# Budget lens for birding ?



## vikram1988 (Apr 20, 2013)

Hi all,

I'm from India and i'm new here. I am very interested in bird photography. I currently shoot with 550d (t2i ) and a 55-250 IS 1 lens. 
The 55-250 lens is an amazing lens and i'm very happy with how sharp the pictures turn out to be. I feel the lens's af is fast enough to even capture birds in flight in-case the backdrop is sky. I havent used any expensive lenses till now. The only problem with the 55-250 lens is, reach . I'm missing out on too many good opportunities because i simply am not able to approach a bird by foot and get a good shot without having to crop a lot in PP .
So considering this , i'm thinking of upgrading my setup with a budget 1500 $'s ( My bro can buy the equipment in US and send me here ). What do you guys suggest ? 
1.100-400 lens ? 
2.what are the different versions of this lens ? 
3.how does it couple with 550d (t2i) . how fast would be the autofocus with this body and lens ? I'm not sure how much the body would affect the speed of autofocus. It would be of great help if someone can explain how/how much the autofocus of the body would affect the performance of the lens .
4. I can wait for a couple of months too if there's an oppurtunity of the price going down for the lens. whats the lowest price you guys have seen on this lens ? 
5. Or do you guys suggest me to buy a better body first and then rent lenses till i find the budget for the lens ? 

Thanks for reading


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2013)

It's the best lens in your budget. There is only one version, and it should focus fine on the 550D. But, this is one lens you must test before buying - there are some soft copies.


----------



## jcoz (Apr 20, 2013)

In my humble opinion, for birding you need 400mm and more. I never go birding with my Canon 70-300 L because it is just not enough - I also use a crop sensor camera -, instead I ended up buying the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. It is light, small, focuses very, very quickly and pretty affordable for an L lens (around $1350). And the great thing is that it is already a good 10 years old so the price is pretty low.

It does not have an IS so bring a sturdy tripod or ramp up the iso speed, but it will focus a lot faster than the 100-400 which my dad owns and I was able to try, and the IS will not help with moving subjects anyway. Birds move very quickly ! 

Now if you don't want a fix lens I still think the Canon 70-300 L is better than the Canon 100-400 in terms of size, weight, sharpness and focusing speed but is a little short...


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2013)

The OP already has a 55-250mm, which is too short, so it would seem a bit pointless just going up to a 300mm zoom, which is also too short. The issue of 100-400mm vs 400mm f/5.6 has been argued over for years. The prime was originally greatly championed by Arthur Morris, who described it as his favourite toy lens. But, even he has now discarded it in favour of the 100-400mm - see http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html

I have become so fed up with people stating that the 400mm f/5.6 is much better than the 100-400mm zoom that I started a thread http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.0 with the numbers that both lenses are of similar sharpness. The 400mm L is now 20 years old and should have been updated years ago. In my opinion, the advantages of zoom and 2 good stops of IS make the 100-400mm a much more versatile and useful lens. It also packs away nicely.


----------



## crasher8 (Apr 20, 2013)

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 21, 2013)

I also went from the 400 5.6L to the 100-400L. Its not a dust hog, at least the two I've owned are not. There is really no competition in the price range other than the 400mm f/5.6 which has a bit faster AF but is missing the zoom and the IS.
If you are tracking a bird in flight, I find the push pull to be excellent to operate, its just a matter of spending a little time to get used to it.

The main issue is that even 400mm is a bit short.


----------



## jcoz (Apr 21, 2013)

I do agree that in terms of quality you won't see much difference in the real world and the 100-400 is a lot more useful than a prime 400. My dad owns a 100-400, I have a 70-300 and 400 because I couldn't do with the first one only - I ended up buying the 400 when I realized 300 was not enough. I also agree 300mm for birding is far from enough, 400 is barely enough as well.

However, I always found the AF to be unbeatable on the 400mm which can be very useful for birds in flight and I rarely get close enough to a bird to need less than 400mm. When the birds are not moving much, I do wish I had IS so in the end it's true that the 100-400 L is going to make you very happy, especially if you come from the 55-250 (which I had when I started). 

This conversation made me want to check on the latest 100-400 rumors


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.



The "dust hog" epithet is another myth. Mine has never accumulated any dust, as also other CR members ones have not. Many used lenses of all types are sold with the description "contains some dust", so what is your evidence that the 100-400 is any worse?


----------



## vikram1988 (Apr 21, 2013)

Thanks guys for all the suggestions  i'm leaning more towards 100-400 as well. 

I've read that the autofocus is fast with both the 400 f/5.6 and 100-400 lens. Is that correct ?

