# best bird lens if you pls



## athena (Oct 19, 2015)

would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls. 

birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon. 

do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2015)

You will get many different opinions and prejudices. 

I owned the Tamron 150-600mm for a year. It was very good on my 5DIII but lost a lot on the 7DII though still gave good results if the frame was filled. I bought the 100-400 II, which remains glued to my 7DII and a second one for when I go out with my wife and we take the 5DIII with us as well. I have compared the 100-400 II with the Sigma 150-600 C and S. on both cameras. The Sigmas are very good as well.

From 100-400, the 100-400 II is the best optically and has incredible AF. There are reports in CR and elsewhere of the Sigma and Tamron having AF problems, but may users are happy. The 100-400 II + 1.4xTC is as good optically as the Sigmas at 150-600mm and the Tamron in the centre. The Tamron is good in the centre but poorer at the edges. For lowest weight and smallest size, the 100-400 II is the winner.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 19, 2015)

As is often the case, the answer is 'it depends'...

What kinds of birds? Bigger things - large raptors, waterfowl, waders (or more exotic stuff like cranes, pelicans) will require a shorter focal length - especially in flight. Passerines especially you may want a longer lens.

Budget? If money is no object, the 600L or 200-400+1.4x are probably unsurpassed as prime and zoom options, if you don't mind the weight, which brings me to...

Weight - some people object to carrying supertelephoto lenses around. Or if you are planning on taking them on flights, the largest lenses are more awkward. In that case the 100-400L (II) or 300L 2.8 (or even the 400L 5.6 or 300L 4).

Flexibility - do you want a lens that can do for other subjects? The 100-400 will do lots of subjects at the wider end, while the longer primes are more limiting.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 19, 2015)

athena said:


> would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls.
> 
> birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon.
> 
> do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you



The one truth about bird photography is that you can never have a long enough lens.....

The best lens is the 600F4.... but few of us mere mortals can afford it.

The best AFFORDABLE lens is the sigma 150-600...., closely followed by the Tamron 150-600

The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...

Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2015)

I agree with all the responses you got so far. I sold my 100-400 V1 and got a 100-400 V2. I have used it on my 5D3 and my 7D2 with and without the 1.4x III extender. Works well for me.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2015)

I should also add that it also depends on whether or not you use a tripod or monopod. If you are mainly hand holding, the 100-400 II is not heavy but the Sigma S is frankly too unbalanced and heavy, and the C and the Tamron a little heavy. The old 400/5.6 is even lighter and fine for BIF in good light and on a tripod at lower speeds. 

I personally don't think the 300mm f/4 is up to it - too short and loses too much IQ with a 1.4xTC.

Again in my personal opinion, 600mm is too long on a 7DII for BIF and 400mm gives a wider field of view for capturing hast moving birds. Of course, 600mm is great when you don't have to be quick.


----------



## athena (Oct 19, 2015)

thanks for the intell so far. 

I currently have 100-400 version one. she works great. was not sure if v2 was much of a change? yes? no?

I would love to be in the 600s. 

it would be my on the body 24/7. it's the only thing I do. birds vary in size and stance. mostly one the water or flats. 

does that help for more input


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 19, 2015)

If you have the 100-400 version 1 then I would maybe try to sell it and get version 2, but if re-sale value is low then you might just want to keep it for a vacation lens.
If your lens is a good copy then it'll probably only be significantly weak in the corners, so as long as you can frame your subject there might not be huge IQ gains.
Version 2 will be sharper, but you have to decide how much that extra sharpness is worth to you.

The reasons I want the 100-400 version 2 are for the close focus ability, and because I've never owned a long zoom lens. That makes it worth purchasing outright even though I own the 400f5.6 prime (which is still the best dedicated BIF lens since it weighs less, is sharp across the frame, and IS isn't an advantage there).
If you already have the 100-400 version 1 and your primary subjects are out on the water or in fields, it sounds like you're at 400mm 99.9% of the time, so there aren't any significant upgrades for less than $8,000.
The 400f4DO gets you access to a TC without the AF penalty, but quite frankly it only cost a few thousand less than the 500f4 so I would just go for the full Big White experience at that point.
Nikon just released a 500f5.6 that looks to be an excellent lens, but they don't have anything like the 7D2, your best bet there would be a D810 in crop mode (the D7200 does not have a good buffer). That combo would cost about $4200.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 19, 2015)

athena said:


> would love if people could voice their opinions on this, tell me why. or even suggest another option. pls.
> 
> birding lens needed. flight and still. body is 7Dll canon.
> 
> do u choose the 100-400 canon? 150-600 sigma? add which extenders? or open to any ideas. what ever u wish to suggest i would love to hear. pls. and thank you



It appears you're only looking at new. Maybe your budget is limited to those lenses.

But do not overlook a used version of the 500mm F/4 L IS original. IMO it's a better choice than the two lens you listed, although it will cost between 4-5K US.


----------



## athena (Oct 19, 2015)

totally open to used. a used 500 is a great idea. thank you.


----------



## alben (Oct 19, 2015)

I have the 100-400 mark 1, it is decent, but not with the 1.4 extender. The mark 2 on the images I have seen seems great with or without the 1.4 extender. Do not even consider the 2x extender unless you get a 2.8 300mm or similar.


----------



## cycleraw (Oct 19, 2015)

The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...

Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....
[/quote]

Agree with Don. I own the Sigma 150-600 sport and the Canon 100-400 V2 and the Canon even with a 1.4X teleconverter I find to be sharper than the bare Sigma. Using a teleconverter on the Sigma is a disaster. The Sigma is very good up to around 450mm but then gets soft.


