# The budget photographer's 400mm dilemma



## MJ (Apr 12, 2015)

Hello everybody, 

There have never been more choices for the Canon wildlife photographer on a tight budget, yet I find myself longing for something else... something better!



My current set:

*A crop body with a 70-200mm IS II and both teleconverters III*
The bare lens is stellar but I see a strong degradation in image quality until stopping down to 6.3 when using the 1.4x TC, and to f11 with the 2x TC. Under difficult light such small apertures present a challenge.

And constantly having to mount/dismount the teleconverters in the wild makes capturing wildlife in difficult light conditions difficult.



Here are the current "inexpensive" Canon offerings (excluding previous versions and third party offerings):

*400mm f5.6L* - this lens is almost as old as I am. It's a good performer wide open, light and smallish, no IS... same old broken record you know already...
Rumors of a stabilized version have been out for a while but I'm not getting any younger waiting.

*300mm f4 L IS + 1.4 teleconverter* - the younger and shorter brother of the 400 5.6 by three years, similar good performance, light & small. Fumbling with the TC to get beyond 400mm is painful when out in the wild. According to other people for optimal sharpness one would have to shoot around f8 (IMHO not a plus).

*100-400mm L IS II* - apparently image quality at 400mm is equal to the 400mm prime.
Though variable aperture and retracting front element were the reasons I sold all my EF-S lenses. 
It's rated to have good weather sealing but in a truly dusty (desert) environment I'd still be concerned. 
There have also been reports of the long end not being "true" 400mm, except for distant subjects. Price wise it's the most expensive of the ones listed here.

*70-300mm IS USM / DO / L /* - the older shorter brothers of the 100-400 with an aversion towards Canon teleconverters. This one is honestly too short for my liking.

the newly released *400mm DO IS II* would be fab, but is price wise out of my league for now...



Is there any _substantial gain in image quality at 400mm_ with any of the lenses listed above, compared to my current one to justify a separate purchase? We are talking about ~1000-2.200 here, or hold off until better options become available?

I really love wildlife photography, but as of right now I don't make any money from my passion (yet).
What's a girl to do? :


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 12, 2015)

I had the same set up you currently have and I found that I got better images cropping with the bare 70-200/2.8 II that using the TC 2X III. With the TC 1.4X III it was bit better. However, AF speed remaind as an issue.
Now, I sold both TC's and saving to get the new 100-400 II.


----------



## monkey44 (Apr 12, 2015)

IF you're asking this question - go with the 100-400 v2. 'Awesome' is not descriptive enough, but I can't think of a better word.

The best answer most generally cost the most money. You gotta ask yourself: If I buy something less effective, will I later wish I'd done it differently. Lenses like this are forever ... you won't have to upgrade from it for a very long time. It also likes the TC's especially the 1.4 --

And, don't ask necessarily what the lens cost, figure out the "difference" in cost between the alternatives and the 100-400 v2 ... sometimes the difference it less when you think of it in those terms. "What do you actually get in performance" and is that performance worth the difference in cost, and not just the cost of the lens itself.


----------



## Omni Images (Apr 12, 2015)

No question about it .. save up for the version II 100-400.
New gen IS ... killer.
min focus 0.98m ... killer
IQ ... killer ... good even with the 1.4III
Build quality fantastic ... to... you guessed it .. Killer.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 12, 2015)

MJ said:


> Is there any _substantial gain in image quality at 400mm_ with any of the lenses listed above, compared to my current one to justify a separate purchase? We are talking about ~1000-2.200 here, or hold off until better options become available?
> 
> I really love wildlife photography, but as of right now I don't make any money from my passion (yet).
> What's a girl to do? :



The only current/supported OEM (Canon) options in your list are the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400II.

The 300 f/4 IS is a great lens but AF speed takes a huge hit with a TC on the lens.

Adding a 1.4x TC to either 400mm option may not have a big IQ hit, but you will have a big hit in AF speed and the number of available AF points- limited to the one in the center (assuming that you use a Canon TC and do not tape the pins or use a 3rd party TC).

Using an APS-C body, you really need to be at 2x the focal length for minimum shutter speed in order to get the best image/sharpness, but except for the 7DII, "high ISO" introduces noise that cancels IQ. The IS on the 100-400 would help here.

The 400 f/5.6 is supposed to be a great lens.

Of the two 400mm options, the 100-400 IS II would be an easy choice.

One suggestion is to seek out a nice copy of the 500 f/4.5 USM but non-IS lens. The drawback is that it is no longer serviced by Canon, so if it breaks, you are truly SOL as this lens is focus by wire. *It will not focus without power (camera on) even in "manual focus" mode and parts to fix it are essentially not available.* There are many of these lenses being used today and nice looking ones are still out there (nice looking may mean that it has been taken care of). This lens also needs a camera body with AFMA for best results. It also has a 5 meter minimum focus distance.

If you can work with manual focus lenses (significantly different from using almost all Canon EF lenses in manual mode), you can adapt older Nikon long lenses with a simple and inexpensive adapter to Canon EOS and many Canon FD lenses can be used with an Ed Mika kit to convert the lens mount.

Your only other options without venturing into VI or VII Canon IS supertelephoto lenses are 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc.


----------



## candc (Apr 12, 2015)

i agree that the 100-400ii is a good choice. if you are mostly interested in wildlife you might want to consider selling the 70-200. although its a superb lens i don't find the fl that useful.


----------



## Tyroop (Apr 12, 2015)

This seems to be quite a frequent dilemma.

Although it was a better choice on paper (300mm f/4 or 420mm f/5.6 + IS) my personal experience with the 300mm f/4L IS plus 1.4x converter combo was a nightmare. It may have been my copy of the lens - even though it was checked out at Canon's Singapore service centre - and other people have had better experiences.

The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.

I would go for the 100-400mm L Mark II if you can get hold of one and the price isn't prohibitive. Otherwise, a 400mm f/5.6L.

There are probably a lot of people like me who are happy 400mm f/5.6L owners, but who would like to upgrade to the new 100-400mm. Thus, there will probably be quite a lot of good used lenses available soon.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_400F56L.html


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2015)

skip the 300 4 L + 1.4x, That lens while stellar, wants no accompaniment.

go with the 400 5.6, cheap and another stellar performer


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2015)

MJ said:


> My current set:
> 
> *A crop body with a 70-200mm IS II and both teleconverters III*
> The bare lens is stellar but I see a strong degradation in image quality until stopping down to 6.3 when using the 1.4x TC, and to f11 with the 2x TC. Under difficult light such small apertures present a challenge.
> ...



Did you AFMA with each of the TCs mounted? It should perform about as well as the 70-300L at 280 f/4 and about as well as the 100-400L (original) at f/5.6. You do take a AF focusing hit, but the IQ was comparable.


----------



## photonius (Apr 12, 2015)

MJ said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> There have never been more choices for the Canon wildlife photographer on a tight budget, yet I find myself longing for something else... something better!
> 
> ...




All the internal focusing lenses "change" their focal lengths upon closer focusing, the closer the stronger the effect.

So, the 400mm f5.6 has a minimal focusing distance of 3.5 meters with magnification of 0.12x. 
That corresponds to about 335mm when using the single thin lens formula.

The 100-400 Mark II has a minimal focusing distance of 0.98m with magnification of 0.31x = 177mm..
But, I measured it at different distances, at 3.58m it is actually 300mm (0.1x mag), so not that different from the 400mm prime

So, while the change with the 100-400 may appear shocking, it's only because it goes much closer than most other lenses.


----------



## wyldeguy (Apr 12, 2015)

So I may get flamed here but I would suggest the Tamron 150-600 or if you have a bigger budget and don't mind the extra weight the Sigma 150-600. I own the Tamron and it's great. The focus is pretty fast and the lens is pretty sharp. I love bird photography and it was the cheapest option with the longest range. I had heard a lot of good reviews on it including one from Matt Granger. First shots out of it were fantastic and I was satisfied with my purchase. Since then I bought a 7D2 and have gotten even better shots. Would easily recommend the Tamron to anyone wanting reach on a budget.


