Several years ago not long after I joined NPN I got the minimum gear that was recommended to me by Ron B., a former (?) NPN member. He helped me out by offering me (out of the blue) a free one-on-one day one day, without which I would not have been able to get anywhere at all. That gear has been great.
Later I asked the question on here whether I should get better gear. The general response seemed to be to do the best I could with what I had. I presumed that was because my ability wasn't enough to justify better gear.
That still may be the case, but whether I am any good at avian photography or not, I like doing it and I still want a better chance. I'm going to be 70 in June, I'm already losing a lot of my physical ability and endurance, so it may already be too late. But I think I'm going to use my credit card, which I haven't used in about 10 years except once to pay $1,400 in taxes when I didn't estimate my quarterly tax payments correctly.
This is the thing. I tried again yesterday, but I just cannot carry a tripod. I think the one thing I do pretty good with usually is sharpness and detail even handheld, but I don't know that that would be the case with a really heavy lens.
So I don't know what to do. I also sit on the ground when I need to, but it is very difficult for me to get down and get up. Yesterday when I was in Gainesville three different people asked me at three different times if I was okay. I mean, that was really nice of them, but still .
I just want to be able to take my camera with my bird lens on it, my macro lens, and I have a 15-85mm and 55-250mm (or something like that) that came with the camera, so I usually take them, too, and go. I thought yesterday that maybe there is some kind of canvas stool that would be easy to carry.
So my main question is this. What is the best Canon camera that is light enough to carry? I have a 7D now and have no trouble with it. What is the best Canon prime lens that is light enough to carry and that I could handhold, if there is one, for avian shooting? Mostly I don't feel that I have enough time to sit for hours in one spot in a blind or I wouldn't have this problem. I still work from home (doing transcription), and the only day that I can go out is usually Saturday, though if I had a longer lens I could probably find birds around home also.
I'm discouraged right now, as you can probably tell. Being asked three times in one day if I was okay didn't help. But I guess that's my reality now (and I know each of you has your own reality). And I'm also discouraged about my photography.
So if money is no object, what should I get based on the above criteria? (But if you know how much what you recommend costs, that would be great, too.)
Hi Barbara, I am new here, and as the new "kid" on the block, I was a bit hesitant to share, but then I thought, I am new at this site, but I am totally satisfied with my equipment.
So here goes. First of all, I am soon to be 66 years old, have been injured several times, (back, neck, and a few broken bones in wrist and elbow), so I am not wanting to carry too heavy of equipment.
That said, I shoot with with a Canon 5D Mark III (most of the time) and with a Canon 100-400mm L Lens (Mark I) with their wonderful IS activated. I have got some satisfying shots of wading birds, birds in flight, etc. I found that lens used, and paid less than $1,000 for it. I just found a used one for a friend for less than $800, so because the newer one is out there, I think the price is going down. So, if money is an issue, I am saying that the older model lens sure does a wonderful job. I even add a 1.4 teleconverter to it, and still am able to handhold it and get a sharp image. That brings me to 560mm on the full frame. With the 7D, you would automatically get the 1.6 crop factor, but gain some noise because of the sensor size.
There are prime 400mm, 500mm and 600mm, but they are pricey, and heavy (at least the 500-600mm would be), so I highly recommend the older model 100-400mm L lens. It is fast focus and sharp, in my opinion.
I hope this helps. Wishing you the best in your decision.
IMO this is the classical dilemma of avian photography. Unless you are working from a controlled setup (food/bait, carefully selected perch, blind, all located to take advantage of the light, you have to trade off focal length with portability.
Some random thoughts:
stick with a "crop sensor" DX format camera body to take advantage of the 1.5-1.6x magnification of focal length
if you want to go commando (minimum gear, no tripod) rely on higher ISO settings like 800, 1250, 1600
check out light weight (but expensive) carbon fiber tripods
try a monopod (I have never had any success with one but try it every year or so)
accept that some amount of cropping can substitute for full frame images from monster lenses
visit places where the birds have become used to people (Florida is full of them)
try a backyard setup
learn to be patient so you can hang around good habitat and wait for birds to come to you
I think the 400/5.6 lens you already have is very good for avian as long as you can get within range. It is light weight and easy to carry. I don't think the 100-400/5.6 zoom would help and would likely be heavier (but a Canon user would know better than my WAG about that). The next step up is a 500/4, but that is serious weight and serious expense, and I wouldn't use one without a serious tripod and ball head or gimbal. Consider a non Canon lens, like the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 class that are already delivering for a lot of people here at NPN.
Finally, when you go out for birds leave all the other lenses behind. You won't need them for birds so why carry them?