----------



## viggen61 (Oct 19, 2015)

Probably you'll want to get the 100-400 Mk II. I know I do! It also seems to be the lens I see most often paired with a 7DII...

You might consider upgrading to that lens, which would be great with your 7DII and a Canon EF 1.4 Extender III. For special occasions, you can always rent a 500 Mk II or 600 Mk II. Very reasonable rates out there.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 19, 2015)

cycleraw said:


> The best semi-expensive lens is the 100-400 V2.... It will resolve much better than the Sigma in the 100-400mm range and with the 1.4X teleconverter is equivalent to the Sigma at 600...
> 
> Don't even think of putting a teleconverter on the Sigma (or the Tamron) on a crop camera. You will DECREASE the resolving power....



Agree with Don. I own the Sigma 150-600 sport and the Canon 100-400 V2 and the Canon even with a 1.4X teleconverter I find to be sharper than the bare Sigma. Using a teleconverter on the Sigma is a disaster. The Sigma is very good up to around 450mm but then gets soft.
[/quote]

I have read so many times that the new 100-400 ii will resolve much better than the Sigma at 100-400 (Obviously between 100-150 there is no comparison ). Could you kindly point me to some images or perhaps share some that caused you to come to that conclusion. Again this is something that I have read over and over on so many forums, but not something that I see in actual images. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see what this is based on. I own the Sigma and have the financial means to easily pick up the new 100-400 for times that I do not need to get to 600mm, but based on what I have seen, there is not really a difference at all. Being that I am always itching to spend money, I would happily buy the Canon as a compliment.

I chose the Sigma for my bird shooting as it gives me the most flexibility without the need for a converter and is still plenty sharp.

In addition I should add that the Sigma is not very soft over 450mm as long as you stop down to f8. You would be at f8 with the 100-400ii + 1.4x anyway. Plus with the Sigma you get the advantage of using all focal points on the long end. This is something that you can not do with the Canon so that is a major advantage in framing the shot. Here are just a few shots I have gotten in the past few weeks with the Sigma that to my eye are very far from being soft above 450mm. Feel free to follow the link to flickr and zoom in on the images as much as possible to see the kind of detail you can get with the Sigma. Just to be clear, I am not saying this lens is better than the new Canon, only that I do not see that the Canon is much better at any focal length.

600mm


Song Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

531mm


Tufted Titmouse by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm


Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

500mm


Ruddy Turnstone by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

And a few at shorter focal lengths...

313mm


Great-tailed Grackle by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

403mm


Least Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

244mm


Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## candc (Oct 19, 2015)

The 400doii is the best bird/bif lens on the 7dii I have used. Its super sharp, the AF is great. I handles and takes extenders well (no need to stop down).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> I have read so many times that the new 100-400 ii will resolve much better than the Sigma at 100-400 (Obviously between 100-150 there is no comparison ). Could you kindly point me to some images or perhaps share some that caused you to come to that conclusion. Again this is something that I have read over and over on so many forums, but not something that I see in actual images. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see what this is based on. I own the Sigma and have the financial means to easily pick up the new 100-400 for times that I do not need to get to 600mm, but based on what I have seen, there is not really a difference at all. Being that I am always itching to spend money, I would happily buy the Canon as a compliment.



TDP has image quality of the Sigma S vs the 100-400 II on the 7DII

eg at 300 mm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

and so on at other lengths.

objektivtest.se has measured the MTFs of the Sigma S and 100-400 II for APS-C.

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/

Both sites have the 100-400 II sharper, but that doesn't mean that the Sigma isn't sharp enough! All it really means is that you have to be a bit closer to match quality.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 19, 2015)

The problem with bird lenses is that you want as much reach as possible. I use a 600 f4L IS II with a 1.4xIII extender in 95% of all cases. And I still crop, often a lot! I hardly ever use the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x for birds.

That being said, a 7DII/100-400L II combo is very good (my wife´s favourite, due to the combination of size, weight and IQ) and I fully support what others have said about it. And a benefit of the 7DII, compared to the full frame alternatives, is that the AF points cover pretty much the whole viewer. But, unless you´re very good at sneaking or have a good hide, I still believe you need more than 400. From a budget perspective, long whites get really expensive, but a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.

Don´t be mislead by the assumed flexibility of a zoom. You´ll use it at max focal range 99% of the time.


----------



## Northbird (Oct 19, 2015)

I've always been a promoter of using the right tool for the job at hand. If you are a serious bird photographer, amateur or otherwise the fixed focal length super teles are the ticket. Yes, they are expensive, they are bulky, they draw unwanted attention, but the potential rewards exceed those considerations. 

I use either the 300 2.8 or the 600 II usually with the 1.4 extender attached. Agree with others comments that it's tough to have too much reach for bird photography. I occasionally shoot the 600 with the 2X converter attached and the 7D II allows single center point auto focus at F8. Very useful when you need it to get the shot. 




Rufous hummingbird ♀ (Selasphorus rufus) by Tony Varela Photography, on Flickr


----------



## quod (Oct 19, 2015)

Eldar said:


> ... a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.
> 
> Don´t be mislead by the assumed flexibility of a zoom. You´ll use it at max focal range 99% of the time.


I agree with most of your points. The 500/4 I prices have dropped a lot in the last year or two It's a great lens, but its sharpness with the 1.4x III is spotty compared to shots with the same lens combo with the 5D3. It's something to do with the sensor. I'm not sure if the same issue occurs with the 500/4 II (I have both lenses, but I havent shot the 7D2 with the 500/4 II much). My significant other shoots the 7D2 and swears that the 400/5.6 focus acquisition is better than with the 100-400 II, both alone and in conjunction with the 1.4x III.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2015)

quod said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ... a 400/2.8L, 500/4L or 600/4l in version I can be had for quite reasonable prices. a 7DII/500f4L combo ... with the addition of a 1.4xIII extender ... that is a potent combo.
> ...



