# For birds: 500 f/4L II or ?



## Asher (May 29, 2017)

I'm an amateur bird photographer, and since it's my 40th birthday this year my wife has agreed that I should splurge on a new lens (or other gear). I have a 70D body that I usually pair with a 400 f/5.6L. In low light, sometimes I use a 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x extender to take advantage of the image stabilization.

My current frustrations are the lack of IS on the 400mm and the relatively noisy output from 70D at ISO 800 and up. I'm contemplating the 500mm f/4 L IS II, which is my dream lens, but also seems like an insanely expensive and specialized purchase for an amateur. 

Instead of dropping $9k on the 500/4 II, I'm thinking of a couple alternatives:

*1) 5Dm4 body, and perhaps the 100-400 II.*

The 5Dm4 (or 5Dm3) would give me much better low-light performance, plus f/8 autofocus. Trading my 400/5.6 in for the new 100-400 would give me IS, though it's probably a wash on the optics at 400mm. Plus I'd get improved performance with my other lenses, not just at 500mm.

*2) 1st gen 500 f/4L IS*

These still seem to go for $5k+ and are a lot heavier. IS isn't nearly as good. Optics should still be very good, though.

*3) Upgraded camera body plus Sigma 150-600 zoom*

I've seen a lot of people raving about these lenses, and the extra reach + IS would get a lot of shots I currently miss.

On the other hand, I don't think there's anything like the sharpness and creamy background from a big white lens. If I buy the 500/4 II, I won't be upgrading my 70D this year, but the extra ~5 stops total would open up a lot more options.

Any thoughts (or alternate suggestions) for people who've used these combinations?


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2017)

I'm also dreaming of the 500 f4, but to be more prudent, here are some things to consider:

The Sigma Contemporary is very good for the price. 

The 100-400 II is excellent. 

You will lose reach with the 5DIV, but you will gain significantly in high ISO performance. 

With the newest generation of Canon bodies, you have multiple f8 focus points, so you can pair the 100-400 with the 1.4 extender and not lose too much in the way of autofocus or sharpness. But, you will lose one stop of performance. 

Although the newer 500 is lighter, it is still a huge and heavy lens. 

The IS on the 100-400 really won't help with birds in flight, so you may not see much of a gain there over the 400 f5.6. 

I would recommend that you rent a 5DIV and a 100-400 II for a week and see if you are satisfied with the reach. Since you already have the 1.4 extender, you can test that out with the lens and judge for yourself.


----------



## Asher (May 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I would recommend that you rent a 5DIV and a 100-400 II for a week and see if you are satisfied with the reach. Since you already have the 1.4 extender, you can test that out with the lens and judge for yourself.



Thanks, that's a good suggestion. The more I think about it, 5DIV + 100-400 II seems like a good, prudent choice. Great lens, I'd have decent reach w/ AF using the 1.4x. Plus the 5DIV would be much better for macro work (already have 100 f/2.8L macro). 

~$5k seems quite a bit more practical for an amateur, plus I could sell my 400/5.6 and possibly my 70-200/4.

Decisions...


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 29, 2017)

i could use a 100-400 ii on an 7dii, which was a fantastic combination. But this dense sensor brings the lens to the limits, i barely got more resolution with the 1.4iii extender, but more shake, more noise (1 stop more ISO) and reduced sharpness in general.

In opposite to it, the 500ii lens better accepted the 2x extender than the 100-400 took the 1.4x, which means it is another league for reach.

so the 500ii is a dream lens, and if your government agreed and you can afford it, you maybe should this dream allow to come true, enjoy it !

One addition: as nice as full frame is, if you are looking for more reach, you maybe should not move from crop to Fullframe at the same time, or you should consider the 600mm lens..... but all is a question of weight and costs. i crop sensor is always better than using an extender. so a 80D would be the next step for more reach


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2017)

I note that what you don't say is 'I wish I had more reach than 400mm'. In which case I think the 100-400 Mkii with the 5DIV will be an excellent choice - and add the 1.4 mkiii extender as well (with the mkiii you get all-point at f8, with the mkii extender it is a narrow strip of centre points only).

The focus on the 5DIV is better than the 70D so although you lose some reach, the focus of the 5DIV is much more reliable and you get more 'hits', and the image quality above ISO 1000 means that at dawn/dusk the 'reach' advantage of the 70D will disappear altogether. 

Of course there is always the 400DO Mk ii ;D


----------



## Asher (May 29, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> so the 500ii is a dream lens, and if your government agreed and you can afford it, you maybe should this dream allow to come true, enjoy it !



Yeah, that's the flipside. But it seems like a lot of lens to pair with the 70D (which is fine but does not have a great sensor IMO). And the 100-400 would be a great overall wildlife lens. And being half the weight/size, the 100-400 would be much easier to travel with.


----------



## Asher (May 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Of course there is always the 400DO Mk ii ;D



Oh no, even more choices! 

I definitely would like more reach than 400mm, as I end up a cropping a lot. But I have the 1.4x III, so maybe 100-400 would be good enough with f/8 AF.

If I already had a camera body I was really satisfied with, this would be an easier choice!


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2017)

The 5DIV is a beautiful camera - I rented it for a weekend and really enjoyed it. And in darker conditions the images are eminently usable at ISO 12.800 provided you don't need to crop much.