Hi Barbara,
The best Canon lens which is relatively light weight is the Canon 400 DO F4 lens. It is the same focal length as your current lens, however it works very well with teleconverters, both the newer versions of the 1.4x and the 2.0x. However to take full advantage and be able to autofocus with the 2.0x teleconverter you would need to buy a newer body, as a 7D won't autofocus with the 400F4 and a 2.0 teleconverter. It's a lens with a large diameter like a 500F4, but due to the technology used it's surprisingly light. It weighs 4.6 pounds, but that is about 2 pounds heavier than your current lens. The cost is 6,900.00 or so. If you bought a new camera (ie 80D see below) then it would autofocus with the 2.0x
Another option to gain more focal length with your current set up is to buy a new camera body. The reason you say your 400F5.6 doesn't work with teleconverters is because it won't autofocus with your current camera (7D) and a teleconverter. However, both the 80D and the 7D2 will autofocus with a 400F5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter (as will the 100-400). Of the 2 I would recommend the 80D as it's lighter, less expensive, a newer model and has more megapixels with a little bit better iso performance than the 7D2. The 80D costs about $1,100 while a teleconverter adds about 500 more. Honestly, I haven't heard how the image quality is with the 400F5.6 and a 1.4x but I think it would be reasonably good (I have heard it's reasonably good with the newer Canon 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Certainly the 80D should be a better camera than the 7D. The added megapixels will help with the reach issue as well as you should be able to crop more and the images will be less noisy. Or you could buy a Sigma 150-600 contemporary, it's a good lens. I have one and use it but not as often as I use the 500F4. I like it a lot better with full frame cameras than with crop cameras however.
One question I would have for you before I add more is do you think the biggest improvement in your images would be from having more reach (focal length) or from having higher quality (sharper, less noisy) images? It makes a difference in the advice that I would give.
Newer equipment may help but being able to get close to your subjects through stealthy approach (wearing camo or earth colored clothes, moving slowly and deliberately), most of all understanding where to find the birds and either wait for them or walk will improve your photography more. I use a full frame camera and sometimes I feel I would like more reach but the better image quality (sharper, less noisy) has had me using full frame cameras for years.
I agree with Richard about (not) hauling around the other lenses, it probably is worth purchasing a small camping type stool that you can carry with you, this will get you lower (less likely to scare the birds and you will have a better angle). Those are some thoughts.
Thank you, Richard and Dennis. So I guess I need your opinions on the sharpness and detail of my avian images. I had thought it was pretty good most of the time. Am I right or wrong? Richard may know already. Nate, I think you'd have to look at a few of my larger images to be able to tell. So I think more reach is what I want.
I really like having a prime lens, and I really like having this particular lens. I like the idea of staying with it as far as weight and I think the general image quality is good. But, again, am I right or wrong as far as my lens generally having good image quality? I mean, I know there are a lot of other things involved in image quality, but those things depend on me, not the lens.
I didn't realize a new camera would change the situation so much. Maybe I would be better off to put the extra couple of pounds of weight into a new camera and a teleconverter rather than a bigger lens. Are the 80D and 7D2 crop sensors? I probably do still need to stay with a crop sensor camera for the reason that Richard gives.
I will check out carbon fiber tripods and also monopods and camp stools.
I do hang around waiting in areas where I know something I want likes to be, but usually not more than an hour up to now. (Usually when I do that I find that somebody tells me I've missed something else while I was waiting there. Like there was a whooping crane for a month and I never saw it. ) I'm pretty good at being slow and deliberate and quiet and standing still for a while.
Honestly, living in Northeast Florida camo means one thing (not referring to military camo), and I just have not been able to make myself do it. But I remember "Don't wear anything bright" is one of the very first things Ron B. told me when we were making arrangements for that day a few years ago.
It makes complete sense not to carry my other lenses.
The 80D actually weighs less than the 7D so with the teleconverter you would just be adding a touch of weight. Although you may be better off just cropping than using the tc. The 400F5.6 is a very sharp lens, the biggest limitation is it's not that great in low light due to the lack of IS. I have looked at plenty of your images online (the large version) and for the most part they look pretty sharp. But they are downsized greatly from the original. So it partly depends what your use of the images is, for me what they look like at 100% is important as I send them to stock agents. And again the full frame cameras just produce much better (sharper and less noisy) images when viewed at full size (unless you are shooting the crop factor camera at low iso's - 400 or less). So one other thing to consider would be looking at a 5D4 - it is over $3,000 though. The fact that it has 30 megapixels makes up for the lack of a crop sensor to some extent. However you would be able to get good images at much higher isos than a crop factor camera.