----------



## jrista (Apr 12, 2015)

I'm with Wyldguy here...why is the Tamron 150-600 not on your list? It's a great performer, lots of pictures on the bird pictures forum taken with that camera and a variety of Canon bodies (primarily the 7D and 7D II.) I would say for wildlife and birds, it is very, very tough to get a better focal range than the Tamron offers, and certainly not for that price. The Sigma 150-600 might offer slightly better IQ for a little more, but both are cheaper than Canon's new 100-400 II as far as I know.


----------



## candc (Apr 12, 2015)

tis true what wyldeguy and jrista say. the tamron is indeed worthy of consideration.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2015)

A Good lens costs $$$S. There are budget lenses out there, but, if you want something better than the 100-400mm II, be prepared to shell out. If you want something almost as good, you have lots of choices.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 12, 2015)

Like the majority of respondents here, I will echo my vote for the 100-400 II (provided it's within your budget); I bought one in December and am very impressed by it.

My experience with the 70-200 + TCs mirrored yours: I found that I needed to mount and dismount my 1.4x TC II periodically while "in the wild," and that was too much hassle, too easy to drop equipment, damage something or introduce contaminants into the optical path. I sold my TC along with my 70-200/2.8IS when I upgraded to the vII model last summer.

Although the 400/5.6 has been recommended by some here, I wouldn't recommend it for you, since you stated that you find you need to mount and dismount a TC on your 70-200. That suggests to me that you need the flexible FL range of a zoom. If your budget won't support the 100-400 II, I would recommend that you look for a good copy of the original 100-400. You get the full zoom range (and just a little bit more on the long end, compared to the vII, from what I've read), as well as Image Stabilization, albeit it an earlier and less capable implementation.

I will disagree a bit with Monkey44, who writes that "Lenses ... are forever ..." They _can_ be, if you want them to, but since they hold their value well, you don't have to be "married" to a lens that doesn't suit your needs, or that you "outgrow" ... easy enough to sell or trade in on a lens that you think will work better for your style of shooting.

(And personally, I've never used a 3rd party lens, so I can't comment on the Tamron recommendations.)


----------



## ScottO (Apr 12, 2015)

My vote goes to the 100-400 v2. I owned the the v1 of the lens since it was first released it was always a good performer. Yes IS was a little slow and the image stabilization could've been better but it always performed. The v2 is head and shoulders better the the v1. Within one week of Receiving the v2 I sold my 300 F4, 400 F5.6, and my Tamron 150-600. Not that any of them were bad lenses the new 100-400 is just better in my opinion.

While I liked the Tamron autofocus was inconsistent on the 7d mk II, 5d mk III, as well as my 1Dx. When it nailed focus it was great, but the 100-400 mk II with Canon 1.4x mk III extender provided slightly better image quality and more consistent autofocus. At least for me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2015)

I recently bought 100-400 mrk II. To be honest, I didn't expect this lens to give excellent IQ due to zoom FL. 

Well, the new 100-400 proved me wrong. These were shots with 1Dx: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Huntington-Beach-Surfing-testi/i-RJ33pvS

With 7D II AF, I think this could be a great combo for those with lower budget and want to shoot outdoor sports and wildlife. Not to mention, the flexibility of zoom, lighter weight and cost effective when compared to big whites.


----------



## lescrane (Apr 13, 2015)

MJ, you're not specific on what you mean by wildlife...

For me, wildlife is birds, and after using 100-400, 400 5.6, 300 L + 1.4xc for years, I bought the aforementioned Tamron 150-600 . It's a no brainer for me because I now get shots I simply could not get before. Especially songbirds, birds in flight, etc. I even get more larger birds because I can stay further away from them.. Sneaking up/stalking a bird usually results in bird taking off.

I'm happy with the sharpness, as long as I stop down one. I hear the Sigma 150-600 C is comparable, the "Sports" is sharper than the Tamron

Now if I were shooting large mammals not too far away, or content to shoot herons and waterfowl, I'd probably go with the 10-400 II. 

good luck.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 15, 2015)

Sharpness isn't everything. I've used a 70-200 f2.8 II LIS with 2x TC's quite often. It's a heavy combo and it's AF is slower. But it the AF gets a good lock then its very sharp stopped down of f6.3 and quite sharp wide open. 
Only you can decide if the 100-400 II LIS is worth the spend for the extra sharpness. 
For me at the moment, it's not. But your mileage might vary.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 15, 2015)

In your situation I would try the 400mm f/5.6 for a year or so. Then you will be able to tell if it is suitable for you or where it falls short and the characteristics you want in a follow on lens. Buy the 400mm used and you will get your money back if you decide to sell and trade up later.

I have used this lens a lot and it's great. I have some of the newer options on your list too but have not used them a lot yet and they are quite a bit more expensive.


----------



## icassell (Apr 16, 2015)

The 400/5.6 is a wonderful lens. It is lightweight and easy to handhold making lack of IS something less of an issue. I wrestled with the choice between it and the 100-400 v. 1 when I bought it about 5 years ago and have never regretted the choice. It is still my go-to lens for BIF even though I now own the 500/4. Even nicer is the fact that you can get one used for well under half the price of the new 100-400 v. 2.

One of the initial downsides of the 400 was the fact that I couldn't use it with a TC on my 7D and get AF. That problem was solved with the purchase of the 7D Mk II. The AF of the 400 with a 1.4x TC is very good (albeit not as fast as the bare lens).

That said, I've been seriously eyeing the new 100-400. The optics and focus mechanism are supposed to be far improved over the previous model putting it on a near par with the 400 prime. The zoom would be nice as I used to use a Sigma 100-300/4 lens for my zoo lens and have missed the range since I sold it a while back to buy the 70-200/2.8 II.

Given a budget, I would not hesitate to recommend the 400/5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 16, 2015)

lescrane said:


> MJ, you're not specific on what you mean by wildlife...
> 
> For me, wildlife is birds, and after using 100-400, 400 5.6, 300 L + 1.4xc for years, I bought the aforementioned Tamron 150-600 . It's a no brainer for me because I now get shots I simply could not get before. Especially songbirds, birds in flight, etc. I even get more larger birds because I can stay further away from them.. Sneaking up/stalking a bird usually results in bird taking off.
> 
> ...



I have used extensively for bird photography the Tamron 150-600mm, the 300mm f/2.8 II and now the 100-400mm II plus extenders on the 5DIII, 7DII and a bit on the 70D. The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII beats the Tamron at 600mm easily. However, the 100-400mm II on the 7DII, with or without the 1.4xTCIII gives better results than the Tamron on the 5DIII or crop. The Tamron is a very good lens, but the 100-400mm II is even better, and I would stake the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII at 560mm against the Tamron at 600 any day.


----------



## quod (Apr 16, 2015)

I have the 100-400 I, 100-400 II, and 400/5.6. In order of preference: 100-400 II, 400/5.6, 100-400 I. 

If I had to choose one, it would definitely be the 100-400 II. It's image quality is on par with (or nearly on par with) the 400/5.6, but it is more versatile, it takes 1.4x extenders well (haven't tried the 2x), and has image stabilization (about 3 stops IMO). The build quality is also excellent and it is weather-sealed. Both the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 have super fast AF response (the 100-400 I is much slower). The drawback of this lens is that it is the heaviest of the three and the zoom ring is really stiff on my copy. One other issue that I encountered is that I put a polarizer on my UV filter, and then put the hood on. I could not get the hood off in this configuration, and getting the polarizer off was a real chore. The reason the little sliding window is on the hood is because of this exact issue.

My 400/5.6 is as sharp as my 500/4 I, but it's issues are no IS and no weather sealing. I think it might be a hair sharper than the 100-400 II, but you have to pixel peep at 100% to see it. As mentioned the AF is fast. I haven't had much luck with getting good shots with a 1.4x on it, but that said, I have only used this combo with birds in flight, which can be difficult subject matter. It's very light; lighter than the 100-400 I or 100-400 II. The biggest issue is the lack of IS at 400mm; the weight of the lens lends itself to hand-holding, but the lack of image stabilization is a real challenge, even with high shutter speeds.