True that perhaps 99% of the time you use max focal length. But, the other 1% is often when those feathered creatures get so close you can pick out every tiny detail, and the 1% can be your best ever shots. Many of my very best photos have been when I had the fortune to be so close I had to zoom out.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


True!

My best bird pictures have been with a 17-55.......


----------



## candc (Oct 20, 2015)

there seems to be a rule that the smaller the bird the closer you can get. Seems there is a constant distance size ratio. 560 or 600 on a crop body is right for me most of the time. The ff shooters I know always seem to be using the 1.4x on the 600. I don't use over 600 on a crop body often.


----------



## candc (Oct 20, 2015)

Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.


----------



## tron (Oct 20, 2015)

candc said:


> Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.


Ha ha yes. This has happened to me too (I have photographed half a pigeon, half a duck, etc).
We can declare them portraits though... ;D


----------



## candc (Oct 20, 2015)

tron said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.
> ...



Should start a new thread "too much lens, shoulda had a zoom!" I have gotten some pretty good "portrait" and super tight crops that way too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 20, 2015)

The right lens is the one you have on your camera. I've owned a large assortment of cameras and lenses from cheapies to big whites.

70-200mm f/2.8L II at f/2.8 and 200mm. Iso 400, 1/80 sec.









100-400mmL MK I








70-200mm f/4L IS with 1.4X TC








100-400mmL MK I








$125 Nikon 500mm Mirror Reflex Lens







$125 Tokina 400mm









Canon 600mm f/4L (Non IS)







Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 at 155mm


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > I have read so many times that the new 100-400 ii will resolve much better than the Sigma at 100-400 (Obviously between 100-150 there is no comparison ). Could you kindly point me to some images or perhaps share some that caused you to come to that conclusion. Again this is something that I have read over and over on so many forums, but not something that I see in actual images. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see what this is based on. I own the Sigma and have the financial means to easily pick up the new 100-400 for times that I do not need to get to 600mm, but based on what I have seen, there is not really a difference at all. Being that I am always itching to spend money, I would happily buy the Canon as a compliment.
> ...



Thanks for the link. I have seen these before. What I should have said is that the test charts say one thing but the bird images that I see say something else. I have personally not seen shots with the 100-400 ii and especially plus extender that I think are way better than what the Sigma C (the one that I have) can deliver.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 20, 2015)

I use a 400 f/5.6L no-IS for BIF, on a 60D (soon to be 7D2). You can't beat the light weight if you are walking or hiking. On the other hand, f/5.6.... and, no IS. Still, it's a fun lens to shoot with. I aspire to an f/4 500 or 600mm lens, but unless that's the 500mm f/4 L IS II, I am not sure if I can handle it hand-held. Yes, I use a tripod and half-gimbal on occasion (Custom Brackets Basic Gimbal attachment put on a ball head - like the Wimberley Sidekick).


----------



## quod (Oct 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> True that perhaps 99% of the time you use max focal length. But, the other 1% is often when those feathered creatures get so close you can pick out every tiny detail, and the 1% can be your best ever shots. Many of my very best photos have been when I had the fortune to be so close I had to zoom out.


I agree 100%. I had a bald eagle fly toward and by me last weekend within 40-50 feet of my position. I was testing the 7D2 with the 500/4 II + 1.4x extender. Needless to say, I didn't get the shot. My significant other had my 5D3 with a 100-400 II and nailed amazing shots. The 100-400 II is an awesome lens (the 100-400 I is decent, too).


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 20, 2015)

candc said:


> Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.



Yes..... sometimes the birds can get a bit too close for a long lens......


----------



## candc (Oct 20, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom function is very useful though. Otherwise you come around a corner in your canoe and this is what happens.
> ...



That's where you need a mirror lens, or maybe it doesn't work like that?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 20, 2015)

Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.

Wandering around in the countryside, I seldom need a zoom and usually would be 6D 300 2.8 II X2 III or 1D4 300 2.8 II X1.4 III if I anticipate BIF (sometimes X2).

From a blind where both small and large birds appear, sometimes quite close, I like 1D4 70-200 2.8 II X1.4III but when they are back a bit I'm again wishing for more reach. I've been wondering about 100-400 II myself.

Jack


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 20, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.
> 
> Wandering around in the countryside, I seldom need a zoom and usually would be 6D 300 2.8 II X2 III or 1D4 300 2.8 II X1.4 III if I anticipate BIF (sometimes X2).
> 
> ...



Thanks for the kind words. All are cropped but no doubt that the lens performs better when not cropped too much. In order of the shots I posted. 

Song Sparrow = 16.4 MP so cropped about 19%
Tufted Titmouse = 15.2 MP so cropped about 25%
Sanderling is about 16 MP so cropped about 21% (could not find specifics in exif)
Turnstone is about the same as Sanderling
Great-tailed Grackle = 18.7MP so cropped only 7.5%
Least Sandpiper = 18.9 MP so cropped only 6.5%
Purple Martin = 13 MP so cropped 36%

I find that a 35-40% crop is the maximum that I can do and still have a very sharp shot. I picked those shots randomly to show different focal lengths and how the lens performs. Pretty much every shot out of the lens when taken relatively close, in nice light and with proper exposure and technique is the same. Here are a few more examples from recently that to me show how the Sigma is such an amazing bargain and one that people should take seriously when considering what is the best all around birding lens. It is certainly a hell of a lot easier to sneak up on a bird on climb out on a jetty when just a camera and lens hanging around your neck as opposed to a huge lens and a tripod.