Yes, the 7D2 and the 80D are both crop sensors (APS-C). The same sensor size as your 7D. Your 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, more than capable of delivering sharp images. The 400mm f/4 DO is an excellent lens, but you are not going to see $6000 dollars worth of difference. Frankly, I doubt you'd see any difference in image quality at the sizes you are preparing for web usage. If you are making big prints, maybe, but I still doubt it. A 1.4x converter on your 400 f/5.6 would auto focus on the 7D2 and I assume the 80D. It would only work on the central AF sensor since the lens would now be at f/8 with the converter. If you are interested in any birds in flight the 7D2 is a MUCH better option than the 80D because of the AF system. They are not even in the same league for AF performance, configuration options for different AF challenges and speed of AF.
You should also invest in more knowledge of post processing. While your processing has certainly improved, post processing is a vital skill for photographers today shooting any genre of images.
Posted by Dennis Plank on May 29, 2017 at 12:18 AM
Hi Barbara. You've gotten some great advice thus far. I'll just throw one more suggestion in the pot. If you want longer reach and not a lot of extra weight, I'd look at the Sigma 150-600 contemporary zoom that I've been using. To my eye the image quality is almost as good as my old canon 500 f4 prime and probably better than the 500 was with a 1.4 TC attached. It's light enough to hand hold, though a monopod can be a nice addition.
By the way, one of my favorite accessories is a little collapsible three-legged camping stool. Last I knew Campmor still sold them. Make sure you get the one with the aluminum legs as it's a lot lighter.
As presented on NPN your image quality has been fine for quite a while, so I don't think you should worry about that issue.
Barb, why not consider a heavy-duty large camera bag on wheels? Just wheel your equipment around with you. The larger ones would hold a 400 mm lens attached to your camera, plus lots of other stuff.
A kid's wagon would achieve the same thing - certainly cheaper. Iif you're often on beaches, there is a rolling cart made just for sand.
Then, get a Walk Stool or something similar to sit on -
For warblers and fast moving small birds that are somewhat approachable, I use a 300 mm f4 mounted on a Bush Hawk plastic stock. A 400 f4 or f5.6 would have better reach and fit on it nicely. It makes for a nice sniper rig that is easily carried and comfortable to use. Anything bigger than a 400 mm requires a tripod and an entirely new skill set. I am not experienced with Canon so I cannot comment on the best camera body. The comments that you received so far are excellent suggestions. Good luck and have fun shopping....................Jim
But they are downsized greatly from the original. So it partly depends what your use of the images is, for me what they look like at 100% is important as I send them to stock agents.
As presented on NPN your image quality has been fine for quite a while, so I don't think you should worry about that issue.
I think I should clarify something. If I explain my processing stream, everybody will say, "Are you crazy? That would take forever!" So let me just say that the only images I use for posting on NPN or on Facebook are images that are sharp and detailed at 100%. I delete all the others. Then after I pick one to use I delete most of the other sharp and detailed ones. I just keep a couple of different ones.
I've had people on Facebook say that they'd like to buy prints, but I just can't seem to figure that out. Some things I'm really good at and some things I can't figure out. I don't know why. I did have some photos printed at various sizes maybe up to 16 x 20 (but I could be totally wrong about that) by Bay Photo once just to see how they came out, and they came out good. Now they're just in the box they came in somewhere.
I use the Canon 80D and find it to be a great camera. I also use the EF-300mm F-4L and the EF-100-400mm F-4.5/5.6L, and both the 1.4 and 2x converters. I only use the 1.4 on the 100-400 as I cannot get it to auto focus with the 2x. I do find the 300 and 2x combination great for birds. When I can I prefer to use the 80D with the 100-400. For me it has become my best gear combination. Also I use a footed monopod most of the time. I can no longer hand hold long lenses. I have used the EF 400 and the Sigma 150-600,, both lenses are good, but I found new homes for them. I also use a wheeled camera bag, which works very well except on rough ground. Also, I tend to overload it which makes it heavy to get in and out of my car. I do have anther wheeled bag, with larger wheels designed for use on trails and rougher ground. But, it is not a camera bag.
I have tried many different lenses and Canon cameras over the years since digital arrived. I have the Canon 77D as a back up and my walk around camera and use the Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II USM with it. This is for me a great combination. It is the only long lens I try to hand hold.
Recently, in my search for lighter gear I have tried the Canon mirror less M5 with EOS adapter. Do not like it at all. It is just too small for me to use, with my big hands. For some one who can hold it without turning on all kinds of other applications it could be a good camera.