The reason I mentioned the 400DOii (naughty of me, I know) is that if this is a one-off offer from your wife, then for the price of the 500f4 mkii plus a bit more cash you could get the 400DOii and the 5DIV. But to be honest, the image quality of the 100-400ii in the centre of the image is about on par with the 400DOii (except for shallower DOF, obviously). 
I got the 400DOii because it gives me the the option of 560mm/800mm in a lighter package than the 500mm f4 and so far I have no regrets. But the zoom gives me greater versatility in a more compact package. 


So you really need to give some thought to what it is you want from the set-up. 
General use with birds as an interest - 5DIV plus 100-400 mkii
Serious birding - 400DOii, but I can't help thinking that with that lens you would want the 5DIV anyway to take most advantage of it.

I was taking photos at a gannet colony at the weekend and among the hundreds of people, there were many people with serious camera gear and the most common combination by far was the 7D2 plus 100-400ii. So I think pairing the lens with the 5DIV should be the front runner for you - it should be the bench mark against which you ask 'do I need a better lens'. One thing I would hate is for you to get the 400DOii and you take it out only for 'special occasions' because of the weight.

This is serious money - can you rent any of these first?


----------



## PCM-madison (May 29, 2017)

Previous posts have made many good points. A middle ground that has not been mentioned is the 300mm F2.8 L IS II. With a pair of extenders, I find it to be very flexible and useful for birds. I use mine with a 7D mII and 6D. For low light, the full frame and F2.8 are hard to beat. The 7D mII + 300mm + 2X extender are also very useful especially with good light. Here are a few recent examples with the wood ducks and red winged blackbird shot with the 7D mII + 300mm + 2X extender during daylight and the eastern screech owl shot 15 minutes after sunset with the 6D and 300mm @ F2.8.


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 30, 2017)

I bought the 500 f4 this year, it is a fantastic lens that works well with both teleconverters. I have had a long progression before getting this lens and only decided to get it when I new I needed handholdable > 600mm regularly. The new 100-400 is still my most used lens that takes the 1.4 teleconverter quite well.

Other options I would look into would be sigma or tamron 150-600 for the lowest cost option, Canon or sigma 100-400 if reach is not the issue (canon is fantastic, sigma is likely good but significantly cheaper). Next options would be the Sigma 120-300 which takes a 2x teleconverter very well (I still have this lens, it is sharp but very heavy), new Sigma 500 f4 when available and probably the best other option, the new canon 400 DO. That lens is very sharp, very light, relatively small and can handle the 1.4 teleconverter nicely (and the 2x ok).

As a person who does mostly nature, and most of that birds the camera I use most now is the Canon 5ds....the detail is fantastic (and you can crop like crazy) and the autofocus is very good (not as good as the 1 series and doesn't have f8 except on the center point). 5d IV will give you a few more shots per second and all points at f8 but it is hard to go back to the lower resolution once you have shots with feather details the 5ds has shown. 


Red by Barry Scully, on Flickr


----------



## PeterAlex7 (May 30, 2017)

What you could buy with $9k? I think you should search more. Sigma has released 500mm f4 OS Sport ($6k) which from what I've read, got a lot of praise. Yes i had no any experience with it, but at least i give you another option, that could give you more space to spend your bucks on better camera. If you have a 500mm lens you would get rid of your 400mm right? With the extra cash i think you could get a very mint canon 1DX or brand new 5D4. I've heard a guy in other forum got his 500mm f4L IS II only $7k brandnew.


----------



## nc0b (May 30, 2017)

I have both the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm II, and for BIF I still prefer the prime since I can limit the close focus distance to 8.5m. I wish the zoom had both the 3m focus limit and a 10m focus limit. The problem I have with the zoom is it can get lost in the sky, and when it focuses down to 3 meters I cannot recover focus as I cannot locate the bird any longer. I rarely cannot recover focus with the prime. On the other hand, for general wildlife, I definitely prefer the zoom with IS. Attached is a hawk taken with the prime, and a pronghorn with the zoom. Both were taken with a 6D using center-point AF. I also have a 5DsR, and completely agree that the cropping ability it offers is amazing. The zoom does take a 1.4X III quite well when used with the 5DsR, though I haven't generally needed that combination. I strongly recommend keeping your 400mm f/5.6 for BIF, and I doubt you can get more than $800 for it on the used market. There is no way I am going to spend $9K on a lens, and I question I could hand hold it anyway. On a trip to Alaska a fellow traveler did have the Sigma Sport 150-600mm, and I later saw some of his whale and wildlife shots which were quite impressive. He let me take a few shots with his lens and my 6D, but I felt the lens was too heavy for me at 70 years old.


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2017)

My experience with birds is that you never get enough reach and you´ll need good high ISO performance. Shutter speed is not just for shake, it is also for sharpness when things move. 

A 500 f4L IS II is a fantastic lens which works very well with the xIII extenders and it is smaller and lighter than the 600 f4L IS II. If you think the Sigma is an alternative, I suggest you wait to see how the expected Canon 150-600 will be (provided it does not take for ever ...).

You can have an L-lens for decades, whereas a camera body is outdated after just a few years. If you are budget limited, buy the 500 and keep the 70D, until you can upgrade to a 5DIV. Alternatively, if you want to do BIF, there are some very attractive prices for mint condition 1DX bodies out there. 12 fps is quite fun and quite useful.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2017)

In agreement with nc0b and stachasticmotions, I much prefer to use my 100-400mm Mk II on my 5DSR than on my 5DIV as I get significantly better resolution. Further, it works well with the 1.4xTC. To get the full benefit pf the 500 Mk II, you will have to upgrade from a 70D.

You will need a tripod or monopod to use the 500mm, and get incredibly good results when applicable. But, if you are an opportunistic bird photographer like me, you will lose most of your opportunities of birds that you come across at random. 