252mm


Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

531mm


Tufted Titmouse by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm


Common Yellowthroat by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

600mm


Semipalmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

435mm


Semi-palmated Sandpiper by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 20, 2015)

Isaac, valid points and you have reason to be satisfied. Thanks for the details!

With bird photography we have some different perspectives. One might be an artistic presentation another might be a sharp detailed close up partly for ID purposes. Pleasing shots are to be had with all the better lenses and the most impressive artistic shots are not going to be that dependent on the lens - more on the shooter. 

On CR, myself included, it's easy to get carried away with who has the craziest sharp picture, even if it's artistically a dud. I'm now trying to be more objective than in the past as far as composition is concerned - background, subject positioning, interesting activities, secondary subjects, etc. Sure I still want reasonably sharp but that isn't the be all and end all.

Jack


----------



## PBear (Oct 20, 2015)

Hi 

I recently did a trip to Scandinavia, the Arctic Circle and Iceland. I took my 5DmkIII, 100-400 II and a 1.4 mkIII extender for this trip. This specific kit was taken with wildlife as the focus. I have since bought a 7D mkII body as this will provide further reach due to the 1.6 crop factor. Weight was a factor when considering what to take as cabin baggage.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 20, 2015)

Have a read through these threads plenty of good information on the more budget side of things up to the 100-400mm MKII

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25918.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.45;topicseen


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 20, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant, were your posted shots cropped at all? They are impressive.
> ...



You're very good at this! Those martin shots are hard! Well done mate


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 20, 2015)

I'm thinking of replacing my 400 f/5.6 with a 100-400ii. 

I understand that the IQ of both lenses are very similar but with the IS of the 100-400, keeper rate may be higher

Anybody have experiences with both these lenses?


----------



## scyrene (Oct 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The right lens is the one you have on your camera.



Well not really.

While your point - that good photos can be taken with many lenses, even unlikely-seeming ones, in the right circumstances - is true, you can't photograph any subject with any lens you happen to have. If I only have a phone on me, or only take out a short lens (<200mm), then if I see a bird, I usually won't even bother trying, because a few pixels on target aren't enough to warrant it (unless it's highly notable/unusual and still identifiable in shot, or very very close, but that's almost never the case for those focal lengths). Equally, if I just have a 500mm lens, I can't photograph a landscape, however pretty it is (stitched panoramas are possible, but require too many shots at very long focal lengths if you want to cover much of the field of view to do handheld/manually; you can pick out points of interest of course, but that's not landscape work in the same sense).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2015)

24-600mm (equivalent) on my Powershot G3 X, which will accompany me on a brief trip to NYC tomorrow, covers pretty much the whole range I need with pretty good quality.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 20, 2015)

I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).

The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html

The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 20, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Isaac, valid points and you have reason to be satisfied. Thanks for the details!
> 
> With bird photography we have some different perspectives. One might be an artistic presentation another might be a sharp detailed close up partly for ID purposes. Pleasing shots are to be had with all the better lenses and the most impressive artistic shots are not going to be that dependent on the lens - more on the shooter.
> 
> ...



I agree with you completely that we all can work on the artistic side of things and that is something I try and do all the time and would like to think I am getting a little better at it. But the OP has asked about the best birding lens. So that will pretty much be down to resolution, durability, ease of use, water proof, etc. and has very little to do with artistic shots. For example, here is a shot I got yesterday in a high wind. It is not as sharp as it could be due to the fact that I did not have enough shutter speed (damn wind gust picked up right as I was shooting the bird!!!). But I think the perch and the background make for a nice image. Again at 600mm and not soft at all which is a very common misconception about this lens... I should add that in windy condition and when fully extended it is very difficult to hold the Sigma steady. The large hood and length of lens makes it like a sail which is not ideal to say the least.



Swamp Sparrow by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).
> 
> The undisputed expert on bird photography is Art Morris, whom I am sure you are familiar with. Even he agrees that you need a minimum of 500: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_focallen.html
> 
> The results posted earlier of 100-600 Sigma Sport are impressive and I think for new on a budget is the best option. A used 500 or 600 L would be good as well. The 100-400 v2 is killer, but if you are using it exclusively for birds I am afraid it may not be long enough.



Art Morris says all things to all men, depending on what he is up to. His favourite toy lens is the 400/5.6. He has said differently in more recent years but in a rather recent interview repeated that. His modus operandi is to get close to birds. He repeatedly goes to the same places where he knows he can get close. To be honest, he is spot on there - get close if you can.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 20, 2015)

AlanF said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with others that you need as long as you can get. I tried several years ago doing a series on birds at our local manmade wetlands using 300 f4 with 1.4 extender, and then even with 2x extender (forcing manual focus). It was never long enough and eventually I gave up on birds in the wild (I did self publish a book on zoos that includes captive birds).
> ...


Just for clarity, I have the Sigma C, not the S. It is much lighter and easier to use. And Art is wise and I follow that train of thought all the time. Good field craft will go a very long way in closing the distance between a good lens and a great lens. Funny I used to go birding with Art many moons ago at Jamaica Bay wildlife refuge in NY. He used to do the shorebird studies for fall migration. When he stopped I took over for a few years.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 20, 2015)

Besides focal length, knowledge and patience goes a long way.

I also find silent continuous shutter very important too. I hope the 5D-IV will have a slightly faster silent continuous drive.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 20, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Besides focal length, knowledge and patience goes a long way.
> 
> I also find silent continuous shutter very important too. I hope the 5D-IV will have a slightly faster silent continuous drive.