BTW I am 73, have suffered from arthritis since my mid 50's and can relate to your search for the best gear. I hope this helps
John Tobias
I thought I would put in my two cents.. I have the Canon 7D Mk II and I have a Canon 100-400mm Version II lens and a 1.4 TC version III. This combination is outstanding for bird photography in a light weight package. The images are tack sharp. With this combo the lens and teleconverter combo gets you to 560mm, and with the crop sensor camera, it brings you to 896 mm. I had the 400mm 5.6L lens that you are currently using and I sold it when I bought the version II 100-400mm lens, I was amazed at the image quality.
My son in law shoots with a 7D Mk II and a Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens. This combo will get you to 960mm. Also a very lightweight package. It is tack sharp as well and a little easier on the pocketbook. You can get the Sigma lens for around $1200.00. I know many others, including on this site using this lens with excellent results.
I will qualify my statements though. It is extremely hard to handhold most lenses over 400mm (even a lighter weight setup) without a tripod and get sharp results unless you have a lot of light and fairly high shutter speeds.
Barbra, you have received excellent advice so far. I will second, or third, the suggestion of a new 7D Mark II with the 100-400 version II. If you need more reach add the 1.4 TC. I switched to this from a 1D Mark IV due to weight - I am also about to turn 70. The combo I mentioned will meet your sharpness demands without an issue. Only other suggestion is to calibrate your lens and lens/TC combo.
Barbara, I think Moose Henderson was just offering a 7DII in Classifieds over the last month or so. I didn't see that he had sold it. You might want to check with him. He said it just had a few shutter releases and he was upgrading to new cameras.
Thanks, Ed. I don't see it listed now, so he must have sold it. I remember seeing that, too.
This is what I've come to so far. I have the prices of everything, too, but that's unrelated to my questions here.
The total weight of what I have now is 4.55 pounds.
The total weight of a 7DII, a 100-400 II and a 1.4x is 6 pounds, or about 1.5 pounds more.
Camera Body: I think I have to go with the 7DII because I am interested in birds in flight and because of what Keith said about that.
Lens: I don't think I need a zoom for birds. However, I am also interested in other wildlife, and I almost never have a chance to back up before they run away. Also, I need more reach for birds, and depending on the answers to my questions in the next paragraph the 100-400 with 1.4x could give me that.
Here's what I think is my last question: I rely on the AF with my 400/5.6. Is there any chance I would be disappointed using the AF with a 1.4x on the 100-400 II? Is it slower, the same, or faster? What does it mean to be limited to what AF sensor it works with?
From my experience, you will have two factors affecting AF. One the 7D Mk II outperforms the original 7D by leaps and bounds in AF performance. Two, my experience is that the AF on the new 100-400 will be a tad better than the 400mm 5.6. With a 1.4 teleconverter, you will see a bit of reduced AF performance. Still very acceptable for still birds, and I have had really good success using the teleconverter on terns and gulls in flight. If birds in flight over 400mm is a big issue to you, the Sigma 150-600 would be a a great option.
What does it mean to be limited to what AF sensor it works with?
Barbara:
It means that when you put the 1.4x converter on the 100-400, or your 400 f/5.6 the autofocus system will only allow you to use the center AF sensor. You cannot move the sensor to any other part of the screen. You can use one of three different options of sensors on the 7D Mark II. You can use Spot AF, 1 point AF, or Expand Area AF (center point with 4 surrounding points). I just tried this on my 7D II with the 100-400 (new version) and the 1.4x TC. Any lens combo that has a maximum aperture of f/8 imposes this limitation. AF speed wiil be slower than without the converter, but in good light I doubt you'll find it to be an issue.
Thank you, all of you, so much. I'm almost done, but there are so many choices of options with and for the 7D Mark II. Rather than look them all up, I'm checking to see if anybody knows already whether I need any of these things. Otherwise I'm going to get this one:
Any options would be up to you Barbara, none of them are necessary for bird photography unless you want the printer. You won't be disappointed with the 7D II, you will really notice a difference in AF, speed and image quality. You may want a spare battery, however the battery from your 7d will work in it.
Thanks, Matt. I just don't always know when I should have gotten something I didn't get, if that makes sense. I'm glad to know the battery from the 7D will work in it. I have two of those.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II DSLR Camera (Body Only)
comes with
• Ruggard Journey 34 Shoulder Bag (Black)
• Watson LP-E6N Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.2V, 1900mAh)
• SanDisk 32GB Extreme UHS-I SDHC Memory Card
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens
Canon Extender EF 1.4X III
Wish me luck :) I'll have a lot to do in the next couple of weeks to make sure they work and to make sure I can use them so I can return them if I need to.
Oh Barbara, it sounds like you put a lot of thought in it, and have come up with a great selection. I am so looking forward to seeing some of your work. Congratulations and best wishes with your purchase!