How does the body affect the AF ? as a simple question , would a 7d focus faster with 100-400 lens compared to a T2i with 100-400 lens ? The answer seems obvious but i'm looking for some explanation. 

At the moment the 100-400 is priced around 1400. Whats the lowest you've seen on this lens ?


----------



## rpt (Apr 21, 2013)

I vote 100-400L. I have one since 2007. I have not had any dust problem with it. I used it with the 300D and now with the 5D3 and it works fine. I have used it to shoot the moon hand held at 400mm with a shutter speed of 160 and it came out sharp! So the IS works well in my experience.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

vikram1988...I bought the Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS. I like it a lot. The "OS" works well, but seems to be flawed (on my copy anyway...perhaps on all copies). It imparts softness, even though it is stabilizing up to 4 stops. It is usable only if your final image will be printed 5x7 or smaller...or 8x10 if you don't mind a slight softness. 

With it switched off, the lens gets extremely sharp in the center at 400mm, especially at distances closer than 100 feet...even wide open at f/5.6. Closed to f/9, it's sharp to the image borders on both full frame and a crop sensor, at 400mm...at infinity focus, and everywhere else. Closed to f/11, it's razor sharp even on a full frame, to the corners, throughout the focal range. At the wide end, it's sharp to the full frame corners, by f/6.3. However, it's sharp to the full frame borders even wide open at f/4.5...at 120mm. 

Despite much negativity heaped on this lens and its supposedly "sluggish, inconsistent autofocus"...I have found that not to be the case, with my copy. It focuses very fast and accurate, even in low light in servo mode. *For just over half the price of the Canon 100-400, I say it's a no brainer. * Color and contrast via this Sigma, are at least on par with, if not superior to the Canon...up to about 250mm. Beyond that, it's possible the contrast and color saturation are slightly less than provided by the Canon...but the Sigma color balance is warmer, which I much prefer.

I've rented the 400 f/5.6L, it's vastly sharper than either of the above zooms. However, I suggest _if you must have a Canon lens_, forget the 100-400, and the 400 prime, and instead go with the 300 f/4L, plus a 1.4x TC. It will give you very decent image stabilization, light weight, compact size, much faster aperture, nice bokeh, and almost the sharpness of the 400 f/5.6L prime (at 300mm), and perhaps a bit more sharpness at 420mm f/5.6 (via even the older version 2 1.4x TC), than the 100-400L at 400mm...but with an extra 20mm thrown in.

If you simply must have a walk around zoom, budget for the 70-300L. If you want a vastly better lens than your 55-250, with slightly less reach for not much more money, try the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS)...and save a while longer for a full frame, or a 70D, or a 7D2.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

300mm f/4, 100% crop, EOS 1D Mark IV, hand-held.


----------



## vikram1988 (Apr 21, 2013)

Carl , thanks soo much for the detailed write up! would you suggest the sigma even for hand help bird photography ?


----------



## vikram1988 (Apr 21, 2013)

*hand held


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 21, 2013)

Vikram, I used to have EF 100-400L IS, which is a great lens but I sold it and got Sigma 150-500 OS for better reach ... my copy of the Sigma 150-500 OS is just as good as my earlier 100-400L IS lens if not better.
The Sigma 150-500 OS sells for about $1000 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html) which is well within your budget, giving you enough money left over to buy:
1. a good quality filter
2. a Lens Coat Lens cover (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652524-REG/LensCoat_LCS150500M4_Sigma_Lens_Cover_Realtree.html)
3. an external flash
4. a Better Beamer flash extender (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=better+beamer&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=) this will come in handy to illuminate the birds so your images get a nice separation and pop.
By the way, you can easily hand hold this lens ... and on your 550D, the reach will be awesome at 800mm, perfect reach for bird photography ... also, if you are buying it from USA, you get 3 years warranty.
Here are a couple images made last week with the Sigma 150-500 OS (using an external flash + better beamer) both images made during a dust storm.


----------



## rpt (Apr 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Vikram, I used to have EF 100-400L IS, which is a great lens but I sold it and got Sigma 150-500 OS for better reach and I found the push pull to be a bit awkward ... my copy of the Sigma 150-500 OS is just as good as my earlier 100-400L IS lens if not better.
> The Sigma 150-500 OS sells for about $1000 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html) which is well within your budget, giving you enough money left over to buy:
> 1. a good quality filter
> 2. a Lens Coat Lens cover (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652524-REG/LensCoat_LCS150500M4_Sigma_Lens_Cover_Realtree.html)
> ...


Nice pics. I like the catchlight in the eyes.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 300mm f/4, 100% crop, EOS 1D Mark IV, hand-held.