You should also consider Sigma lenses.The new 100-400 C is getting very good reviews and I might get one to add to my selection. My own Sigma 150-600mm C has as good IQ at 400mm as has my 100-400mm II and is better at 600mm than the Canon + 1.4xTC. But, the speed of AF is not as good. But, you must test the Sigmas to make sure you have a good one.

Investing in glass is indeed more long term than in bodies but you need a decent body to get the best out of glass.


----------



## Asher (May 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> In agreement with nc0b and stachasticmotions, I much prefer to use my 100-400mm Mk II on my 5DSR than on my 5DIV as I get significantly better resolution. Further, it works well with the 1.4xTC. To get the full benefit pf the 500 Mk II, you will have to upgrade from a 70D.



I'll have to look into the 5DS/5DSR too.



AlanF said:


> You will need a tripod or monopod to use the 500mm, and get incredibly good results when applicable. But, if you are an opportunistic bird photographer like me, you will lose most of your opportunities of birds that you come across at random.



That's another consideration. I can't imagine I'd just carry the 500mm around. For that matter, I don't carry the 400mm when I'm walking around casually; it's too specialized. The more I think of it, I think the 100-400 would get a lot more use. I enjoy my 70-200 quite a bit, but it's too short for anything but the closest (or largest) birds.

As much as I love the critical sharpness and buttery background of a great white, I'm trying to be honest with myself about which lens I'd actually get the most use out of. 



AlanF said:


> You should also consider Sigma lenses.The new 100-400 C is getting very good reviews and I might get one to add to my selection. My own Sigma 150-600mm C has as good IQ at 400mm as has my 100-400mm II and is better at 600mm than the Canon + 1.4xTC. But, the speed of AF is not as good. But, you must test the Sigmas to make sure you have a good one.
> 
> Investing in glass is indeed more long term than in bodies but you need a decent body to get the best out of glass.



All things being equal, I'd much prefer investing in glass, but I've also been frustrated with the noise from the 70D's sensor. I had been considering getting a 5DIII this year, but if I make a camera body part of this birthday splurge, I might as well go for the latest model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> You will need a tripod or monopod to use the 500mm, and get incredibly good results when applicable. But, if you are an opportunistic bird photographer like me, you will lose most of your opportunities of birds that you come across at random.



Perhaps '_need_' is too strong a word.  This is a 600/4 II, which is ~20% heavier than a 500/4 II.







I usually bring a monopod (in this case, it's hanging from the pack) and use it if I'll be standing in one spot for a while, but if I'm just walking and shooting, handheld works.


----------



## NancyP (May 30, 2017)

Neuroanatomist, is that one of the Cotton Carrier add-on supports that work with the vest system? How well does that work?


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2017)

Asher
It's good that you are seriously reading the replies and responding. Some people post questions and disappear.

I went on a birding trip in Portugal in April with a very experienced guide who had a 500mm II + 1.4xTC welded on plus a 1DX II. He had a Manfrotto monopod with legs. His results were better than mine using a 400mm DO II + 2xTC + 5DIV, despite the theoretical extra reach of my gear. Art Morris runs a famous bird photography site, and you might want to read his latest blog http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ He uses the 100-400mm II a lot and has his 600mm II for more extreme occasions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

NancyP said:


> Neuroanatomist, is that one of the Cotton Carrier add-on supports that work with the vest system? How well does that work?



Nope, you're seeing part of the Blackrapid Sport-L strap that I use to carry the lens (attached to the RRS replacement foot with a Kirk 1" clamp for easy swapping from strap to monopod or gimbal).


----------



## Asher (May 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Asher
> It's good that you are seriously reading the replies and responding. Some people post questions and disappear.



I really appreciate all of the advice. This is a huge purchase for me. Even the cheapest option (new body + 100-400) would be the biggest purchase I've made other than a house/car.



AlanF said:


> I went on a birding trip in Portugal in April with a very experienced guide who had a 500mm II + 1.4xTC welded on plus a 1DX II. He had a Manfrotto monopod with legs. His results were better than mine using a 400mm DO II + 2xTC + 5DIV, despite the theoretical extra reach of my gear. Art Morris runs a famous bird photography site, and you might want to read his latest blog http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ He uses the 100-400mm II a lot and has his 600mm II for more extreme occasions.



I have some of Art's books, and I really enjoy his pictures. I got the 400/5.6 in part due to his recommendation, so if he's happy with the 100-400 II that's a good indicator.

My wife has also pointed out that the cost of a 500mm II might be better spent (in part) on a birding trip, particularly an instructional tour.

At this point, I'm leaning towards the 100-400 II. My wife and I plan to take a vacation this fall -- perhaps to Italy -- to celebrate our 10th anniversary, and I'd probably bring the 100-400 for general tourist stuff and opportunistic birding. But if I got the 500 II, I doubt I'd take it on that trip. Too big, too specialized. So the decision seems to be a 500 II that only sees use in my backyard and on birding-specific outings versus a 100-400 that comes along whenever there's a chance of wildlife sightings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

Asher said:


> But if I got the 500 II, I doubt I'd take it on that trip. Too big, too specialized. So the decision seems to be a 500 II that only sees use in my backyard and on birding-specific outings versus a 100-400 that comes along whenever there's a chance of wildlife sightings.



I think that's really the best way to look at it. For 'typical' trips, I don't travel with my 600 II. However, I wouldn't bring a 100-400 either, but rather the 70-300L which I prefer for the much more compact size. But that's at least in part because my current travel is generally to urban destinations, so I don't feel the need for something longer than 300mm. If I did, I'd pick up the 100-400 II and still leave the 600/4 at home on trips.