For the record, Barbara, Your images have improved on NPN considerably over the time since you first started posting. I think you have made some good choices in your recent purchases. I understand all too well the disadvantages of old age problems, as I have 3 herniated disks in my back, which I am holding at bay with cortisone shots. I can get down to the ground with relative ease, I just have to be near something or someone to pull myself back up. I am 77 and probably don't have a lot of photography time left in me, but I intend to carry on until I can't.
I would suggest if you need further equipment and want to try out first, rental is an option. I have rented cameras and lenses over the years, both on a tryout basis and a temporary basis (special trips, weddings, etc.). My go to rental company of choice is Lensrentals.com. They rigorously maintain their equipment and are free with advice and recommendations. They are not cheap, but they are reasonable. They also sell their used lenses. I have bought two lenses from them in the last few years, a 180 mm Sigma macro, and the Nikon 200 mm—500 mm, both in excellent condition.
Thanks, Phil! I think this will probably be it for me unless in my old age I decide to take up major landscape photography, which is not likely. I have a Tamron macro lens which is great, and this Canon lens is definitely hand-holdable and the image quality seems to be good, so I think this will be it. Though I have to say that I have been amazed at the difference between the 7D and the 7DII, and I intend not to think about how much better more expensive cameras would be and just be happy with the 7DII. This is what happens when you don't start photography until you're already 63, then take a two-year break, then start again. But it makes me very happy (aside from the anxiety), so that's what counts.
With regard to Preston's request for Gear Forum users to post saying what was purchased and a short review, I've said above what I purchased, but here is the little I can give right now as far as a review:
Canon EOS 7D Mark II DSLR Camera (Body Only) - much better than the 7D in terms of image quality, I think, but I don't really feel sure of my own judgment. I do find a lot of difference in how things are done with some of the buttons and dials, just minor differences but enough to mean that for me I have to carefully read the instructions. Other people might not need the instructions.
Ruggard Journey 34 Shoulder Bag (Black) - came with camera, VERY small, only useful for keeping small things in.
Watson LP-E6N Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.2V, 1900mAh) - always good to have
SanDisk 32GB Extreme UHS-I SDHC Memory Card - the camera has a CF slot and an SD slot. I already have several CF cards but didn't have an SD card, so it was nice to get this one.
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens - good image quality as far as I can tell (except for your first subject when you forget you now have a zoom lens and it isn't zoomed and you wonder why the subject looks so far away and then realize your lens was at 100mm).
Canon Extender EF 1.4X III - as far as I can tell this doesn't affect the image quality much, but I don't feel confident enough to be sure.
I have no problem handholding the camera with lens and extender.
Discussion
37 repliesLater I asked the question on here whether I should get better gear. The general response seemed to be to do the best I could with what I had. I presumed that was because my ability wasn't enough to justify better gear.
That still may be the case, but whether I am any good at avian photography or not, I like doing it and I still want a better chance. I'm going to be 70 in June, I'm already losing a lot of my physical ability and endurance, so it may already be too late. But I think I'm going to use my credit card, which I haven't used in about 10 years except once to pay $1,400 in taxes when I didn't estimate my quarterly tax payments correctly.
This is the thing. I tried again yesterday, but I just cannot carry a tripod. I think the one thing I do pretty good with usually is sharpness and detail even handheld, but I don't know that that would be the case with a really heavy lens.
So I don't know what to do. I also sit on the ground when I need to, but it is very difficult for me to get down and get up. Yesterday when I was in Gainesville three different people asked me at three different times if I was okay.
I just want to be able to take my camera with my bird lens on it, my macro lens, and I have a 15-85mm and 55-250mm (or something like that) that came with the camera, so I usually take them, too, and go. I thought yesterday that maybe there is some kind of canvas stool that would be easy to carry.
So my main question is this. What is the best Canon camera that is light enough to carry? I have a 7D now and have no trouble with it. What is the best Canon prime lens that is light enough to carry and that I could handhold, if there is one, for avian shooting? Mostly I don't feel that I have enough time to sit for hours in one spot in a blind or I wouldn't have this problem. I still work from home (doing transcription), and the only day that I can go out is usually Saturday, though if I had a longer lens I could probably find birds around home also.
I'm discouraged right now, as you can probably tell. Being asked three times in one day if I was okay didn't help. But I guess that's my reality now (and I know each of you has your own reality). And I'm also discouraged about my photography.
So if money is no object, what should I get based on the above criteria? (But if you know how much what you recommend costs, that would be great, too.)
Thank you.
So here goes. First of all, I am soon to be 66 years old, have been injured several times, (back, neck, and a few broken bones in wrist and elbow), so I am not wanting to carry too heavy of equipment.