Compare the quality of your 300 with a Canon Powershot SX50 (upper) and a 5DIII with a 300mm f/2.8 II plus 2xTC (lower). Both are 100% crops, minimal sharpening (25%) and no noise suppression from RAW. They do look much sharper.

I'd like to see the same with the Sigma zoom for comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2013)

I was impressed by the use of flash plus beamers here and elsewhere. I'd like advice. Rather than hijack this thread I have started http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14351.0


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 21, 2013)

AlanF, as requested, here is one image made with Sigma 150-500mm, ISO 100, f/6.3 on 31st August 2012 (applied 25% sharpening in Nik Sharpener Pro 3) ... this moon is called "Once in a Blue Moon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_moon
Edit: Camera used was Canon 60D


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2013)

I don't "bird". But I can't imagine going out with a prime lens. Especially to capture a bird in flight. I'd want to start wide to find the bird in the sky, and then zoom in to actually get the bird up close. 

And I love primes... so don't get me wrong about simply having a zoom bias. And I know sharpness and picture quality is important, but I'd almost sacrifice a little of that for length and hope to sharpen it up a touch in lightroom. 

So if I had a suggestion, I'd say go with the long sigma (500mm) shoot the bird in the middle of the frame where the lens is always sharpest, and then compose the shot later in LR. Edges edges edges... I contend that wouldn't be as important since the bokeh at 500mm usually blurs the surrounding anyway... and the focus of the image will be the bird...


----------



## crasher8 (Apr 21, 2013)

I would like to comment on my dust hog comment. True my post was from a limited experience. One lens. Used during a semester at school. However even with a filter I had many issues. Enough to make me sell the glass and not want to gamble with another copy. You say what you know, what you experience, it doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong' if you do not have that same experience.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I don't "bird". But I can't imagine going out with a prime lens. Especially to capture a bird in flight. I'd want to start wide to find the bird in the sky, and then zoom in to actually get the bird up close.
> 
> And I love primes... so don't get me wrong about simply having a zoom bias. And I know sharpness and picture quality is important, but I'd almost sacrifice a little of that for length and hope to sharpen it up a touch in lightroom.
> 
> So if I had a suggestion, I'd say go with the long sigma (500mm) shoot the bird in the middle of the frame where the lens is always sharpest, and then compose the shot later in LR. Edges edges edges... I contend that wouldn't be as important since the bokeh at 500mm usually blurs the surrounding anyway... and the focus of the image will be the bird...



As you don't actually do "bird", let me tell you that the guys who get the best bird photos use primes, be they birds in flight or static. Sharpness in LR can't sharpen what isn't there. The zooms tend to lose the fine detail. I use the 100-400mm only as a travel lens for birding. On safari, however, I would recommend a zoom.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 21, 2013)

rpt said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Vikram, I used to have EF 100-400L IS, which is a great lens but I sold it and got Sigma 150-500 OS for better reach and I found the push pull to be a bit awkward ... my copy of the Sigma 150-500 OS is just as good as my earlier 100-400L IS lens if not better.
> ...


Thanks for your kind words. Cheers


----------



## jcoz (Apr 21, 2013)

Those are some great bird pics 

I'll give my two cents on the Sigma 120-400. I used to have one until I decided to sell it and buy the Canon 70-300L (and then decided to get the 400 L to have more reach).

While a good bargain at half the price of the Canon lenses and a great lens for me as a beginner, it was soft above 300mm and really soft at 400mm wide open, I had to step down to f/7.1 to get sharp images at 400mm which really decreased the quality of the background. It is also very heavy (1.7 kg) and the OS was not nearly as good as the Canon 70-300 (and remember it is heavier...), but may be close to the 100-400 IS that I was never able to test myself.

I've owned two Sigma lenses, I've had problems with both while some other people seem to have no problem whatsoever. Sigma is famous for spotty Quality Control (and as a quality engineer I don't appreciate it too much ^^). On top of that when I tried to sell both Sigmas I took a big loss - sold for 50% of the price after owning them for 1 year and 2 months respectively. 

I've never tried or even researched about the Sigma 150-500 and the results look good, so it might be a good choice but be aware their lenses can be inconsistent.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 22, 2013)

This is rad thinking, but ... why not consider a superzoom? I have been using the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 for birding shots (as well as general photography) and am very pleased with it. The big plus in its favor is a Leica lens with an equivalent focal length of 25mm-600mm - and at a *CONSTANT f/2.8 aperture*. Birds are tiny little critters, and the 600mm crops them pretty tight. It has a 12MP sensor and shoots RAW. It currently sells for about $500-$550 or so, but have seen it less. It is also my go-to wallkabout camera whenever I can't (don't want to) carry my big Canon stuff. Look it up when you can. Cheers and good luck.