----------



## tomscott (May 30, 2017)

I bought the 100-400mm MKII as its compact and stellar IQ. With todays cameras 5.6 is great unless you want less DOF which is nice but with birds you usually want more to make sure everything is in focus.

Took it traveling around the world with a 5DMKIII and a 7DMKII. I also took a 1.4x and used it 3-4 times as I didn't need it. The 7DMKII gets a bad rep but mine is a great copy and my 5DMKIII got a lot less use when it came to wildlife which was my primary reason for having the lens.

Granted on my 7DMKII its 640mm and once you get to that point atmospheric issues come into play especially in hot places like Africa.

I absolutely loved it. I like you would love a 500-600 but they are cumbersome and I've always found fixed focal lengths to be inconvenient especially at that size. 

On Safari I would have hated using it, I was forever moving around in the car and there is usually 4-5 people it just wouldn't have been practical. You also get a lot close than you would think. Also I was back packing, carrying the weight for the 100,000 miles would have been a pain. My bag already weighed about 14kg with camera gear, with some supplies 16+ then I had a larger bag with all my clothes etc which was 20kg so a lot to carry around. Granted the 20kg bag wasn't with me all the time and was left in trucks or tents or truck etc but when your on the move you have to be able to carry both between transport and rooms, catching trains etc.

The 100-400 is so versatile its fantastic IMO. But with birds you always want more so the 5DSR might be a good option or if you want to spend less the 7DMKII really is a fantastic camera. I shot it up to 6400ISO and had no issue at all.

For example







I know its not a bird, gorilla in Biwindi NP Uganda but its tack sharp has a little noise but didn't struggle at all. Unfortunately I haven't got any birds that I photographed on hand but there were many thousands along the way.

My first travels through South America I took the 70-300 with my 5DMKIII and it was way too short but had a very happy back. Took it to the amazon and always felt like I needed more. Will return with something a crop + 100-400mm

Don't get me wrong if I had the choice I would take a big lens but you have to carry it and in tropical rainforest heat its so hard. I trekked 6 hours in 45+ deg humid rainforest through hard terrain to see the Gorillas and I struggled with the 5DMKIII + 24-105 and the 7DMKII and 100-400 on my back with water food etc but it wasn't a trail we had to make or way through with Machetes so probably not the average trip but thats the sort of thing you have to do to get to these incredible creatures.

You can always hire a porter but I find it a little disrespectful.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Asher said:
> 
> 
> > But if I got the 500 II, I doubt I'd take it on that trip. Too big, too specialized. So the decision seems to be a 500 II that only sees use in my backyard and on birding-specific outings versus a 100-400 that comes along whenever there's a chance of wildlife sightings.
> ...



And I was going to rename you machoanatomist....Seriously, i pack my 100-400mm II on all short foreign trips in the hope that I'll see an interesting bird and take the 400 DO II on longer holidays (but my wife then takes the 100-400mm II as it is such fantastic nature lens).


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 30, 2017)

There is a lot of food for thought here!

Currently, for birding, I use the Canon 100-400 Mk2, Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS on either a 1DX or 7D2.

These are just my observations:

The 100-400 Mk2 is a great lens - very happy with mine. However it is simply not as good a a Canon 300 F2.8 - but what is?!? The 100-400 is lighter, is a zoom, focuses much closer etc - but it doesn't (quite) produce the IQ or AF speed of the 300 F2.8. On the other hand it is more versatile. With either of these lenses a tripod/mono pod is not needed for most people.

With longer lenses things get a bit more specialised and they can be less flexible. On the other hand they will get you shots that are not available from the shorter lenses - it's all a compromise!

Whilst I love my Canon 800mm for BIF it is NOT the best choice in all circumstances, but when it works - it REALLY works. The focal length and IQ are excellent but keeping it on target can be a wee bit of a challenge!

I have used both the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 and 2 and they are both excellent lenses. The Mk2 is lighter and works better with extenders but either is a very good choice.

As I mentioned above I use both crop and FF cameras. For me FF wins hands down. The higher IQ and better ISO performance beat the advantage (?) of the crop factor 80/90% of the time. Certainly there is a reach advantage to a crop sensor but only under ideal conditions - which are not that frequent in my neck of the woods. Also the reach advantage is somewhat less than you may think. With my setup, under ideal conditions, the 7D2 will give me an equivalent shot (on a Kingfisher) at 12 meters as my 1DX does at 10 meters. But if the light is not just right then the 1DX (lower MP and larger sensor) wins every time. So I would suggest full frame - just my experiences.

Much the same as you I would love a 500 F4 - they are just a great combination of size weight and performance - but I would have to sell my 800mm to get one = not happening!

You mention the lack of IS on your current lens being an issue. For moving subjects I have found IS to be a hazard not a help. After all for flying stuff your shutter speed will need to be far higher than the speeds where IS is effective and IS will only serve to throw your AF off. Been there, got the Tee Shirt and deleted thousands of images before I learned to turn IS off.

Hope some of the above is useful. I should say that my personal choice, if you can afford it, would be a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 and a used 1DX (I would prefer the 1DX Mk2 - but not by much).


----------



## alvarow (May 31, 2017)

Hi, I will give you advice you have not necessarily asked for... but please think about it first before you dismiss it.