The 100-400 I pretty much loses in every category. In addition, the push-pull design is not something I am comfortable with.


----------



## seamonster (Apr 16, 2015)

The 100-400 II is great but I would not call it a "budget" lens at all. 

You can get a 7D II AND the tammy 150-600 for the same amount.


----------



## derrald (Apr 16, 2015)

I've used the 300 f/4L + 1.4x for years for wildlife primarily on a 20D and a 50D. Two years ago I purchased the 500 f/4L II, so it doesn't get much use anymore, but it's still part of my hiking kit. 

I originally purchased it because I disliked the design of the 100-400 I lens and the sharpness with the 300+1.4 seemed a tad bit better. I also had the flexibility of having a 300 and a 420 lens. 

Love the 300, the 1.4 was excellent, overall I've had great experiences with the combo.

If I had it over to do today with the release of the 100-400 II, I'd go with that. I'm seriously considering purchasing that lens anyway and replacing both my 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) and 300 f/4L IS. It looks like an awesome lens.


----------



## Jane (Apr 16, 2015)

I have owned the 100-400 (first version) and the 400 f5.6 and was happy with them until I bought the 100-400 Mk II. Wow. This is a great lens and delivers excellent images with the 1.4 x III. I still own and love the 70-300L (take it on all trips when I don't expect wildlife opportunities) but I wan't happy using the Kenko 1.4 on it due to variations in exposure. Never had a Tamron but friends have had them and well they were heavy and one of them packed up after a few months. The 100-400 II is easily hand-holdable, even with the 1.4 extender.

I can't say enough good things about the 100-400 MK II. Just returned from a photo trip in Baja California where just about all the Canon shooters were using this lens, even the pros who could afford much more.


----------



## Jane (Apr 16, 2015)

Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 17, 2015)

Jane said:


> Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'



Is it still sharp at MFD? A lot of long lenses can focus close, but tend to loose a lot of their image quality at MFD.


----------



## quod (Apr 17, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Jane said:
> 
> 
> > Forgot to mention the MFD of the 100-400II is incredible at 3.3'
> ...


Yes.


----------



## MJ (May 25, 2015)

Many thanks to every contributor!

Despite major GAS I'll hold off to buy any supertele rightnow. Maybe the Canon gods are gracious enough to offer us a 400 5.6 II IS L or lower them prices for the DO II model!

Let's hope for the best and stay optimistic


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 27, 2015)

In the meantime a Canon 400 F5.6 L is simply a great lens. You can get one at pretty reasonable used prices and, at up to 3 times it's price, it is hard to beat. The new Canon 100-400 Mk2 is extremely good - possibly better. But it is heavier, more expensive and (slightly) shorter. Against that the 100-400 Mk2 has an excellent minimum focus distance which makes it VERY useful for reptiles and larger insects.
The 400 F5.6 is a slimmer, lighter, simpler lens that just does the job well and won't bankrupt you. It doesn't have a zoom function or IS - great! For wildlife I have yet to find a use for either - admittedly I am a newbie as I have only been doing this for 10 years or so.


----------



## NancyP (May 29, 2015)

400mm f/5.6L no-IS is a lens with a steep learning curve due to the lack of IS and due to the need to get the bird in the frame without the benefit of seeing it at 100mm and then zooming. However, once one gets the hang of it, this prime is just plain fun to use as a bird-in-flight and handheld lens, mostly because of the light weight and superb balance on a consumer-sized SLR (I use it on the 60D, which is a medium size medium weight consumer SLR, but I think a Rebel might balance well too). Yes, I wish it had a closer MFD for butterflies and other large insects. If I am going to hike a while to get to the birds and want a light easy-to-handle lens, this is the one. I haven't been in a huge hurry to get something else, because the next step up is a 500mm or 600mm f/4 lens, which is seriously expensive and seriously heavy.


----------



## danski0224 (May 29, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Yes, I wish it had a closer MFD for butterflies and other large insects.



If you go out with the intent of photographing those, an extension tube does wonders to reduce the MFD.

Of course, you lose infinity focus. In fact, the lens may focus only in a narrow range, like from 6' (instead of 15') but "infinity" is now 12'. It doesn't take much, but adding a longer tube (or more of them) will reduce MFD and make "infinity" even closer.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 29, 2015)

Just my 2p.
The lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 is a decided advantage. All my IS lenses (was 5, now 3) have the IS turned off so that I can benefit from the improved AF speed and tracking. IS made a lot of sense in film days and the early DSLRs but, to me, is now more of a hazard than a help.
Many may well disagree but my photography has certainly improved since turning it off.


----------



## nc0b (May 31, 2015)

If I was purchasing today, maybe I would go with the new 100-400mm II. However I am quite happy with my 400mm f/5.6 which I purchased new, and my 300mm f/4 which I purchased used. I love the built-in lens hoods on the primes. The focus speed of the 400mm is stunning. I doubt I will replace the primes with the new zoom. I had both Mk III TCs which I used on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but once I bought the primes I sold the 2X TC III. Occasionally I use the 1.4X on both the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8, but it is gathering a lot of dust. Have it with me in Alaska now, but haven't used it yet. Certainly have been using the 400mm f/5.6. I get best results for BIF with my 6D over my 60D with the 400mm.


----------



## degos (May 31, 2015)

Another vote for the 400mm 5.6. Not only much, much cheaper 100-400 Mk II but you're not carrying around all that extra metal and glass for a zoom function that is rarely used in the field.

Also, bear in mind the risk of failure and potential repair costs; there isn't much to break in the 400mm compared to the zoom-beast.

Pick-up a good second-hand one for less than one-third of the price of a Mk II and wait for the rumoured 500mm f-something next year... and then keep the 400mm as your backup.

It took 22 years for a Canon zoom to match the 400mm 5.6 in IQ terms. Imagine the prime they can make with that same technology!


----------



## Orangutan (May 31, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Just my 2p.
> The lack of IS on the 400 F5.6 is a decided advantage.




I'm a newer newbie than you, but I've found IS on my 100-400 MKI to be very useful for handheld shots at 1/400, sometimes 1/250. The extra light from the slower shutter is noticeable on my crop frame sensor. Were it not for IS I doubt I'd be able to shoot slower than 1/800 handheld even under ideal circumstances.

I don't mean to dissuade someone from the 400 prime: I've never used it, and I've heard nothing be good about it; however the blanket belittling of IS makes no sense to me.

I've never before heard the assertion that IS slows AF, can you cite a reference?


----------



## nc0b (May 31, 2015)

I was at a glacier between Glennallen and Valdez, AK yesterday. Ran into a gentleman carrying a 100-400mm version I and a FF body. I asked him if he was going to get the new version and he said he was considering going 4/3rds instead for much less weight. Toting around the 400mm f/5.6 and a 6D is really quite light weight considering the image quality you get. I would never change to such a small sensor. I was shooting a bald eagle a bit earlier, and if I had been using either 100-400 zoom, it would have been racked out all the way. At least for wildlife, one usually needs all the reach you can get. I had a 70-200mm f/4 on my 60D, had I needed a shorter focal length. Over all, of the 9 GB of shots so far in AK, I have used the 6D and 24-105mm about 75% of the time. Have barely used the 18mm Zeiss.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 31, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Just my 2p.
> ...