This is something that I always want to bring up but rarely do. There are countless threads and forums on so many different sites re best lens, and sharpest lens, and what camera to use but so little mention of field craft and technique. Knowing the birds and being able to approach in a slow and respectful manner will allow for so many shots that would have otherwise flown away. Same goes with patience. Find a spot and quietly wait and the birds will come to you. If you are taking shots from in very close and need little to no cropping then you can really get some excellent shots with not so expensive gear.


----------



## quod (Oct 20, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Anybody have experiences with both these lenses?


I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 20, 2015)

quod said:


> I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.



Some lenses are not as long as they are labelled (for example a 400 may actually be 380, etc). Just curious if you have tested the actual distance and if they are the same or if one is truly longer than the other (when the zoom lens is at 400)?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > I have both. I prefer the 100-400 due to the zoom flexibility and the IS (I estimate the IS to be 3 stops). IQ is roughly the same (the 400 may be a tad sharper) but the 400 bokeh is much better. Both are very fast to focus. On my 5D3, the 100-400 IQ is good with the 1.4x III extender (haven't tried with the 400). The 400 is longer than the 100-400 in the bag, but the 400 is lighter and skinnier. The 100-400 is weather sealed, but the 400 is not. If I recall, the is more CA with the 400 than the 100-400. Both are excellent.
> ...



You will see comments that the 100-400mm II is less than 400mm. That is true at shorter distances away as there is "focus breathing", which you will always get for internal focussing lenses. But, at long distances it is 400mm.


----------



## quod (Oct 20, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> Some lenses are not as long as they are labelled (for example a 400 may actually be 380, etc). Just curious if you have tested the actual distance and if they are the same or if one is truly longer than the other (when the zoom lens is at 400)?


No, I haven't. Sorry.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 21, 2015)

To the OP.
Best birding lens - nothing is perfect but I would suggest (you did ask for the BEST!) a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk2 or a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.
Personally I prefer the 800 F5.6 (probably why I have been using one for 2+ years) but with your 7D2 the extra stop of the 600 F4 L IS Mk2 would be an advantage.
With either of these lenses any problems are you fault!

Pity they are so big, heavy and expensive!


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 21, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> To the OP.
> Best birding lens - nothing is perfect but I would suggest (you did ask for the BEST!) a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk2 or a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.
> Personally I prefer the 800 F5.6 (probably why I have been using one for 2+ years) but with your 7D2 the extra stop of the 600 F4 L IS Mk2 would be an advantage.
> With either of these lenses any problems are you fault!
> ...


Maybe that is why I shoot only with the Sigma 150-600 C. Still have that built in excuse 8)


----------



## ejenner (Oct 21, 2015)

If you're not sure what to get, I would start with the sigma 150-600C or the Tamron equivalent. 

I'm really glad I did because when I came into enough cash to get whatever I wanted I felt very comfortable forking out the money. And I sill may keep the sigma.

And it it turns out you zoom a lot and end up with a 100-400 II, it will all end up less expensive than going almost any other route.


----------



## rpt (Oct 21, 2015)

I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2015)

rpt said:


> I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...



Please correct me if I have this wrong as I don't have first hand experience. My reading was that the Sigma dock allows you to do extra things, like adjust for various focal lengths, type of AF etc, but you can still AFMA a Sigma lens using the built-in Canon microadjustment without the dock?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



Isaac, that is interesting news. It is pretty obvious to me for one that your success is from field craft and knowing how to get the best out of a lens.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 21, 2015)

Just remember that yes the sigma is sharper (very slight) than the Tamron but its also the darkest of all the tele lenses available.

It reaches F6.3 at 387mm and the Tamron reaches F6.3 at 428mm so if your looking for a lens that will still AF well up to 400mm then the Tamron is the better lens. There are also mixed reviews, I thought the Tamron was slow over 428mm anything where the max aperture reaches F6.3 for moving subjects for still subjects its perfect. Dustin Abbot also found in his review that the sigma hunts more than the Tamron but it is sharper. So I'm not sure if either one will focus quicker as I only have experience with the Tamron and the lens being darker made me cross it off the list.

The other issue with the Tamron I found - You can lock in 400mm which I thought would be the best for any BIF scenario, but there is play in the lock switch which plays up to 428mm so with about a mm rotation of the zoom ring the lens moves from a 400mm F5.6 to a 428mm F6.3. Even if you do go out of your way to ensure you get the best AF the lens can provide it doesn't necessarily mean that will work. Have to make sure you hold the zoom ring against the lock to ensure no movement.

As you can see from Issacs pics with great field craft you can get great images with any of the lenses, generally getting closer and nearly filling the frame aids so much as you can get more AF points over the subject or that one AF point will have a large area on the subject to focus on. Also you are using more of the sensor which always creates better images. Unfortunately this isn't the case most of the time and the AF speed of the canon lenses can't be beaten.

The great thing about the Sigma and the Tamron is that although they are F6.3 they will still af with all the points so it does aid creativity, you don't have to focus recompose to get critical focus on the eye, whereas the 100-400mm on a 7DMKII with a 1.4 will only focus at F8 centre point to get a similar focal length to the tammy and sigma on crop. This is often overlooked

What I found with the Tamron is its great bang for buck but its not a lens you can just pick up and use there are variables and areas in the lens where it performs better or worse. On paper it looks like one of the best value propositions on the market and I would agree. But there are a few trade offs I'm not used to when using Canon L glass. You have to really concentrate using it to get the best ensuring what focal length your at and what F stop. Also locking out the focal length for bird in flight will give you twice the amount of Crititical focus shots, but again you have to be careful not to let the lock switch play too much. At 600mm you can get decent results but <40% of a bird flying horizontally just doesn't give you enough frames to ensure you get the bird at its pinnacle position to give you the look your after, it means you have less frames to pick from. Its also using 600mm it takes practise and a much higher shutter speed to keep critical focus than you would expect.