Don't blow your cash on gear. If you feel you need a longer lens to make you happy (it is a big part of photography hobby, you have to be happy to enjoy it) perhaps get a not so expensive lens like the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 (I had the Sigma and stuck with the 400 5.6L as even cropped it was sharper than the Sigma at 600 on my 70D), but not necessarily blow the rest on gear. Take that money and go get some experience on the field, perhaps with your wife and go visit Alaska, California, Colorado, Brazil or some other place that is not where you have access.

It is nice to hit the beaches and county parks, but I guarantee you'll have much better pictures from actual cool places, if a tad less sharp, than having a pro level shot of a Sparrow or a Robin in your backyard.

Sorry if that is not what you wanted to hear, but I think this line of thought carries some weight and should be explored as well.

Good luck

Alvaro


----------



## Act444 (May 31, 2017)

Interested in following this thread because I'm looking for a lens with similar range...would like a bit more reach for birds that I can handhold. 400mm on 5D = still a bit short for many birds. Thought about the 500 but it comes down to that handholdability/portability thing. 

I can say the 100-400 is great and quite versatile. Definitely can recommend to the OP if 400mm provides adequate reach.


----------



## Eldar (May 31, 2017)

A lot of people have concerns with handholding these larger lenses. My experience, like Neuro pointed out earlier, is that handholding the 600 f4L IS II is quite easy, after some practice. I also handhold a lot with the 1.4xIII extender attached. With the 2xIII extender I need a monopod or a tripod. If you want maximum freedom of movement, buy a standard flag bandolier, but a monopod, with a good tilt head, in the flag cup and off you go. I can go for a full day hike with that solution.

The question to answer is how much flexibility you need and how much cropping you accept. I have both the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x, in addition to the 300 f2.8L IS II and the 600. I use the 600 more than twice the others put together and more than 2/3 of my shots are with an extender attached.

If your usage is a walk around lens, safari lens and birding lens, then the 100-400 is a fantastic lens. Especially the very short MFD (less than 1m) is a great feature. The 200-400 is a better lens, but because of weight and the need to operate the zoom ring, I find it the most difficult lens to handhold. The 300 f2.8L IS II is a fantastic lens, but I don't use it much, because it is simply too short.


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 31, 2017)

As Eldar and a few others may have said, the new 500 and 600 are definitely handholdable even with teleconverters. What you do have to realize is that when you move to a much bigger and heavier lens you will find that you have to relearn your technique in terms of following focus and maintaining stability. My first month or two with the new combinations were another learning curve, getting the muscle memory to consistently follow focus and get the same level of sharpness in my images that I can get with a shorter and lighter lens. It will take a little time but it is the same with changing cameras....at the level of detail we are looking for you have to learn each tool until it becomes part of you.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2017)

eldar is a brilliant bird photographer and neuro is no mean hand either. They clearly can hand hold successfully. But, I go out at least 100 times a year on bird photography and have never seen anyone hand hold big whites - those guys sit in hides (blinds). It can be done, but it is rare.


----------



## rancho_runner (May 31, 2017)

I disagree strongly. Own a 500 II, its usage equally split between 2x, 1.4x and naked. Never used it with a tripod, I love the freedom of just shooting whatever I like without limitations (especially BIF, since I can follow any path in any direction). Most of my best pics would not have been possible otherwise (unplanned opportunities, weird angles including overhead). I can use it a whole day with no issues, you just need to time your shots.
If everybody does use it in birding with a tripod, maybe you want your pics to stand out instead ?
As another reference point, at airshows only a vast minority uses tripods with big whites.. 



AlanF said:


> eldar is a brilliant bird photographer and neuro is no mean hand either. They clearly can hand hold successfully. But, I go out at least 100 times a year on bird photography and have never seen anyone hand hold big whites - those guys sit in hides (blinds). It can be done, but it is rare.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2017)

rancho_runner said:


> I can use it a whole day with no issues, you just need to time your shots.



For us mere mortals, it isn't time - it's having strong enough muscles to hold the lens. I use 560mm and 800mm for BIF and never a tripod, but I use lightweight lenses. If you are very strong, then hold as heavy a lens as you want.


----------



## rancho_runner (May 31, 2017)

My point was that there are different possibilities for big whites, not just tripods but handholding too (with all the caveats that you may want to add), each with different pro and cons.


----------



## NancyP (May 31, 2017)

Neuroanatomist, you are a good bit stronger than I am. I am still using my featherweight 400 f/5.6L. Even the Sigma Sport 150-600 seems like a brick to me, and it is a pound lighter than the Canon 500 f/4 LIS II.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 31, 2017)

I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!

Unless there is a medical reason not to hand hold big lenses, then a little practice will get you going!


----------



## candc (Jun 1, 2017)

I would recommend the 400doii. I use it on a 7dii and its a great combo. I have used it on a 70d and the iq is great as well. the issue I have with that camera is the slow clearing buffer. the doii works well with converters, especially the 1.4xiii. that combo gives you what I think is ideal for birds on a crop body.

if you are mostly shooting from a tripod/monopod then the 600ii or ver1.

I still have and use the tamron 150-600 and like the size and versatility but the iq falls off over 400 and the af doesn't measure up to canons better lenses. I understand the ver 2 is improved and the sigma 150-600 c is better as well. either one of those lenses is a good all around choice for a reasonable price.

the 7dii/100-400ii is a very popular. I have several friends using that combo with great results.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2017)

I had a 70D. I upgraded to a 5D Mark III. The difference is breathtaking. I dumped the 70D and never looked back.

With the 5D Mark IV you should get much better image quality, much better autofocus, and much less noise than the 70D.

You won't lose any "reach". The crop sensor doesn't get you any closer to the subject. It just narrows your field of view.