I am afraid the only reference I can "cite" is personal experience!
For quite a while I thought IS was a wonderful feature as it allowed me to take shots at lower ISO and silly low shutter speeds. This is great for subjects that are not moving, or likely to move. The first problem that I noticed was that I was fighting the IS on moving subjects and getting a lot of misses. Secondly I found that the AF on my (then) 300 F4 L IS was rather slow for subjects like Birds in Flight. IS mode 2 was of little help as subjects didn't rarely flew directly left to right or vice versa. 
After turning the IS off on the 300 I noticed a marked increase in AF aquisition speed and could now track moving subjects more reliably. Inevitably I started to forget to turn the IS back on for static subjects - but my images didn't suffer unless the shutter speed was getting rather low.
As you may have guessed I primarily shoot wildlife with occasional landscape and architecture thrown in (we have some excellent Castles near where I live).
I tried the same thing on my 600 F4 L IS and noticed the same as with the 300 F4 L IS, though slightly less so as the 600 has a better IS system. Initially when I traded the 600 for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS I used the IS as it had the (then) latest 4 stop IS. The lens was wonderful but on my (then) 1D4 and 1DX I still wasn't getting the AF performance that I had hoped for. In Jan 2014 I assumed that the IS was again interfering and decided to turn it off on this lens for an extended test. Very quickly I decided to leave it that way!
On my shorter lenses I still used IS but was getting annoyed as I was losing shots when I used a tripod and forgot to turn the IS off. So I tried the same thing with these lenses and my, on tripod, work benefited but I didn't notice any problems with going hand held.
So for the last 17 months I have not used IS on any of my lenses from 16 to 800mm and have yet to have an issue, and have been enjoying the improved AF performance.
If one wants to take low light shots and don't have/don't want to carry a tripod then IS may well be useful. I don't so it is of no use to me. Additionally IS means that there is an extra element in the focal path that that cannot help IQ.
There are many (most?) real and imagined experts who will totally disagree with me, that's fine! For my uses IS is a feature I seek to avoid but, these days, it is difficult to do so! At least my latest purchase (Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2) is IS free!


----------



## sleepnever (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm now on my second time renting the 100-400 II on my 5D3. I've been looking for a good multi-purpose lens with reach, especially for landscape photography. 

I tried out the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III, because I *love* that lens. Sharp, versatile, etc, even if a little heavy. I shoot stopped down to f/11 or so anyway, but just having the _option_ to take the TC off and have a 2.8 zoomed prime was also a bonus. However, the 2x III killed image quality at the long end and it doesn't fit in my bag (off by a mere 1.5" with the TC on there!!)

Now I'm exploring the 100-400 II option. My 5D3 does pretty dang well in high ISO situations, so setting it to a minimum of f/5.6 doesn't bother me too much and if shooting at 200+ the compression helps the image. It is a little heavy, but it fits in my bag and the IS when I need it is *stellar*. Indoors at f/5.6, 400mm @ 1/30sec handheld and I have a sharp image. Outdoors on my current trip it has been great too. I wish it was an f/4 prime, but I still think I might go with this instead of the 70-200 + 2x combo above, due to image quality, reach and price. I also saw that with the 1.4x III on there @ 560, it is still pretty dang sharp.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 3, 2015)

I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2015)

Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2015)

Have you tried Position 3 IS? The IS doesn't come on until you fully depress so you are tracking and focussing without IS. I use BBF anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 4, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Have you tried Position 3 IS? The IS doesn't come on until you fully depress so you are tracking and focussing without IS. I use BBF anyway.



Unfortunately (?) my lenses don't have position 3. My 300 F2.8 IS is a Mk1 and there isn't a Mk2 800mm yet. I see your point about this position as it allows you to focus before you shoot with the IS on so it should give quicker acquisition whilst still using IS for the shot. 
One question, as I simply don't know the answer, when you fully depress the shutter release does it take a picture immediately or does it wait for the IS to spool up?


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jun 5, 2015)

Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.

I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.

TC2 x Version III reduces Qualtity of the Lens i own too much, so the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II should be the
the best Way for me, but heavy and about 2K€/$ .

The 400mm 5.6 L Prime would be nice too, but IS on Telephoto ist usefull  - and the 400 lacks IS  .

An new 400 f5.6 IS ( with affordable Price ) would be nice, the 400 F4 DO isn´t an Option for me, too heavy/expensive.

An also not the Cheap way could be the 300 f2.8 L IS II and the 1.4 V III TC added.
Only my own thoughts - i´ve got Time to think about it ;-) .

Greetings 

Bernd


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 5, 2015)

Bernd FMC said:


> Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.
> 
> I don´t use above 200 not very often, and Price and Weight are important for me in that Case.
> 
> ...



Did you AFMA with the 2x III attached? The IQ with the 70-200 should be pretty good -- close to the 100-400L (original). The 400 f/5.6 and the new 100-400L II are better, but if you don't go above 200 very often, does it make sense to have a lens you won't use much?

The 100-400L II is heavier, but it handles well. I don't carry the 70-200 and the 100-400 at the same time. If you got the 400L, would you still carry the 70-200?


----------



## tron (Jun 5, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Bernd FMC said:
> 
> 
> > Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.
> ...


That is very good question. If there is no need for portrait or low light handheld photography then the 100-400 II is an excellent general purpose telephoto zoom to take with you instead of the other two mentioned lenses...


----------



## Emil (Jun 5, 2015)

I took the plunge and bought the 400mm 5.6 yesterday. I'll tell you what I think after I get it tomorrow and start testing


----------



## nc0b (Jun 5, 2015)

I am in Alaska, and have been using the 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 in that order of percentage shots. Barely used the 18mm Zeiss and haven't use 50mm f2.5 macro since the 24-105 has a modest macro function. The 400 has been absolutely necessary for whales, otters and birds. Lack of IS when using a 6D has not been an issue. Just push the ISO up to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster. The light weight and lightning fast focus of the 400 5.6 gets the job done for me.


----------



## tron (Jun 5, 2015)

nc0b said:


> I am in Alaska, and have been using the 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 in that order of percentage shots. Barely used the 18mm Zeiss and haven't use 50mm f2.5 macro since the 24-105 has a modest macro function. The 400 has been absolutely necessary for whales, otters and birds. Lack of IS when using a 6D has not been an issue. Just push the ISO up to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster. The light weight and lightning fast focus of the 400 5.6 gets the job done for me.


It's not whether the 400 5.6 is lighter than the 100-400. It's whether both 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 400mm f/5.6 are lighter than 100-400 which they aren't... Because if you have the new 100-400 you do not need both lenses...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 5, 2015)

Tyroop said:


> The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.



I agree. I have both the 300mm/4 (L IS USM) and the 400mm/5.6, and even without TC the 300mm is much more prone for focus hunting than 400mm. If you prefer birding, I'd highly recommend the 400 mm prime. On the other hand, the 300/4 has 1.5m instead of only 3.5m closest distance, so it is a quite good tele macro. I mostly use it for shy insects (dragonflies etc.).

Basically you need to ask yourself what you really need for wildlife. If you shoot bigger objects than birds, too, a zoom is the better choice, for birding I'd always prefer a prime. If you can afford the new 100-400mm II than you should also check the Sigma 150-600mm S (which is on about the same price level) as an alternative option. I shot yesterday side by side with guy birds who had this Sigma on his Nikon D800. I was impressed about the IQ and AF performance of the Sigma - much better than the Tamron 150-600mm (my wife has it).


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 5, 2015)

I agree. I have both the 300mm/4 (L IS USM) and the 400mm/5.6, and even without TC the 300mm is much more prone for focus hunting than 400mm. If you prefer birding, I'd highly recommend the 400 mm prime. On the other hand, the 300/4 has 1.5m instead of only 3.5m closest distance, so it is a quite good tele macro. I mostly use it for shy insects (dragonflies etc.).
[/quote]

Try turning the IS off on your 300 F4 L IS - mine worked FAR better without it., even more so on anything that moved. The 400 F5.6 would still get the nod in the AF stakes but not by much (after disbling IS on the 300) from the examples that I have used/owned.


----------



## tron (Jun 5, 2015)

justaCanonuser said:


> Tyroop said:
> 
> 
> > The 400mm f/5.6L I bought after selling the 300 f/4L IS has been an absolute stellar performer and I recommend it highly, however, if my finances ever recover after two kids, I will happily trade it in for the new 100-400mm Mark II. It seems like a remarkable lens with a great zoom range and it has the latest IS. The IS on the 300mm f/4L IS is rated at one stop and it isn't that effective.
> ...