Another thing to remember is that with the Tamron you can get 960mm with this on a crop body but it just doesn't play well its much softer than on a full frame body and seems much more suited to a 5DMKIII than a 7DMKII. You will get better AF with the 7D with its all cross type focus points at 5.6 but you get better IQ from the lens on a 5DMKII.

A 100-400mm MKII on a 7DMKII performs better at 640mm than the Tamron at 600mm on a 5DMKIII. The 7D has really caught up in image quality from my first set of test images its very impressive so its is genuinely a good compromise. The 100-400mm with a 1.4x on a 7D is also about equal to the tamron at 600mm on the 5DMKIII although you only get F8 and centre point you get 896mm. 

I sent my Tamron back in the end and bought the 100-400mm MKII and 1.4x with 7DMKII to go hand in hand with my 5DMKIII. Best of both worlds, the combos beat the tamron and sigma in all situations. If money isn't an issue I would go in this direction. Even cropped its a better combo.

The Tamron is great and does work with BIF but I found at 600mm my keeper rate was <40% for CRITICAL focus with all my usual settings BBF case setting 6 etc etc at 400mm it was 65%> so that 6.3 does make a difference as its outside the perimeters of the AF system. From my own tests and everything I've seen online it seems like its just a tad out, just not critically sharp. Your milage will vary because everyone has different estimations. If you are upgrading from similar mid range glass then this will be very welcome, but if your used to premium L lenses with excellent AF then this will not instil confidence.

My lens was also and old version although bought September 2015 it didn't have the latest firmware updates which affects the IS system with the AF. The fact there has been 4 firmware updates in 18 months also puts me off to send it away every couple of months. The sigma in this respect is better but again will cost you more for the dock. My lens also needed a good bit of AFMA -10 on the long end and -5 on the short end.

Even the 70-200mm MKII with a 2x extender I found was more accurate but not as fast to AF. But obviously at 400mm with the Tammy at F5.6 it did much better at tracking a moving subject.

If you want to read more check my link earlier in the thread as there are some comprehensive tests of the Tamron, the sigma is more similar that different. I will do a similar test when my 100-400mm arrives.


----------



## candc (Oct 21, 2015)

AlanF said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say rent the lenses you want to compare and see for yourself. Also don't forget you may need additional hardware to adjust AFMA on the non canon lenses and that costs some money too...
> ...



you can use afma on the body with the sigma or tamron lenses mounted same as canon lenses. the sigma dock allows you to make afma adjustments at 4 different fl distance combinations. you can also change af speed and "is" behavior which work as presets recalled with the custom setting switch on the lens 

it gives you more options but its a hassle to use. its easier if you can get the results you need with regular afma.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 21, 2015)

The dock is also to update firmware which is a huge plus compared to the Tamron as you have to send it away.

You can also alter the focus limiter and set up profiles for lots of the user settings. Pretty cool but it is a hassle.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 21, 2015)

tomscott said:


> The dock is also to update firmware which is a huge plus compared to the Tamron as you have to send it away.
> 
> You can also alter the focus limiter and set up profiles for lots of the user settings. Pretty cool but it is a hassle.



I have the dock and have set up the Sigma to my liking with it. It is a very easy software and takes hardly any time to use. The interface is great and the user experience is great as well. Every time you plug it in it checks if you have the most up to date firm ware. Then you can choose what you want to do with it. I have my C1 setting set to dynamic OS and focus priority. I use this for all non BIF situations. For the OS and focus settings you only have 3 options so it is very easy. Hardly any no way to mess up. Also at any point you can restore factory settings and start over. 

The dock costs about $60 and is SO worth it. I had the Tamron for a year and had to send it back twice for firmware updates. Had no lens for over a week and had to pay for shipping both times. That is a major hassle.


----------



## candc (Oct 21, 2015)

The sigma dock: great to have it, sucks that you need it. I have the 120-300 and 18-35. Af on Both were really out of whack. They both required AF adjustment at all 16 settings, shoot, unmount, mount to dock, run software x100. You get the idea, whole Saturday wasted. I have spent more time fiddling with each.of those lenses than the other dozen or so that i own combined.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 21, 2015)

Boy, sounds like "to each his own" relative to that big zoom. The main thing is that the views are public for anyone making the decision, eyes wide open, and that's great.  CR, as always a valuable forum.

Jack


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy, sounds like "to each his own" relative to that big zoom. The main thing is that the views are public for anyone making the decision, eyes wide open, and that's great.  CR, as always a valuable forum.
> 
> Jack



For clarity I did not have to do any afma on my lens. I agree that process sounds miserable. My Sigma was spot on at all focal lengths out of the box. My comments were solely based off of using the dock to set the firmware, OS and focus priority. Those settings only take a few minutes with the dock.


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If you have the 100-400 version 1 then I would maybe try to sell it and get version 2, but if re-sale value is low then you might just want to keep it for a vacation lens.
> If your lens is a good copy then it'll probably only be significantly weak in the corners, so as long as you can frame your subject there might not be huge IQ gains.
> Version 2 will be sharper, but you have to decide how much that extra sharpness is worth to you.
> 
> ...


Think of the big weight and size advantage of 400 DO though. If you have to hike the DO is much easier. If you can use it close to your car then the 500 4 L IS II has the advantage.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2015)

Bryan Carnathan of TDP made his choice for birding and nature for his latest trip:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=16000
He plumped for the 100-400mm II, 600mm f/4 II and the 5DS R. 