That said, I shoot with with a Canon 5D Mark III (most of the time) and with a Canon 100-400mm L Lens (Mark I) with their wonderful IS activated. I have got some satisfying shots of wading birds, birds in flight, etc. I found that lens used, and paid less than $1,000 for it. I just found a used one for a friend for less than $800, so because the newer one is out there, I think the price is going down. So, if money is an issue, I am saying that the older model lens sure does a wonderful job. I even add a 1.4 teleconverter to it, and still am able to handhold it and get a sharp image. That brings me to 560mm on the full frame. With the 7D, you would automatically get the 1.6 crop factor, but gain some noise because of the sensor size.
There are prime 400mm, 500mm and 600mm, but they are pricey, and heavy (at least the 500-600mm would be), so I highly recommend the older model 100-400mm L lens. It is fast focus and sharp, in my opinion.
I hope this helps. Wishing you the best in your decision.
Some random thoughts:
- stick with a "crop sensor" DX format camera body to take advantage of the 1.5-1.6x magnification of focal length
- if you want to go commando (minimum gear, no tripod) rely on higher ISO settings like 800, 1250, 1600
- check out light weight (but expensive) carbon fiber tripods
- try a monopod (I have never had any success with one but try it every year or so)
- accept that some amount of cropping can substitute for full frame images from monster lenses
- visit places where the birds have become used to people (Florida is full of them)
- try a backyard setup
- learn to be patient so you can hang around good habitat and wait for birds to come to you
I think the 400/5.6 lens you already have is very good for avian as long as you can get within range. It is light weight and easy to carry. I don't think the 100-400/5.6 zoom would help and would likely be heavier (but a Canon user would know better than my WAG about that). The next step up is a 500/4, but that is serious weight and serious expense, and I wouldn't use one without a serious tripod and ball head or gimbal. Consider a non Canon lens, like the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 class that are already delivering for a lot of people here at NPN.Finally, when you go out for birds leave all the other lenses behind. You won't need them for birds so why carry them?
The best Canon lens which is relatively light weight is the Canon 400 DO F4 lens. It is the same focal length as your current lens, however it works very well with teleconverters, both the newer versions of the 1.4x and the 2.0x. However to take full advantage and be able to autofocus with the 2.0x teleconverter you would need to buy a newer body, as a 7D won't autofocus with the 400F4 and a 2.0 teleconverter. It's a lens with a large diameter like a 500F4, but due to the technology used it's surprisingly light. It weighs 4.6 pounds, but that is about 2 pounds heavier than your current lens. The cost is 6,900.00 or so. If you bought a new camera (ie 80D see below) then it would autofocus with the 2.0x
Another option to gain more focal length with your current set up is to buy a new camera body. The reason you say your 400F5.6 doesn't work with teleconverters is because it won't autofocus with your current camera (7D) and a teleconverter. However, both the 80D and the 7D2 will autofocus with a 400F5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter (as will the 100-400). Of the 2 I would recommend the 80D as it's lighter, less expensive, a newer model and has more megapixels with a little bit better iso performance than the 7D2. The 80D costs about $1,100 while a teleconverter adds about 500 more. Honestly, I haven't heard how the image quality is with the 400F5.6 and a 1.4x but I think it would be reasonably good (I have heard it's reasonably good with the newer Canon 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Certainly the 80D should be a better camera than the 7D. The added megapixels will help with the reach issue as well as you should be able to crop more and the images will be less noisy. Or you could buy a Sigma 150-600 contemporary, it's a good lens. I have one and use it but not as often as I use the 500F4. I like it a lot better with full frame cameras than with crop cameras however.
One question I would have for you before I add more is do you think the biggest improvement in your images would be from having more reach (focal length) or from having higher quality (sharper, less noisy) images? It makes a difference in the advice that I would give.
Newer equipment may help but being able to get close to your subjects through stealthy approach (wearing camo or earth colored clothes, moving slowly and deliberately), most of all understanding where to find the birds and either wait for them or walk will improve your photography more. I use a full frame camera and sometimes I feel I would like more reach but the better image quality (sharper, less noisy) has had me using full frame cameras for years.
I agree with Richard about (not) hauling around the other lenses, it probably is worth purchasing a small camping type stool that you can carry with you, this will get you lower (less likely to scare the birds and you will have a better angle). Those are some thoughts.
I really like having a prime lens, and I really like having this particular lens. I like the idea of staying with it as far as weight and I think the general image quality is good. But, again, am I right or wrong as far as my lens generally having good image quality? I mean, I know there are a lot of other things involved in image quality, but those things depend on me, not the lens.