The Sigma 150-600 S weights as much as Canon 500mm f/4L IS II !!!!!!


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jun 10, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Bernd FMC said:
> 
> 
> > Back to Budget Reason of this Topic i also look for an Focal Length of about 400mm.
> ...



I did not tested the 2x III - a Friend of mine have got one - so it will be possible to test it.

You´re right - if i have got this 2 Lenses, one of them will not be used often, but the 70-200 f4 L IS is much lighter while in the Bag.

After i get my 135f2L the 70-200 isn´t used that much anymore  - but also beautiful Lens .

Weight, Imagequality - versus Quatity of use...

Sometimes i like the very compressed Look of longer Telephoto´s - Sometimes ???

Greetings Bernd


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 10, 2015)

I'd recommend the 100-400 II too.
It's a great lens.
I've shot loads with it by now and continue to be impressed.
What I was never impressed by was a 70-200mm with a 2X converter.
Cropping the picture gets better results than using a 2 X converter in my experience.
Focus lags, you miss events with it searching and then disappointing pictures.
The 70-200mm itself is a fantastic lens.


----------



## MJ (Oct 6, 2015)

...okay okay! Diggin' out that old thread I made up my mind and *finally got the 100-400 II*.
All in all I'm *very happy and can recommend it* - especially if you DON'T have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II since I don't like overlapping lenses in my array...



Prior to this costly purchase I made the following comparison, which maybe helps somebody out there who's on the fence for either one:

Pros of 400 5.6 prime:
-true 400mm; the zoom falls short on the long end
-sharpest 400mm option for <2000$
-Price:~900 USD 2nd hand in great condition; vs ~2000 USD via CPW
-Weight: 1250g/44.1oz (vs 1570g/55.4oz)
-Quality: built-in hood and sturdy metal construction, nothing extends/retracts

Cons of 400 5.6 prime:
-dated, likely no more updates and soon probably no more service
-Long Minimum Focus Distance is 350mm/137.8"
-for static subjects difficult handling without tripod in dim conditions (no IS!)
-lower resale value since more people are likely to buy a newer lens
-no zooming. Duh!


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pros of 100-400 II:
-newly designed and manufactured
-MFD is 980mm/38.4"
-great IS, Tripod not (always) necessary for static subjects
-zoom range of effective 100-380mm focal range (actual zoom range since Canon was a bit sneaky)
-higher resale value (newer lens)

Cons of 100-400 II:
-rubber gasket at base but the retracting part still worries me
-if you're used to most of Canon's zooms (70-200...) the reverse position of zoom and focus ring can be annoying
-heavy
-newly designed hood with access window for filters, but it actually annoys me (don't use filters with a lens that's so slow already)
-the paint on the metal foot chips easier than the 70-200 2.8 II
-if not set to a specific aperture 5.6 and smaller the variable aperture sometimes can be confusing when shooting manually

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Common weakness: 400mm @ 5.6 but we all know that


cheers


----------



## scyrene (Oct 6, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.





johnf3f said:


> Perhaps I am being a little unfair regarding IS, it is just that I find that if the light is so poor that I need IS then I am not going to get the shot that I want anyway. I should note that my camera is pretty good at higher ISOs.
> For moving subjects then IS is simply a no no as far as I am concerned.



I have IS switched on all the time with my 500L, except on the rare occasions I'm using it on a tripod for astro work. It helps counteract body movement no matter how much light/whatever the subject matter, and offers no downside in my experience. I still have to keep the shutter speed up above 1/250-320 minimum for non-flying birds, but that's still below the traditional 1/focal length (especially when an extender is attached). Incidentally, it also stabilises the image in the viewfinder, which can help a lot when tracking/keeping a subject in the frame.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 6, 2015)

For all of you reading this thread you might find my thread interesting. Im in the same dilemma owning the 70-300mm L the 70-200mm L MKII and a 2x and wanted to try the Tamron 150-600mm 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

I have plenty of images of moving and still subjects, sharpness, 100% crops. Ive decided to send it back and buy the 100-400mm. The lens is great quality and rivals the canon lenses at 400mm, but past 400mm the AF is poor for anything that moves although the IQ is good at 600 for still subjects imo.

Might be worth a look as for everything but BIF its a fantastic budget alternative and I have found its well built and has good weather sealing for the price point, It also has a 5 year warranty.

The thread also discusses the 100-400mm + 7DMKII, 400DO, 300mm F2.8 MKII, extenders etc.


----------



## MJ (Oct 6, 2015)

Thank you, everybody contributing to this (and similar - such as the one of tomscott's) post!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 6, 2015)

tomscott said:


> For all of you reading this thread you might find my thread interesting. Im in the same dilemma owning the 70-300mm L the 70-200mm L MKII and a 2x and wanted to try the Tamron 150-600mm
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0
> 
> ...



With the 100-400 II, I find that the 70-300 doesn't get much use. If you need a larger aperture, then the 70-200 II is the choice, but if you need reach, then the 100-400 II is the choice. The 70-300's advantages are size and weight, but I often find myself opting for the 100-400 II instead.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Oct 6, 2015)

My budget solution is to get the excellent EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM and mount it on an SL1 (or 70D). This combo has been my go-to solution for the 100-400 range. Quality is surprisingly good.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2015)

JumboShrimp said:


> My budget solution is to get the excellent EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM and mount it on an SL1 (or 70D). This combo has been my go-to solution for the 100-400 range. Quality is surprisingly good.



250mm on APS-C is too short for bird photography - at least 400mm is required for what I do.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Oct 7, 2015)

JumboShrimp here: 250mm on Canon's APS-C is equivalent of 400mm on full frame.


----------



## DennyF (Oct 7, 2015)

Re JumboShrimp's budget suggestion, I use the EF-S 55-250 STM on a refurbed 70D. It's a good setup for zoos. Haven't tried to use this combination for birds in the wild.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

My view is very simple. If you need the close focus and weather sealing then buy the Canon 100-400 ii. If you need to shoot on the long end most of the time and need the use of all focus points then the Sigma 150-600 C is the best way to go. I have this lens and think it performs amazingly well for the money. I had the Tamron for 1 year prior to that and the Sigma is better in many ways. First and foremost it is sharper. I don't care about weather sealing so lugging around the much heavier but optically not better Sigma S is a waste of money for me. Also I personally have not seen too many images with the Canon 100-400 ii plus 1.4x that I could not get with my Sigma (hope I don't get lynched too badly for saying that) when stopped down to f8. So for me I use the Sigma and could not be happier.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 7, 2015)

AlanF said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > My budget solution is to get the excellent EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM and mount it on an SL1 (or 70D). This combo has been my go-to solution for the 100-400 range. Quality is surprisingly good.
> ...



Much of the time 600mm on a crop camera is too short......


----------



## tomscott (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> My view is very simple. If you need the close focus and weather sealing then buy the Canon 100-400 ii. If you need to shoot on the long end most of the time and need the use of all focus points then the Sigma 150-600 C is the best way to go. I have this lens and think it performs amazingly well for the money. I had the Tamron for 1 year prior to that and the Sigma is better in many ways. First and foremost it is sharper. I don't care about weather sealing so lugging around the much heavier but optically not better Sigma S is a waste of money for me. Also I personally have not seen too many images with the Canon 100-400 ii plus 1.4x that I could not get with my Sigma (hope I don't get lynched too badly for saying that) when stopped down to f8. So for me I use the Sigma and could not be happier.



In Dustin Abbots review he found focus inconsistencies and hunting with the 150-600mm C, how have you found it? I know your still bird images are really fantastic but whats it like with moving subjects like BIF. The problem with these big lenses at 600mm is that the minimum aperture is outside 5.6, therefore AF expansion isn't very accurate and with the smaller batteries the 5DMKIII 7DMKII don't drive the lenses as fast as the bigger bodies like the 1DX, 1D4 etc But even with those cameras the hit rate isn't much better (I've only seen an example with a Nikon D3S but its hit rate was terrible with a dog running toward it) I found the Tamron to be fast at 400mm F5.6 with nearly 80% of frames in focus but 60% at best on the hit rate at 600mm and thats if your lucky with still subjects it wasn't a problem at all.

