Dmk2(n)? Well, I did not use that word, but for avian, which is what we're talking about, I'd answer both "yes" and "no". I've used a borrowed 50D body to do avian, and even though the autofocus seems a bit better than the 30D bodies I use from day to day, it's neither as fast nor as sophisticated as the good ole 1Dmk2 or mk2n. As with sports (avian has always seemed to me like the sports equivalent of nature photography), even small differences in equipment performance can be magnified by the stern needs of capturing fast action. And autofocus performance and burst rate, while only two of the differences between the "1" and xxD series cameras, are important differences in some cases.
I'm not in any way saying that gorgeous photos of birds aren't gotten every day with xxD series bodies on nice glass (I better not say that, since those are the bodies I usually use), nor that owning a "1" series body will make a person a better photographer. I generally preach pretty hard that it's the eye, mind and heart of a person that makes the photo, not differences in gear quality. But I'd also rather shoot with the equipment best suited to the job when I can afford it. There are times when better/more sophisticated equipment WILL allow you to get the shot when other gear won't, and avian photography, like sports, seems to me to produce more examples of this. That being said, discipline in technique and mastering woodscraft and your subjects' habits are still the best ways to get sharp images of close birds with any gear.
One of the great blessings of this big and ongoing battle for supremacy between Canon and Nikon is that top bodies two generations old (like the 1Dmk2) or one generation old (like the mk2n), are seen by many as obsolete as soon as a new version comes out, and they come down in price dramatically. So, because of my specific photographic needs, getting a lightly used 1Dmk2 for the same price (or less) than a gripped 50D is definitely the way I'd go. Because I'm building my business without incurring a big debt load, I have been waiting for the 1Dmk2 and mk2n to keep dropping, and now they are within reach.
Hope that helps explain my approach. It's not necessarily right or wrong as approaches go, just one of many.