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The OP already has a 55-250mm, which is too short, so it would seem a bit pointless just going up to a 300mm zoom, which is also too short. The issue of 100-400mm vs 400mm f/5.6 has been argued over for years. The prime was originally greatly championed by Arthur Morris, who described it as his favourite toy lens. But, even he has now discarded it in favour of the 100-400mm - see http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html
> 
> I have become so fed up with people stating that the 400mm f/5.6 is much better than the 100-400mm zoom that I started a thread http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.0 with the numbers that both lenses are of similar sharpness. The 400mm L is now 20 years old and should have been updated years ago. In my opinion, the advantages of zoom and 2 good stops of IS make the 100-400mm a much more versatile and useful lens. It also packs away nicely.



You can argue which is better, the 100-400 zoom or the fixed 400. Both are maxed out at 400, only the 100-400 has IS, the 400 fixed is lighter.

In the end, if you pick a Canon lens you have the choice of 2 good, but rather short lens, without going for a Great White which costs at least 5x more and weighs 5x more.

No clear winner, compromise on all fronts, but both respectively good lens.


----------



## jcoz (Apr 22, 2013)

> You can argue which is better, the 100-400 zoom or the fixed 400. Both are maxed out at 400, only the 100-400 has IS, the 400 fixed is lighter.
> 
> In the end, if you pick a Canon lens you have the choice of 2 good, but rather short lens, without going for a Great White which costs at least 5x more and weighs 5x more.
> 
> No clear winner, compromise on all fronts, but both respectively good lens.




This pretty much sums up everything I read before buying mine.


----------



## ReedZ (Apr 22, 2013)

Hi

While I can't say much on Sigma because I dont owned one, I recommend either the Canon EF100-400mm L IS USM or Canon EF400mm f/5.6 L. If you want flexibility go for zoom 100-400mm because of the zoom, IS and weathersealing, where is the prime 400mm will give you slightly sharper image and better bokeh and cheaper compare to the first. I used tripod for most of my bird photo when I used the prime. 

But at the end of the day, which ever lens you use, you must learn to familiar your self with the lens. As for me, since I have both, the lens selection is very much depends when and where either lens will give me a better images.

Attached is sample photo using the Canon EF400mm f/5.6 (1/80, f/10, ISO 640) using Canon EOS 7D.


----------



## Eimajm (Apr 22, 2013)

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.
I shoot with this combination and it is a stella performer, up to 800iso, with some clean up work needed at higher iso, 1600 is still perfectly useable with a well exposed shot. Things i miss with this set up are IS, which the 100-400 has, however I have no need for a zoom and always prefer primes for the image quality you get, which is not a diss at the 100-400 as the quality of this glass is very good to.
Either one will suit your needs for starting out bird photography and can produce exceptional results.


----------



## ereka (Apr 22, 2013)

Eimajm said:


> Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.



I'm confused - I'll be grateful if you'll explain why it's a poor shot as it looks great to me (I was just about to comment to that effect when I saw your post). I'm probably showing my ignorance but hey ho! if you don't ask you don't learn anything!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 22, 2013)

ereka said:


> Eimajm said:
> 
> 
> > Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.
> ...


I think the brights could be brought down a little, but it seems fine otherwise. the tail might be a little soft... but I'm also looking at it on my phone.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 22, 2013)

FWIW, I don't' think that is a "poor shot" per se. I'd crop it a little tighter and different. I do find the Bokeh to be a bit distracting, especially to the left of the bird.....kind of like streaks to me. Might do something with a blur of that background in PP.


----------



## vikram1988 (Apr 22, 2013)

thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 22, 2013)

vikram1988 said:


> thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?


 
You won't get Christmas Pricing this time of the year. The CR front page has a price search engine. Buy using the link, and CR gets a few dollars to help pay the cost of running the site.

http://www.canonrumors.com/lenses/price-watch-zoom-lenses/


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 22, 2013)

Hey AlanF, I don't own the 300 f/4L (I only tried it for a short time), and apparent it's a good thing. I guess we should all just sell our DSLR's and buy an SX50...you know, since it is superior to $8k worth of camera and lens!!


----------



## bwfishing (Apr 22, 2013)

You also may want to consider waiting for a sale on Canon's refurbished website

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_282320_-1


The dust comment posted by: crasher8 is not a myth I had a copy with this issue as well. Some of the lenses also reported issues being soft. I hope you get a good one and enjoy it! I'm not posting to trying change your mind as I believe you posted that you wanted the 100-400 and already enjoy the 55-250 zoom. I have the 550d (t2i) body as well and my 2 cents is the 550d (t2i) is not the greatest for wildlife (low fps). The 7D would be a upgrade to consider as the af and fps are more better suited for wildlife. 