So Im sending it back and buying a 7DMKII and a 100-400mm I think... but I keep going back and forward. Keeping the Tamron and buying a 7DMKII to use with my 70-300mm and the tammy on the 5DMKIII but it just adds weight and cross over zoom ranges. If you've read my thread above then you'll know I'm backpacking across Africa so the big game doesn't move so quickly so it will probably be adequate but its a trip of a lifetime so adequate just won't cut it. The 100-400mm seems the best overall and I really love my 70-300mm so with its longer length amazing minimal focal distance I don't think you can go wrong apart from cost.



Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > JumboShrimp said:
> ...



+1 I agree which is why I was looking for 600mm + on a budget.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 7, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > My view is very simple. If you need the close focus and weather sealing then buy the Canon 100-400 ii. If you need to shoot on the long end most of the time and need the use of all focus points then the Sigma 150-600 C is the best way to go. I have this lens and think it performs amazingly well for the money. I had the Tamron for 1 year prior to that and the Sigma is better in many ways. First and foremost it is sharper. I don't care about weather sealing so lugging around the much heavier but optically not better Sigma S is a waste of money for me. Also I personally have not seen too many images with the Canon 100-400 ii plus 1.4x that I could not get with my Sigma (hope I don't get lynched too badly for saying that) when stopped down to f8. So for me I use the Sigma and could not be happier.
> ...


I have the Tamron 150-600. When it came out, it was a no-brainer..... as the only lens in it's class, it was the best in it's class. Since then the Sigma has come out and by all accounts is a bit sharper.... Then the 100-400 came out and is CONSIDERABLY sharper at the long end than it's predecessor, so much so that I have reports that at 400mm it resolves the same or slightly better than the Sigma or the Tamron do at 600mm.

For AF, the Tammy is not as consistent as my Canon lenses.

If I were to buy today I would get the 100-400 version 2 plus a teleconverter.... but I am happy (sort of) with what I have now and will wait a year or two to see what shakes out of the trees.... there is a rumour of an affordable long telephoto coming out soon... a 500F5.6 would be an instant sale, a 600F5.6 might take some starring at the wallet to make up my mind...


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > My view is very simple. If you need the close focus and weather sealing then buy the Canon 100-400 ii. If you need to shoot on the long end most of the time and need the use of all focus points then the Sigma 150-600 C is the best way to go. I have this lens and think it performs amazingly well for the money. I had the Tamron for 1 year prior to that and the Sigma is better in many ways. First and foremost it is sharper. I don't care about weather sealing so lugging around the much heavier but optically not better Sigma S is a waste of money for me. Also I personally have not seen too many images with the Canon 100-400 ii plus 1.4x that I could not get with my Sigma (hope I don't get lynched too badly for saying that) when stopped down to f8. So for me I use the Sigma and could not be happier.
> ...



The Sigma performs flawlessly for BIF. In fact I think that is one of the major advantages of this lens. Combined with my 7d2 I have a great autofocus system and the lens keeps up as well. In addition I really like the ability to pick my focal length, or acquire the bird in frame and then zoom in on it. Any shots that are missed are my fault as I was too slow in my panning abilities or I shook too much or did not hold the camera steady enough. I don't find that it hunts any more than my Canon 400 5.6 prime either. Also I should add that I very rarely do BIF shots at 500-600mm. I just find it too difficult to keep fast moving birds in the center of the frame at such high magnification while hand holding. Again, that is my fault, not the lens. Here are 3 examples of BIF shots I have gotten with the Sigma C. Now I am not saying that the Canon 100-400 ii could not get these shots, only that the ability to use for static subjects at 600mm and have all focal points and the ability to get these shots is all I need.



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr



Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## TeT (Oct 7, 2015)

400 f/5.6 is cheap used (can get less than 800.00 on eBay) Buy one and save for the 100-400 II. You should still be able to sell the 400 for same price within a year (minus eBay & paypal fees of 10%)


----------



## lw (Oct 7, 2015)

For the price (i.e. budget) I am more than happy with the range of opportunities the Sigma 150-600 C gives me on my 70D. I am sure tracking would be better on a more capable camera, but its good enough most of the time on my 70D. 

You may need to spend some time doing MAF however as I did need to do that (and I used the USB dock and made adjustments at numerous distances and focal length settings which the Sigmas enable). It does need to be spot on to get the best results.

Great for BIF



70D-3415 by lozwilkes, on Flickr

and PIF 



70D-8967 by lozwilkes, on Flickr

and SIF 



70D-6995 by lozwilkes, on Flickr

and AIF 



Virgin G-VAST by lozwilkes, on Flickr

Wildlife



70D-3001 by lozwilkes, on Flickr




70D-1922 by lozwilkes, on Flickr




70D-8067 by lozwilkes, on Flickr


----------



## tomscott (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...



Thanks for the images and the explanation. Your images are really fantastic and your most certainly a better birder than I am especially with getting close but I do hope to improve. That being said I haven't really tested the lens lower in the focal length only 400-600 for BIF. At 400 it seems fine but I know the temptation will be there as it has 600mm and at 600mm it doesn't perform too well with moving subjects. All of my opinion comes from using it with a 5DMKIII.

These were just test images not something I would usually put out but demonstrates the lens, so do excuse the backgrounds etc.

This is one image in a 17 image track where it only dropped 2 frames got 88% of shot in focus at 400mm



Tamron 150-600mm 400mm Tracking by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Here is one in in a 12 image track where it got 50% of shots in focus dropping 6 frames at 600mm



Tamron 150-600mm 600mm Tracking by Tom Scott, on Flickr

This one was probably the best but I think this is my fault the bird put on the anchors and slowed quickly and the AF has locked onto the feet.



Tamron 150-600mm 600mm Tracking by Tom Scott, on Flickr

As you can see from this image its not tack, looks ok until you zoom in. It seems to have focused but its not critically sharp, it seems like its about an inch out which is what I have found with shooting this lens at 600mm with moving subjects. its not a DOF problem either as it was shot at F8. Its just a tad slow, at 400mm I think it rivals what canon offers, there or there abouts, but its obviously quite a bit heavier than the 400 and 100-400mm to use at 400mm. 600mm is useful for still subjects (see below) but if the 100-400mm is sharper at 500 and 600mm, smaller lighter and has better AF and IS, can only use 400mm for birding then its a better choice imo.

There is also a caveat here you can lock the zoom at 400mm but there is play up to 428mm which is like a 2mm of movement in the barrel but equates to 28mm, very easy to jump from 400mm F5.6 to 428 F6.3 and the lens is therefore as reliable at 428 as 600mm because its minimum aperture is F6.3 and reduces accuracy. Even if you try to reduce the variables and shoot at the sharper faster focal length and lock it in it doesn't mean you can just shoot you have to hold the zoom against the lock to ensure it stays there. I find you can't simply pick it up and use it without thinking its an effort to use and you have to be on the ball. 

The whole situation has put me off 3rd party lenses, I swore I wouldn't buy 3rd party again years ago but this new crop of lenses was far too tempting. The Tamron has had 3 firmware updates in 18 months and each time you have to send the lens to be updated which is annoying, it should just work. I live in the very north of England, in the middle of the countryside for example my nearest airport is 2 hours away by car. My nearest Tamron centre is 400 miles away in London, which means a week without it, if you could do it yourself it would be so much easier. 

I bought my lens in Sept 2015 and a firmware update was released May 2015 so i felt I had given enough time for these lenses to get into circulation. Mine turned out to be quite an old one, but there is nowhere to tell what firmware its running only that the serial is before the date of the 3rd firmware release. The firmware which in this case fixes an issue when the IS is engaged when tracking a subject the images are more likely to be soft and blurry as the IS fights the AF. It basically gives you the option of version 2 IS system which auto detects and switches accordingly. So I have been shooting everything with it off. I rang my supplier and they admitted problems with tamron and in their inventory only had one lens with the firmware. They are also cleaning the lenses every time they go in because they suck up dust like no tomorrow mines a month old only used outside and has quite a few specs.