Your idea for a 5D Mark IV and 100-400 II sounds great to me.


----------



## alvarow (Jun 1, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I had a 70D. I upgraded to a 5D Mark III. The difference is breathtaking. I dumped the 70D and never looked back.
> 
> With the 5D Mark IV you should get much better image quality, much better autofocus, and much less noise than the 70D.
> 
> ...



From what I've read on the interwebs (so it must be true), you are correct, it does narrow the field of view... but certain scenarios (such as birding) you may be better off APS-C. With FF you lose all those megapixels when you narrow to the same field of view as APS-C, which means you have a cleaner image, but less resolution... so APS-C allows you to crop further and arguably get a better end result, thus in practical terms it can give you more reach. You do need a good quality APS-C sensor to start with. It's why some folks like the 5Ds


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jun 1, 2017)

500ii is an amazing lens! Even at 700mm (1.4iii) on a simple 1200D the results are brilliant! The 100-400ii is a superb lens, ultra sharp, compact and so on, but the fixed aperture of the 500/4ii offers something else when coupled with the 1.4iii and 2.0iii you will not find in other lenses. 700mm F5.6 or 1000mm F8!

I don't have a 5D4 (Have the 5D3) but I'd guess the two together would be amazing, the 5D3 is stunning with the 500ii, the 1DX2 offers extreme speed but IQ in the right light the 5D3 is GREAT, just a shame good light is hard to come by 80% of the time for me.

1200D at 700mm, just for the hell of it.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!
> 
> Unless there is a medical reason not to hand hold big lenses, then a little practice will get you going!



OK macho man, let's see you do this with the 34.54 lb (15.67 kg) Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8.

And after your body building, get to work on the 132 lb (60 kg) Leica.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 1, 2017)

AlanF said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > I have arms like matchsticks but I hand hold my 800 F5.6 L IS about a third of the time. There is a local photographer who almost never uses a tripod. She uses a Nikon D4s with a 500 F4 and a D810 with a 300 F2.8 hanging off her other shoulder. She is not young and not much over 5 Ft tall - doesn't seem to have any problems. It can be done - it is being done!
> ...



That was a rather silly post AlanF. I really thought better of you than that - still I am often wrong as you post proves.

If you care to re-read my post you will see that I often hand hold a 4.5 Kilo lens with a (max) 1.5 kilo camera attached. If a 58 year old, chronically unfit, arthritic, diabetic can do this then I simply do not see your point! When I was a little younger (with fewer medical issues) I often hand held my heavier 600 F4 L IS and, before that my 6+ kilo 400 F2.8. As to the petite lady with the Nikon 500 F4 (MK1 not the lighter Mk2) she managed 3 hours solid last time I saw her shooting at the Red Kite Center at Llandeusant. I can't do that with my slightly heavier 800mm so if I am a "Macho Man" is this small middle aged lady a Super Hero?

Puzzled at you post - perhaps a little more water with it next time?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2017)

It's silly? You are puzzled? You have asked me to explain. Well, it was a humorous riposte to your implication that we are medically unfit if we can't or don't wish to heave huge lenses. Just as some of us haven't the strength or desire to hand hold an 800mm f/5.6 Canon, perhaps you are in the same situation vis-a-vis even bigger lenses.


----------



## Asher (Jun 2, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> 1200D at 700mm, just for the hell of it.



Lovely detail on the feathers! I definitely *want* the 500mm, but I think I'll use the 100-400 much more, and all the high praise of the zoom from people who also own a great white is encouraging.

Maybe I'll get the 500 for my 50th birthday. Wait, my twins start college that year. So, perhaps my 60th? ;D

Thanks to everyone for the input!


----------



## NancyP (Jun 2, 2017)

That famous snap of the photographer hand-holding the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 bazooka lens needs no excuse. 

And I keep meaning to try out a Big White, but I have been on a big macro kick lately and don't do much bird photography at the moment. I am still working on stronger arms, but I hand-hold that old 180mm f/3.5L no-IS with a decent rate of success in relatively well lit (natural light, no flash assistance) 1:2 magnification macro scenes, and do OK with the no-IS 400 f/5.6L.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 2, 2017)

AlanF said:


> It's silly? You are puzzled? You have asked me to explain. Well, it was a humorous riposte to your implication that we are medically unfit if we can't or don't wish to heave huge lenses. Just as some of us haven't the strength or desire to hand hold an 800mm f/5.6 Canon, perhaps you are in the same situation vis-a-vis even bigger lenses.



Still puzzled AlanF. I was stating that we/I can hold large lenses if we want/need to unless there are good reasons why not - such as medical conditions eg. Arthritis -which I have.

The OP is looking at a Canon 500 Mk2 - hardly a major load for the vast majority of us - with a little practice.

If is was a joke then I missed it - as many miss my attempts at humour! I value your posts and insights so I was a bit caught out by this one - I thought it was a dig. Glad to hear I was wrong.

Toys back in the pram


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jun 3, 2017)

Asher said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > 1200D at 700mm, just for the hell of it.
> ...



The shot was just for fun, I am not dissing the 1200D in anyway at all, for a £250.00 camera I think it takes brilliant photos, its just how many people use a 1200D on a 500/4ii?  Tell you what though the little 1200D and the 500ii is an amazing combo weight wise! Its the body's that pack in Kg's the lens weighs little imo! Stick on the 1DX2 and its a HEAVY combo to lug all day, and yeah you can use it hand held for pop shots but not for long, i.e holding the big twins to the sky for long periods of time is hard work. Re the 100-400ii it is truly an amazing lens, MFD is SUPERB and detail, well you will never not be happy! The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach and so the debate begins, how much reach is Sir's pleasure!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2017)

John - thanks! I never use emoticons to indicate I am making a joke.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2017)

AlanF said:


> John - thanks! I never use emoticons to indicate I am making a joke.