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!


----------



## Eimajm (Apr 22, 2013)

ereka said:


> Eimajm said:
> 
> 
> > Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.
> ...



It's lacks sharpness, suffers from from camera shake and has been heavily cropped showing a great amount of noise, I also expect it has been brightened up to bring up detail in the shadows exaggerating noise too. The has resulted in poor image quality. It does not reflect the photos you can get with this setup at that iso. Here are a couple of photos at various iso so you see the the appearance of noise. Notice the barn owl which is shot at 3200 iso which is not that noiser than the image I commented on. 

ISO 1000



Sedge Warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) perched, singing. by Jamie Medford, on Flickr

ISO 200



Herring Gull (Larus Argentatus) diving. by Jamie Medford, on Flickr

ISO 3200



Barn Owl (Tyto alba) by Jamie Medford, on Flickr


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2013)

vikram1988 said:


> thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sid=used-9139179&is=USE&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=800944750

1200 for a refurb at B&H.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 23, 2013)

Eimajm said:


> ereka said:
> 
> 
> > Eimajm said:
> ...



Jamie, they are truly excellent, especially considering the iso. Here is a crop to emphasize what you wrote about the noise etc. All the fine structure of the plumage has been lost, so only the coarse details remain with horrendous noise. It was also taken at f/10, which spoiled what bokeh there could have been.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Apr 23, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.



The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2013)

rumorzmonger said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.
> ...



Why would people lie? I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors. I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors. Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.


----------



## steven kessel (Apr 24, 2013)

I've had the 100-400 for over a year and have taken over 10,000 photos with it. I love the lens, it is sharp, easy to use, very light and portable for its reach, and produces great images for me. I shoot exclusively hand held and use it mostly for bird photography. With IS I can get useable images down to about 1/100. My only regret is that it doesn't work with the 1.4 or 2 teleconverter.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> rumorzmonger said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...


I've had my 100-400L for over 2.5 years and had my 17-55mm f/2.8 for over 2 years and have no dust in them at all... I use them all the time, especially the 100-400L. I used it today in fact. 

That being said, I do keep good B&H filters on them at all times. Not only is my 100-400 crazy sharp and dust free, I guess it's overdue for regular servicing maintenance! Maybe I should send it in for a check up and clean up!


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> rumorzmonger said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors. The rumors did their job! 

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump." None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens. If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item. The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 24, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > rumorzmonger said:
> ...


+10 Additonally, we have no idea if these people reporting these issues have a clue as how to properly switch a lens out with another one or even just to take a lens off to put the gear up.

My dad taught me almost 30 years ago with my AE1 and F-1 that the most crucial thing I did with his cameras was putting on and/or taking off lenses. He drilled it into me and I've always taken great care and maximized my speed and efficiency at switching lenses in the field. I guard the openings like they are my last dollar! I check everything twice before I start a change and then do it very safely and very quickly. I've never had dust issues.. just haven't. 

My uncle on the other hand, very good photographer yet all his images are filled with dust particles, with lenses not "known" for being dust pumps!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > rumorzmonger said:
> ...



I wasn't interested in the 17-55 because I knew at some point I was going full frame... so that was NEVER on my radar screen. As for the 100-400... I just don't like the pump... it's wholly irrational, but it just doesn't appeal to me at all.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 24, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


I quite honestly didn't like the slide action of the 100-400mm either. I bought it because that was the only way it came and I needed the flexibility out in the field to go back to 100mm or 200mm without changing lenses. The 100-400mm served that purpose. A little MFA on both my bodies and it's been a wonderful lens and a joy to use. I got used to the sliding telephoto action quite easily and I've never regretted the purchase, although I had a lot of doubts when I ordered it, due to the sliding barrel, before using it, it just didn't set well with me.

I would be an adopter of the next generation for sure. That being said, although I am well acustom to the slide, I'd much prefer the next version to not slide... ;D


----------



## ReedZ (Apr 24, 2013)

vikram1988 said:


> thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?



Hi Vikram, I am glad you made your decision which lens you wish to buy, the Canon EF100-400mm is a very good lens for wildlife photography, I have been using it for about 4 years, the "dust hog" you have been hearing from the others aren't true. The lens is partially weathershield and have dust and moisture resistance. Trust me you will love the lens.


----------



## vikram1988 (Apr 24, 2013)

Thanks a lot Reed and other wonderful people who helped me  

Cheers ! 

Vikram


----------