The sigma gives me the same feeling although it maybe sharper, the dock doesn't appeal to me it should just work. But at the same time you get what you pay for and if you are willing to make the extra effort to fine-tune then they work well, I did AFMA my lens and found it -10 on the long and -5 on the wide.

If you aren't used to the fast L lenses for AF I think these lenses will blow you away and to start with it did if you can fill the frame at 600mm its really good even with 100% crops, gives you so much room.



Rhea, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Rhea, 100% Crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Goldfinch picking Milkseeds, Thacka Beck by Tom Scott, on Flickr

So in my experience its been a bit of a mixed bag. your milage may vary depending on your experience with lenses. If your upgrading from a 70-300mm non L this will blow your socks off but if you have a 70-300mm L, 70-200mm F2.8 even with a 2x this will feel a bit of a side step than an upgrade and certainly from 401-600mm not that impressive. I think they should have left it at 500mm and made it a little sharper.

Hope that helps others looking at the Tammy.


----------



## MJ (Oct 7, 2015)

lw said:


> and PIF
> 
> and SIF



LOL! 

And neat pictures too


----------



## lw (Oct 7, 2015)

MJ said:


> LOL!
> 
> And neat pictures too



Thanks.
I surprised myself I was able to catch the ISS flying over our house as clearly as that.
Just handheld as well (it moves to fast to follow it on a tripod, and ideally you want it directly overhead to be at its closest, which is awkward on a tripod)


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

Well its clear that MJ has made his decision and bought himself a very good lens. Congrats and I look forward to some results. Also am still hoping that I am wrong and the the 100-400ii is in fact better than my Sigma so that I can switch. I'm always happy to buy new gear. ;D

Tom, I think you are slightly confused. It is not the lens that is not sharp at 500-600 for BIF, it is your (and by that I mean all of us that are not freakishly strong and steady) ability to hand hold the lens steady enough. It is extremely difficult to pan and keep pace with fast flying birds in general. When you introduce human error, shaking or not panning at the perfect speed to keep up with your bird then things get even harder. That issue is compounded greatly by the extra magnification. In addition you are shooting with no IS as well at 600mm. Unless you have a very high shutter speed and perfect technique your results will not be tack sharp. So I think that considering the conditions that you did very well. Working out more is funny enough a great way to improve your BIF shots with large and awkward lenses that are fully extended. Now I am not calling you weak so please take no offense. It is just that the Tamron is a large and heavy lens. When fully extended it is far from easy to hold steady. If you add fast moving birds and any degree of wind then that complicates matters even more. I think these are pros for the Canon by the way. A bit lighter and shorter of a lens, better IS for BIF and weight is distributed better so easier to hold steady while panning.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> Well its clear that MJ has made his decision and bought himself a very good lens. Congrats and I look forward to some results. Also am still hoping that I am wrong and the the 100-400ii is in fact better than my Sigma so that I can switch. I'm always happy to buy new gear. ;D
> 
> Tom, I think you are slightly confused. It is not the lens that is not sharp at 500-600 for BIF, it is your (and by that I mean all of us that are not freakishly strong and steady) ability to hand hold the lens steady enough. It is extremely difficult to pan and keep pace with fast flying birds in general. When you introduce human error, shaking or not panning at the perfect speed to keep up with your bird then things get even harder. That issue is compounded greatly by the extra magnification. In addition you are shooting with no IS as well at 600mm. Unless you have a very high shutter speed and perfect technique your results will not be tack sharp. So I think that considering the conditions that you did very well. Working out more is funny enough a great way to improve your BIF shots with large and awkward lenses that are fully extended. Now I am not calling you weak so please take no offense. It is just that the Tamron is a large and heavy lens. When fully extended it is far from easy to hold steady. If you add fast moving birds and any degree of wind then that complicates matters even more. I think these are pros for the Canon by the way. A bit lighter and shorter of a lens, better IS for BIF and weight is distributed better so easier to hold steady while panning.



I've said this before elsewhere, but is it really a matter of strength? I am decidedly weak, especially my hands and wrists, but I use my 500L handheld all the time. Birds in flight, not all that much, but I have done plenty over the years. Maybe it's a matter of developing a technique that works for you - though I've no doubt building muscle strength would help. Just my experience.

(The biggest problem I have with BIF is finding/keeping the bird in the frame, especially smaller ones with unpredictable flight paths).


----------



## tomscott (Oct 7, 2015)

No problem no offence taken at all, strength and technique is often something thats overlooked and is obviously the lenses fault… 

That being said I'm 27 and a bit of a fitness freak and have no problem carrying the lens or holding it for long periods of time, neither do I find it particularly heavy. I shoot weddings as my main income and I usually have my 5DMKIII and a 24-70 strapped to me with another body and the 70-200mm MKII on another arm and the 70-200mm is similar in weight.

I'm shooting in the 1600 to 2500th range so IS will have minimal effect and those gulls don't move particularly quickly and really quite predictable when they glide. I also shot my tests coming toward and panning horizontally, horizontally the lens did much better as its a similar plane of focus, coming toward the keeper rate was under 50%, multiple 10s of runs. The images themselves don't have motion blur its just not acquiring tack focus. You can see in the pics the bird is in the frame but the focus is just a touch off you have to zoom in quite far to see it but to me if its not in its not in.

Ive been shooting my 70-200mm F2.8 with 2x tele on crop bodies for about 7 years which is a focal length of 640mm and not really had much problem. I shoot a lot of puffins and arctic terns which are twice the speed half the size and no where near as predictable, so its not like the focal length is alien to me.

I agree its hard work to pan and keep the bird in focus and 600mm makes it more difficult with wind and vibration being an even bigger problem. It definitely takes some skill to do so but in this case its not the first time I've been using this focal length and the F6.3 aperture past 400mm makes a really noticeable difference. All those shots you have posted are under 400mm except one so you will have a much higher keeper rate with the lens natively focusing up to F5.6 with most of the points, at 6.3 its basically like only having the centre point and is outside the perimeters of the AF system. 

Getting closer is key and you seem like a master! I need more practice and learn more behaviour!


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > Well its clear that MJ has made his decision and bought himself a very good lens. Congrats and I look forward to some results. Also am still hoping that I am wrong and the the 100-400ii is in fact better than my Sigma so that I can switch. I'm always happy to buy new gear. ;D
> ...



I can say that when I was shooting with my 400 5.6 L that it felt like there was nothing attached to the camera. Very light and easy to carry and use. My Tamron and now Sigma are much heavier, and longer. When fully extended they are very top heavy. Any wind in the area will catch hold of the lens hood and push it around like a sail. I know that I get tired holding this thing up for long periods of time and I am quite fit. 43, 5'10" and 165 pounds. I have tried a friends 500 L ii and it is balanced much better than the long zooms so it is therefore easier to hand hold despite the added weight. I know that for me, I suffer from some fatigue after long periods of time of hand holding and any extra strength helps with keeping things steady while panning or hold still while photographing a bird coming straight at me. That combined with proper technique is the key.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

tomscott said:


> No problem no offence taken at all, strength and technique is often something thats overlooked and is obviously the lenses fault…
> 
> That being said I'm 27 and a bit of a fitness freak and have no problem carrying the lens or holding it for long periods of time, neither do I find it particularly heavy. I shoot weddings as my main income and I usually have my 5DMKIII and a 24-70 strapped to me with another body and the 70-200mm MKII on another arm and the 70-200mm is similar in weight.
> 
> ...