No worries - the stick had two ends, guess which one I got?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2017)

The brown end? ;D


----------



## langdonb (Jun 4, 2017)

Great thread! I have too been looking to acquire a 500 f4 lens and was excited about the Sigma. There are not so many actual hands on reviews but those have been positive. However my concern would be Brian's' review that found that the focus point went from front to back focus as the f stop was changed. That would stop me from buying now. Time to see what other hands on reviews surface!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 4, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach...



Naaah - just get close enough that the MFD actually matters:







Uncropped at 560mm.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jun 4, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > The real pinch comes when you spend all day at the long end of the 100-400, then you often wish for more reach...
> ...



Nice shot Sir, it's funny here where I am (live on a brickyard) the small birds come and land on the forklift when we move stuff around, they find comfort in the loudness of the forklift and get used to people being busy while they snap up small grubs now exposed to the open air after pallets of bricks have been moved aside, they often land inches away from me, sit and look, I take in the fine detail of the birds by eye and observe how they behave, I ALWAYS think whats the point of the big lens when they land so close, I could nearly use a 100mm macro at MFD at times haha, some use the same reverse psychology if you like and take to camouflage to get up close, cheaper by far and often giving stunning results like yours, I have set up the camera in the past and used remote triggers to get good detailed shots... all good fun.... 

Remote trigger  100-400ii/5d3.


----------



## triggermike (Jun 4, 2017)

For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.

The 100-400 v2 lens is excellent, but your reason to purchase it should be for it's 100-400 zoom versatility and the IS you would use while hand holding for STATIONARY subjects.

You might want to start with the 5DIV decision or even the looming 6DII. Your ability to push into higher ISOs will negate the f5.6 disadvantage and allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action/low light. Also, the autofocus system of the 5DIV is excellent (not sure how the 6DII will be.) The 400 f5.6 is a VERY capable lens.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 4, 2017)

triggermike said:


> Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.



Some of us strongly disagree, though - active IS stabilises the subject in the VF, making it _much_ easier to track.


----------



## Asher (Jun 7, 2017)

triggermike said:


> For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.
> 
> The 100-400 v2 lens is excellent, but your reason to purchase it should be for it's 100-400 zoom versatility and the IS you would use while hand holding for STATIONARY subjects.
> 
> You might want to start with the 5DIV decision or even the looming 6DII. Your ability to push into higher ISOs will negate the f5.6 disadvantage and allow you to get higher shutter speeds for action/low light. Also, the autofocus system of the 5DIV is excellent (not sure how the 6DII will be.) The 400 f5.6 is a VERY capable lens.



I ordered the 5DIV and 100-400 ii today, but I'm not planning to sell the 400/5.6 yet. As you say, it's a great lens that will become even better with the 5DIV's lower-light capability, and I'll be able to autofocus with a 1.4x attached as well.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> rancho_runner said:
> 
> 
> > I can use it a whole day with no issues, you just need to time your shots.
> ...



I'm happy to admit being in a minority (essentially never using a monopod or tripod with my 500L) but I am not strong. I'm really not! As others have said, it's learning a technique that works for you, and I guess just accepting that it's fairly heavy and sometimes awkward. But I'm a walkabout bird photographer mostly - 95% of the time I'm carrying the lens/camera like a bag by its tripod foot, and only aiming and firing sometimes. I once tried doing an airshow with it - two hours of holding it up and pointing, following the planes - that was horrible. Ditto a fixed bird target, like feeders - holding the thing up without support for long periods is not tenable and that's when a tripod is useful.

Incidentally, I find it too long for BIF mostly, the field of view a little too narrow - and it's hard to track fast-moving targets with such a big lens (but I've never had the opportunity to do BIF with large birds like raptors - rather I've tried, and mostly failed, with martins and swifts, which admittedly are some of the hardest in that regard). I found the 70-200+extender much more workable in that regard, although the reach was less.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2017)

Asher said:


> triggermike said:
> 
> 
> > For BIF I do not believe you will see any advantage using a 100-400 v2 versus the excellent 400 5.6 you already own? Several here have already chimed in stating the IS offers little for BIF situations.
> ...



The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, does not pump air in and out with zooming. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, *does not pump air in and out with zooming*. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....



Don, I'm not picking on you. It's just your quote provides a handy reference. 

I would love to see some authoritative source or reference for the "pumping dust" onto the sensor stuff. All I can find doing a quick internet search are similar discussions on similar discussion boards from people who say this without any proof other than they have dust on their sensor and they think it is because of a zoom lens. 

I trust LensRentals.com and the only thing I could find on their blog was a general statement regarding lens dust, where they said they don't notice any more dust on zoom lenses than on primes. 

If people are going to make the claim that zooming can push dust into the camera body and then onto the sensor, I'd like to see some backup for that other than anecdotal evidence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> If people are going to make the claim that zooming can push dust into the camera body and then onto the sensor, I'd like to see some backup for that other than anecdotal evidence.



Granted that it's anecdotal, but set a zoom lens to the long end, hold it up to your eye (just the bare lens) and retract it. Bet you blink.  Certainly, the 24-105 and 100-400 push a fair amount of air toward the sensor. 