I didn't realize a new camera would change the situation so much. Maybe I would be better off to put the extra couple of pounds of weight into a new camera and a teleconverter rather than a bigger lens. Are the 80D and 7D2 crop sensors? I probably do still need to stay with a crop sensor camera for the reason that Richard gives.
I will check out carbon fiber tripods and also monopods and camp stools.
I do hang around waiting in areas where I know something I want likes to be, but usually not more than an hour up to now. (Usually when I do that I find that somebody tells me I've missed something else while I was waiting there. Like there was a whooping crane for a month and I never saw it.
Honestly, living in Northeast Florida camo means one thing (not referring to military camo), and I just have not been able to make myself do it. But I remember "Don't wear anything bright" is one of the very first things Ron B. told me when we were making arrangements for that day a few years ago.
It makes complete sense not to carry my other lenses.
Thank you again.
I'll respond to your latest questions:
Yes, the 7D2 and the 80D are both crop sensors (APS-C). The same sensor size as your 7D. Your 400mm f/5.6 is a very good lens, more than capable of delivering sharp images. The 400mm f/4 DO is an excellent lens, but you are not going to see $6000 dollars worth of difference. Frankly, I doubt you'd see any difference in image quality at the sizes you are preparing for web usage. If you are making big prints, maybe, but I still doubt it. A 1.4x converter on your 400 f/5.6 would auto focus on the 7D2 and I assume the 80D. It would only work on the central AF sensor since the lens would now be at f/8 with the converter. If you are interested in any birds in flight the 7D2 is a MUCH better option than the 80D because of the AF system. They are not even in the same league for AF performance, configuration options for different AF challenges and speed of AF.
You should also invest in more knowledge of post processing. While your processing has certainly improved, post processing is a vital skill for photographers today shooting any genre of images.
By the way, one of my favorite accessories is a little collapsible three-legged camping stool. Last I knew Campmor still sold them. Make sure you get the one with the aluminum legs as it's a lot lighter.
As presented on NPN your image quality has been fine for quite a while, so I don't think you should worry about that issue.
A kid's wagon would achieve the same thing - certainly cheaper. Iif you're often on beaches, there is a rolling cart made just for sand.
Then, get a Walk Stool or something similar to sit on -
http://www.campsaver.com/walkstool-basic-stool
Sandy
For warblers and fast moving small birds that are somewhat approachable, I use a 300 mm f4 mounted on a Bush Hawk plastic stock. A 400 f4 or f5.6 would have better reach and fit on it nicely. It makes for a nice sniper rig that is easily carried and comfortable to use. Anything bigger than a 400 mm requires a tripod and an entirely new skill set. I am not experienced with Canon so I cannot comment on the best camera body. The comments that you received so far are excellent suggestions. Good luck and have fun shopping
I think I should clarify something. If I explain my processing stream, everybody will say, "Are you crazy? That would take forever!" So let me just say that the only images I use for posting on NPN or on Facebook are images that are sharp and detailed at 100%. I delete all the others. Then after I pick one to use I delete most of the other sharp and detailed ones. I just keep a couple of different ones.
I've had people on Facebook say that they'd like to buy prints, but I just can't seem to figure that out. Some things I'm really good at and some things I can't figure out. I don't know why. I did have some photos printed at various sizes maybe up to 16 x 20 (but I could be totally wrong about that) by Bay Photo once just to see how they came out, and they came out good. Now they're just in the box they came in somewhere.
I have tried many different lenses and Canon cameras over the years since digital arrived. I have the Canon 77D as a back up and my walk around camera and use the Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II USM with it. This is for me a great combination. It is the only long lens I try to hand hold.
Recently, in my search for lighter gear I have tried the Canon mirror less M5 with EOS adapter. Do not like it at all. It is just too small for me to use, with my big hands. For some one who can hold it without turning on all kinds of other applications it could be a good camera.
BTW I am 73, have suffered from arthritis since my mid 50's and can relate to your search for the best gear. I hope this helps
John Tobias
I thought I would put in my two cents.. I have the Canon 7D Mk II and I have a Canon 100-400mm Version II lens and a 1.4 TC version III. This combination is outstanding for bird photography in a light weight package. The images are tack sharp. With this combo the lens and teleconverter combo gets you to 560mm, and with the crop sensor camera, it brings you to 896 mm. I had the 400mm 5.6L lens that you are currently using and I sold it when I bought the version II 100-400mm lens, I was amazed at the image quality.
My son in law shoots with a 7D Mk II and a Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens. This combo will get you to 960mm. Also a very lightweight package. It is tack sharp as well and a little easier on the pocketbook. You can get the Sigma lens for around $1200.00. I know many others, including on this site using this lens with excellent results.