I am sorely tempted by the 5DS R. The sharpness of the sensor without low-pass filter and the resolution of a crop sensor but the field of view of full frame offers a versatility that makes up for the slower frame rate.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 22, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Bryan Carnathan of TDP made his choice for birding and nature for his latest trip:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=16000
> He plumped for the 100-400mm II, 600mm f/4 II and the 5DS R.
> 
> I am sorely tempted by the 5DS R. The sharpness of the sensor without low-pass filter and the resolution of a crop sensor but the field of view of full frame offers a versatility that makes up for the slower frame rate.


You´d love it, I know I do!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 22, 2015)

Eldar, it would seem like an excellent setup but based on my 6D I am not sure about the FPS. What's your opinion on that aspect?

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Eldar, it would seem like an excellent setup but based on my 6D I am not sure about the FPS. What's your opinion on that aspect?
> 
> Jack


At 80MP/frame, 5 fps fills up your cards fast enough  
Seriously, if I need more I use the 1DX. If I did not have that option I might find 5 fps to be a limiting factor, but not very often.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 23, 2015)

Thanks Eldar, my thoughts were along the lines of how much you'd still be depending on the 1DX. Do you have plans to upgrade to 1DX II when it's out given you now also have a 7D II? I'm almost satisfied enough with the 1D4 that I could keep it given I didn't pay a huge price, but that seems to vary from day to day. 

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks Eldar, my thoughts were along the lines of how much you'd still be depending on the 1DX. Do you have plans to upgrade to 1DX II when it's out given you now also have a 7D II? I'm almost satisfied enough with the 1D4 that I could keep it given I didn't pay a huge price, but that seems to vary from day to day.
> 
> Jack


The 1DX/5DSR combo is a very potent combo. The 7DII has one advantage and that is to have the AF points spread across the whole viewer. That makes for example a bird in flight situation easier and it gives you a high frame rate. But from a resolution point of view, I can crop the 5DSR and get approximately the same result. 

There are very few situations where the 1DX/5DSR does not solve whatever the situation may require. So for me to buy the 1DX-II (for anything but pure GAS) it would have to bring something special to the table. Resolution, dynamic range, high ISO improvements, wider spread of AF points and improved tracking of fast moving objects would be highest on my wish list. I´m fine with 12fps and I don´t give a s*** about video.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2015)

Helpful as usual, thanks.

Jack


----------



## Tony5787 (Oct 25, 2015)

Since Nikon recently updated their 300mm f4 with phase fresnel optics to reduce size do you guys think Canon will follow suit soon, perhaps with a DO model?


----------



## Greatland (Oct 28, 2015)

My 200-400 is an unbelievable lens, but heavy to try to handhold...but on a monopod or tri-pod its versatility for wildlife is pretty damned hard to beat...but for the purposes of this thread i would probably say the 100-400 VII


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

Tony5787 said:


> Since Nikon recently updated their 300mm f4 with phase fresnel optics to reduce size do you guys think Canon will follow suit soon, perhaps with a DO model?



Canon has a 70-300mm DO Zoom and the 400mm f/4 DO II. They were showing a 600mm mockup at photo shows recently, so they are developing the expensive models. I don't think Canon understands inexpensive when it comes to DO lenses.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 28, 2015)

rpt said:


> I agree with all the responses you got so far. I sold my 100-400 V1 and got a 100-400 V2. I have used it on my 5D3 and my 7D2 with and without the 1.4x III extender. Works well for me.


THis is the same experience by many.


----------



## antshrike (Nov 10, 2015)

The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.

While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.

I have always wanted, and always will want, an EF-S 400/500/600 range f/4 or f/5.6 L quality prime. There is an entire world of crop-body bird photographers out there carrying around 2.5x as much lens weight as they are utilizing.

Weight really is the top factor for me, within lenses that have enough reach and image quality. I would pay $3000-4000 for a EF-S 500 or 600/5.6 with modern IS that weighed significantly less than the 100-400v2 or the 400/5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2015)

antshrike said:


> The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.
> 
> While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.
> 
> ...



A 500 or 600/5.6 lens has the same size front element on a crop or FF since the f-number is given by (focal length)/(lens diameter), which is the same for crop or FF. Or, in other words, an EF-S lens will have the same heavy front element as an EF lens. It will probably weigh very similar on the crop as FF and most certainly not 2.5x less. You will need to go over to new technology such as Fresnel lenses to reduce weight, and both crop and FF will be lighter.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 11, 2015)

antshrike said:


> The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.
> 
> While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.
> 
> ...



Interesting perspective!! Sounds like FF or 1.6 crop are not what you're looking for if size/weight is paramount. How about someone to carry your gear. 

Jack


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 11, 2015)

antshrike said:


> The 100-400 v2 seems like the current winner, if that's what you want. I still prefer the 400 prime. IS would be nice, as I don't like flash photography, but for me, weight and focus speed are biggest factors. It is perhaps once a month at most, more like 2-4x/year that I need to back up to take a photo or miss a photo because I'm too close. Despite this, I actually wish I had the 300/4 a lot of the time just for less weight. I am a field biologist and birder first, photographer second. Lugging around that s-o-b 400 prime all day, every day, 8-12 hours up and down mountains and through the mud and muck gets old. I leave it behind a lot due to being sick of carrying it, and then I miss some amazing photos, usually of dead rare species. I missed a Crescent-faced Antpitta perched in the open in perfect light for 20+ seconds as I was too sick of the camera to carry it that day.
> 
> While there is a big market for 1DX + 500/600/200-400, there is a bigger market for the 7DII + a ~$1000-4000 lens, and it boggles my mind why no one has made a great EF-S superzoom.
> 
> ...



I again, am a photographer first.

I am seriously debating selling my 400 f/5.6 and picking up a 100-400 mkii. 