But your point is taken - we use a rocket blower to _remove_ dust from the sensor, so maybe zooms help keep sensors clean!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 400F5.6 is a constant length lens, and as such, *does not pump air in and out with zooming*. If you are in a dusty environment or salty sea air, this will help to keep the insides of your camera clean....
> ...



Dust on the sensor isn't much of a problem as a quick puff from a rocket blower and you are ready to go, but the dust does tend to work it's way up towards the big element of the lens where it is very hard to get out. What I worry more about is sea air and salt buildup inside the lens and body..... the blower does not help there....

Some people recommend that when you head inside from a dusty area that you pump your lens in and out several times to clear out some of the dust. I guess if dust pumps in, then it can also pump out.... it sort of makes sense but I have a long zoom with lots of dust behind the big element and it does not seem to help any


----------



## nc0b (Jun 7, 2017)

I was was shooting perched and BIF last weekend in my back yard with both a 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400mm II. As usual as long as the red tailed hawk was perched, the zoom with IS was best. Once the raptor took off, I got one shot before the zoom decided to focus to 3 meters. No way to reacquire focus, where the prime set to 8.5m focus limit would have had a much better chance relocking focus. I had the zoom on because I was also shooting 9 horses in the adjacent field. On the other hand, the perched shots of the hawk are rock steady in the viewfinder with the lens with IS. What I'll do next weekend is have the prime on my 6D and the zoom on my 5DsR. The raptors are usually 200 to 500 feet away until they decide to fly really high in the sky. When they are 1000 feet in the air, forget it!

Shooting small birds in flight are virtually impossible for me. The barn swallows flitting around the house catching bugs are like in warp drive. I can never follow and focus on them when they are a few 10s of feet away. There are at least four of them around now, plus all the meadow larks and killdeer. At least the killdeer just walk around most of the time and are easy to shoot.


----------



## Asher (Jun 10, 2017)

First impressions: love the short MFD. Lens focuses very fast even with 1.4x attached. So far I've only used it around the yard in somewhat harsh light, but the detail from this camera/lens combination is fantastic.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 10, 2017)

Asher said:


> First impressions: love the short MFD. Lens focuses very fast even with 1.4x attached. So far I've only used it around the yard in somewhat harsh light, but the detail from this camera/lens combination is fantastic.


congrats on the new equipment, I'm sure you will love the combination. I love my new 500L but I still use the 100-400 for all my nature work from a kayak and pretty much all air travel. I'm not missing much other than the full autofocus at f8 with the 5DS.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 10, 2017)

Glade to hear you are liking it!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 11, 2017)

Asher said:


> First impressions: love the short MFD. Lens focuses very fast even with 1.4x attached. So far I've only used it around the yard in somewhat harsh light, but the detail from this camera/lens combination is fantastic.



I just read through this whole thing hoping you'd come to the "right" conclusion (the one I did, of course!). Good job, glad you're loving it. I even only use mine with a 5D3, but it damn near lives on the camera and does an excellent job of shooting the wildlife in my back yard. Do post some samples when you get good ones, and further impressions!


----------



## Asher (Jun 15, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Asher said:
> 
> 
> > First impressions: love the short MFD. Lens focuses very fast even with 1.4x attached. So far I've only used it around the yard in somewhat harsh light, but the detail from this camera/lens combination is fantastic.
> ...



I don't have any great samples yet with the lens, but I'm really impressed with the high ISO performance of the 5DIV. I was snapping some photos indoors of our new puppy playing with our old dog, and shots like this (ISO 12800) are still usable in my opinion. I'm limiting auto ISO to 3200 for now, but it's nice to know I can go to 12800 when necessary.


----------



## Asher (Aug 8, 2017)

Finally, some results to post.












Still working on getting good shots of nearby ospreys. Managed a shot of a far-away bald eagle last night at dusk. Not an exceptional photo, but I was thrilled that I was able to capture the moment.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

That first one is stunning!


----------



## bholliman (Aug 8, 2017)

Asher said:


> Finally, some results to post.


Very nice! Like Mikehit, I really like the first one.

How do you feel it compares with your 400 f/5.6 after some use?


----------



## Asher (Aug 9, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Asher said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, some results to post.
> ...



Thanks! As for the comparison, I haven't compared the optics directly, but the 100-400 certainly has wonderful IQ.
On a day-to-day basis:

1) The 100-400 is heavy, but the zoom versatility means I can take it out as my only lens for the day.
2) The short minimum focus distance is amazing. I was working perhaps 6 feet from the hummingbirds. 
3) AF is fast and reliable even with 1.4x attached (on 5DIV).
4) The IS works very well, though in practice this is often only a ~1-stop advantage over the 400 since camera shake isn't the only limiting factor on shutter speed when photographing wildlife.

I'm trying to decide now whether I still need the 400 f/5.6. The use case I have in mind is the 100-400+1.4x on a tripod, and the 400/5.6 attached to my 70D and slung over my shoulder for BIF. But I rarely am in a situation where I carry that much gear.


----------



## Asher (Sep 21, 2018)

Revisiting this thread just to comment how much I'm blown away by the 100-400 II and 5DIV combo. I came across this image from a while back that I had overlooked because of how small the hummingbird was in the frame. But even with the 1.4x extender and substantial cropping, there's still a wonderful amount of detail.

Crop:



Original:


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

Nice sharp shot. I reckon if you can get a 1000 px length of bird then you get enough detail for a decent shot. You could have posted it in the Bird Portraits thread. Interestingly, by uploading as a thumbnail you have retained the EXIF data, which you lose with a full size.


----------