I will qualify my statements though. It is extremely hard to handhold most lenses over 400mm (even a lighter weight setup) without a tripod and get sharp results unless you have a lot of light and fairly high shutter speeds.
This is what I've come to so far. I have the prices of everything, too, but that's unrelated to my questions here.
The total weight of what I have now is 4.55 pounds.
The total weight of a 7DII, a 100-400 II and a 1.4x is 6 pounds, or about 1.5 pounds more.
Camera Body: I think I have to go with the 7DII because I am interested in birds in flight and because of what Keith said about that.
Lens: I don't think I need a zoom for birds. However, I am also interested in other wildlife, and I almost never have a chance to back up before they run away. Also, I need more reach for birds, and depending on the answers to my questions in the next paragraph the 100-400 with 1.4x could give me that.
Here's what I think is my last question: I rely on the AF with my 400/5.6. Is there any chance I would be disappointed using the AF with a 1.4x on the 100-400 II? Is it slower, the same, or faster? What does it mean to be limited to what AF sensor it works with?
Thank you all for giving me so much help.
From my experience, you will have two factors affecting AF. One the 7D Mk II outperforms the original 7D by leaps and bounds in AF performance. Two, my experience is that the AF on the new 100-400 will be a tad better than the 400mm 5.6. With a 1.4 teleconverter, you will see a bit of reduced AF performance. Still very acceptable for still birds, and I have had really good success using the teleconverter on terns and gulls in flight. If birds in flight over 400mm is a big issue to you, the Sigma 150-600 would be a a great option.
Barbara:
It means that when you put the 1.4x converter on the 100-400, or your 400 f/5.6 the autofocus system will only allow you to use the center AF sensor. You cannot move the sensor to any other part of the screen. You can use one of three different options of sensors on the 7D Mark II. You can use Spot AF, 1 point AF, or Expand Area AF (center point with 4 surrounding points). I just tried this on my 7D II with the 100-400 (new version) and the 1.4x TC. Any lens combo that has a maximum aperture of f/8 imposes this limitation. AF speed wiil be slower than without the converter, but in good light I doubt you'll find it to be an issue.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081808-REG/canon_9128b002_eos_7d_mark_ii.html
Other options are:
Deluxe Photo KitAny lenses that come with the camera (do the 7D lenses fit the camera?)
W-E1 Wi-Fi Adapter
Basic Photo Kit
PIXMA PRO-100 Printer Kit
Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan Kit (I have PS6, the last version before Creative Cloud)
Video Kit
Vello LCD Screen Protector Ultra for Canon 7D Mark II Camera
Vello BG-C12 Battery Grip for Canon 7D Mark II
Vello Snap-On Glass LCD Screen Protector for Canon 7DII
Microphone Kit
Stabilizer Kit
Canon EOS 7D Mark II DSLR Camera (Body Only)
comes with
• Ruggard Journey 34 Shoulder Bag (Black)
• Watson LP-E6N Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.2V, 1900mAh)
• SanDisk 32GB Extreme UHS-I SDHC Memory Card
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens
Canon Extender EF 1.4X III
Wish me luck :) I'll have a lot to do in the next couple of weeks to make sure they work and to make sure I can use them so I can return them if I need to.
I would suggest if you need further equipment and want to try out first, rental is an option. I have rented cameras and lenses over the years, both on a tryout basis and a temporary basis (special trips, weddings, etc.). My go to rental company of choice is Lensrentals.com. They rigorously maintain their equipment and are free with advice and recommendations. They are not cheap, but they are reasonable. They also sell their used lenses. I have bought two lenses from them in the last few years, a 180 mm Sigma macro, and the Nikon 200 mm—500 mm, both in excellent condition.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II DSLR Camera (Body Only) - much better than the 7D in terms of image quality, I think, but I don't really feel sure of my own judgment. I do find a lot of difference in how things are done with some of the buttons and dials, just minor differences but enough to mean that for me I have to carefully read the instructions. Other people might not need the instructions.
Ruggard Journey 34 Shoulder Bag (Black) - came with camera, VERY small, only useful for keeping small things in.
Watson LP-E6N Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.2V, 1900mAh) - always good to have
SanDisk 32GB Extreme UHS-I SDHC Memory Card - the camera has a CF slot and an SD slot. I already have several CF cards but didn't have an SD card, so it was nice to get this one.
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens - good image quality as far as I can tell (except for your first subject when you forget you now have a zoom lens and it isn't zoomed and you wonder why the subject looks so far away and then realize your lens was at 100mm).
Canon Extender EF 1.4X III - as far as I can tell this doesn't affect the image quality much, but I don't feel confident enough to be sure.
I have no problem handholding the camera with lens and extender.