Why? Well, as a photographer first, I am intent on the most compelling composition I can produce. A few experiences this year has made me aware of the shortcomings of a fixed focal length and how it can limit you.

Here's a few examples:

* I do quite a lot of my bif from a hide at our local wetland. Depending on season, there are certain species that flies from the bank to the breeding island but shooting with my 400mm on my 7Dii, far too many of my images have feet, wings or bills cut off. 
* I did a safari earlier this year and we came across a pride of lions. Being lions, they pretty much laid in one place for about 30 minutes. The only shots I could get with my 400mm was 'portraits' of the lions.

It's actually quite a bitter sweet decision I'm playing with as my copy of the 400mm is pin sharp and has delivered me some very good images (well, for my ability that is).

I have heard, however that the new 100-400 is as sharp as the 400mm but also offers the ability to zoom along with IS.

Bare in mind that as a photographer first, I want to create images without restrictions and I have hit a wall a few times with my 400


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 11, 2015)

Very timely question, and I am embarrassed to give my story/input.

This past weekend I went out to a known waterfowl spot with my trusty 5D III and 300 mm 2.8 II. I also tried the rig with and without 1.4X extender. Results- disaster.

The focus was slowed, and IQ was decreased. Due to the unique features of the venue, I couldn't get that close and I guess the subject footprint on the sensor was simply too small, with/without extender. I didn't get a single keeper shot, and needless to say, it wasn't fun.

I would steer you away from the 300 mm and toward a longer lens, and if you can, stay away from extenders if IQ is a paramount concern.

Hope this helps.

sek


----------



## AlanF (Nov 11, 2015)

Scott
I regularly use a 100-400 II and a 300/2.8 II with and without a 1.4xTC III on both a 5DIII and a 7DII. The 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC is slightly sharper than the 100-400 II (both my copies). Have you AFMAed your 300/2.8 with the TC - the TC can change the AFMA? 

Crop vs FF is an important factor. The 7DII focuses on a small subject against a complex background better than the 5DIII, possibly because the small subject occupies more of the sensor.

The 300/2.8 + 1.4xTC is particularly good on the 7DII, but the + 2xTC is not (the 100-400 II + 1.4xTC is better). On the other hand, the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III is good on the 5DIII.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 11, 2015)

Dear Sabaki,

your best bet now for lens in terms of portability and cost is the 100-400 V2. And, if you pair it with the new 7D2 there is no comparisson elsewhere.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 11, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> Very timely question, and I am embarrassed to give my story/input.
> 
> This past weekend I went out to a known waterfowl spot with my trusty 5D III and 300 mm 2.8 II. I also tried the rig with and without 1.4X extender. Results- disaster.
> 
> ...



I must say I'm surprised. The 1.4 extender does not, in my experience, do any noticeable harm to image quality or autofocus speed when attached to the 500L, and by all accounts the 300 2.8 is an even better lens, so should suffer even less.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 11, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Scott
> I regularly use a 100-400 II and a 300/2.8 II with and without a 1.4xTC III on both a 5DIII and a 7DII. The 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC is slightly sharper than the 100-400 II (both my copies). Have you AFMAed your 300/2.8 with the TC - the TC can change the AFMA?
> 
> Crop vs FF is an important factor. The 7DII focuses on a small subject against a complex background better than the 5DIII, possibly because the small subject occupies more of the sensor.
> ...



AFMA! Good point. That could be the problem.


----------



## antshrike (Nov 12, 2015)

AlanF said:


> A 500 or 600/5.6 lens has the same size front element on a crop or FF since the f-number is given by (focal length)/(lens diameter), which is the same for crop or FF. Or, in other words, an EF-S lens will have the same heavy front element as an EF lens. It will probably weigh very similar on the crop as FF and most certainly not 2.5x less. You will need to go over to new technology such as Fresnel lenses to reduce weight, and both crop and FF will be lighter.



Perhaps I am dense, but then why does a crop body with a 1.6 magnification factor not become faster if it is fully utilizing the entrance aperture of the lens? You are cropping out ~60% of the image, it seems to me you are throwing away 60% of the light, no? You are not magically getting a cropped image with 250% of the light of the full image, else my 400/5.6 would become a 640/3.5 or so, not a 640/5.6... It seems, to me, empirical that the lens does not magically fit the full amount of image and light on the smaller sensor, but maybe I'm missing something? I guess what I am still thinking is that the same 400/5.6, if it were an EF-S lens, should either be smaller or faster...

I fully admit I am not a photographer, and the above was a genuine question not an attempt at rhetorical argument!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 12, 2015)

antshrike said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > A 500 or 600/5.6 lens has the same size front element on a crop or FF since the f-number is given by (focal length)/(lens diameter), which is the same for crop or FF. Or, in other words, an EF-S lens will have the same heavy front element as an EF lens. It will probably weigh very similar on the crop as FF and most certainly not 2.5x less. You will need to go over to new technology such as Fresnel lenses to reduce weight, and both crop and FF will be lighter.
> ...



You can concentrate the light from a full frame lens so it just fills a crop sensor and in doing so improve the f-number of a lens. But, as inevitable consequence of the laws of optics, you shorten the focal length of the lens. This is the principle of the Metabones Speedbooster eg: http://metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-BMCC-BT1 - a Canon 85mm f/1.2 becomes a 44.4mm f/0.9.


----------



## quod (Nov 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Crop vs FF is an important factor. The 7DII focuses on a small subject against a complex background better than the 5DIII, possibly because the small subject occupies more of the sensor.


I've noticed this too. One caveat is that you need to use a small number of focus points (ie no large zone focusing). I use the 4-point diamond on the 7D2.


----------