For what it is worth my shots are taken on a 7d2 so when you consider the crop factor, they are much longer than that. I totally agree with you that getting closer is the key. When shooting birds like swallows and Martins they are so fast and so erratic in their flight patterns that it is extremely difficult to keep thing centered in the frame at longer focal lengths if you are in close to the birds. That is why I take a long time to set my self up to be in position that I can use a shorter focal length that will be sharper and less prone to motion blur. Being able to use less magnification helps quite a bit. Good field craft and knowing where to go to get close to these guys is the key. I like the close up shots with clear backgrounds, but that may not appeal to all. These shots were taken from 2 separate colonies that I know of. Shooting in good light and close subjects will go a long way towards closing the distance between a very good lens and a great lens.

Also and keep in mind that I have no experience with the 5d3, but how you have your camera set up will have a big impact on these shots as well. I had a much greater percent of keepers when I set the custom settings on my 7d2 so my AF-ON button is set for ai servo, case 2 and 15 focus points. I use this for all small BIF shots. For larger BIF shots I have my * button set to ai servo, case 2 but center point and surrounding 4 points. This way I can aim the focus to where I want it to be. Don't want the camera deciding to focus on the closest part of the wing and not on the eye. Too many times if using many focus points on a larger bird I missed the shot because I had the front wing in focus but not enough of the rest of the bird, despite that fact that I was shooting at f8. 

Here are 2 at a bit longer than 400mm to show what you can get with the Sigma on a crop body. Again most of my shots I do not need more reach as I was in close enough to be able to take advantage of close range shooting.

At 421mm (so = 673 on FF)


Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

At 435mm (so = 696 on FF)


Purple Martin by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...



Ah, I see. Yeah, where in the lens the weight is must make a difference. I know a lot of people criticised the 200 1.8L for being front heavy. And the main weight saving from the mark I to the mark II superteles was made by removing the front protective (non-optical) element, so that probably pushed the centre of gravity back towards the camera.

Incidentally, the swallows in flight shots are excellent - those are some of the hardest birds to photograph!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...


I am 6'2" and for fun go paddle my canoe solo for 20+ K...... Last weekend I carried my canoe over 9K of portages (Cedar-canvas, twice the weight of those modern light weight ones), so I think it is safe to say I have sufficient upper body strength...... I find the Tamron 150-600 to be heavy.

For stabilizing the lens better than just hand-holding it, lean against something and you will be more steady. If you can lean the lens barrel/supporting hand against a tree, side of a building, pole, whatever, your camera/lens becomes a lot easier to hold and the stabilization is greatly improved again.... Shooting a long lens is different technique than a short lens.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



I totally agree and don't think it can be over stated just difficult getting perfect technique for fast flying birds at long focal lengths with top heavy lenses really is. There is a reason that so few tack sharp shots like those are out there. And even more so for the fast flyers (unless there is a great deal of distance between you and the birds).

All of what we are describing is a major pro for the Canon as I have already stated. By biggest reason for not getting one is that I shoot in close very often and use more than the middle 5 focus points all the time. For that reason the Canon combo just does not work for me as I would not be able to properly frame my shots.

For example. Used a focus point on the top and far right on this shot at 600mm


Sanderling by Isaac Grant, on Flickr

and on the top and left side on this shot. Could not get these framed this way if I had the canon and 1.4x


Ruddy Turnstone by Isaac Grant, on Flickr


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2015)

If we're talking about technique, I should say, it's a lot easier to lift, point, and shoot (even for a few minutes) than keep the camera/lens raised and aimed at a fairly static target for long periods (like a bird feeder). The latter case is ideal for a monopod or tripod.

Birds in flight are fine but after a while (tens of minutes to an hour or two) it is exhausting - air shows are similar. But I personally see no use for tripods in that situation - birds especially move too fast/unpredictably for a fixed camera (sure, bigger birds like gulls, geese, etc are easier but still).


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> If we're talking about technique, I should say, it's a lot easier to lift, point, and shoot (even for a few minutes) than keep the camera/lens raised and aimed at a fairly static target for long periods (like a bird feeder). The latter case is ideal for a monopod or tripod.
> 
> Birds in flight are fine but after a while (tens of minutes to an hour or two) it is exhausting - air shows are similar. But I personally see no use for tripods in that situation - birds especially move too fast/unpredictably for a fixed camera (sure, bigger birds like gulls, geese, etc are easier but still).



Totally agree. I had a very hard time photographing the turnstone and sanderlings above. They were in a tight group for many hours on a jetty. Every once in a while one would break off from the group for a few moments before slowly being swallowed up again. If you were not ready when it was on its own with a clean background then you would have missed the shot. There were many times where I just had to let the camera hang off my side as I could not hold it steady any longer. And I'm not too proud to admit that my front shoulders were sore the next day from holding the camera up off and on for about 3 hours. To further complicate matters, I was standing in the ocean, getting hit by waves and it was windy. Times like that have made me think long and hard about a shorter and smaller lens like the 100-400 ii. I have used my monopod twice. Once in my yard where I have loads of shade and waited a really long time for a sparrow to come out in the sun. And once on the beach in a really strong wind while photographing redpolls. There was no way that on my own I could have held the camera steady. But technique is so important when hand holding at high magnifications. Often it makes all the difference between a sharp shot or not.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 7, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> I totally agree and don't think it can be over stated just difficult getting perfect technique for fast flying birds at long focal lengths with top heavy lenses really is. There is a reason that so few tack sharp shots like those are out there. And even more so for the fast flyers (unless there is a great deal of distance between you and the birds).
> 
> All of what we are describing is a major pro for the Canon as I have already stated. By biggest reason for not getting one is that I shoot in close very often and use more than the middle 5 focus points all the time. For that reason the Canon combo just does not work for me as I would not be able to properly frame my shots.
> 
> ...



you can always focus with the centre point (half press), shift the camera to the desired framing, and then press the shutter the rest of the way..... However, Like you, I prefer to have the framing and the focus point at the same time.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to belittle IS, but I have found that one can do without for birds in flight and for reasonable-light perched birds. For some situations I like to have the monopod and tilt head, which allow one to stake out a nest or a hunting heron without having your arms drop off after 5 minutes. Monopod does a fine job of allowing 1/100 sec shots with the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. I am a fan of this lens and of carrying a monopod on a belt holster. The monopod also doubles as a hiking pole on stream crossings and steep bits where a little balance is convenient. On the other hand, I have seen people shoot from kayaks (in swamps and on creeks and rivers), and there's no question that one wants IS at 400mm, because even if your camera is rock-solid with relation to the kayak/canoe, the whole boat is moving slightly.
> ...



I have found that IS slows AF lock by a fraction of a second - not much but enough to have cost me shots! Also whilst IS is great for keeping moving subjects stable in the viewfinder it is also good at keeping them unstable on the sensor! When tracking moving (especially fast moving) subjects you are fighting the IS as it tries to stabilise the image. You can use Mode 2 but what if it is crossing at 45 degrees? Or coming straight overhead?
My Canon 800 F5.6 L IS has the second latest (4 stop) IS system that Canon offer and I have used a few Mk2 Superteles with their latest system, add to that the Sigma and Nikon Superteles that I have used and I always find I get more keepers with IS off on moving subjects.
On static subjects I will use IS if shutter speeds drop too low and I am hand holding - eg 1/500 sec or slower when hand holding my 800mm. Unfortunately is the light is that bad then I am unlikely to get a good shot - but I do try occasionally!
If using the IS on your 500mm suits you then that's great but my experience strongly suggests that you may be better off with it turned off for normal use. Give it a go sometime - you can always turn it back on!
I only mention this business of turning IS off as it has significantly raised my keeper rate and given me images that I may otherwise have missed (due to the split second delay in AF acquisition) and others will probably benefit from giving it a go. I certainly have.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



I hear what you're saying but I don't feel like I'm missing shots, due to that or anything else. But I am rarely shooting BIF anyhow, so maybe that's it.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 7, 2015)

The 5D works slightly differently to the 7DMKII, you cant set ai focus to the af button on the 5D, you can decouple the af from the shutter but you have to select ai focus to use it in combination with which ever button you want to af with. You can set the dof preview button to one shot although just pressing af button once in ai servo will act like one shot but the 7D is a little more refined in that respect.

For birds I always use back button focus in ai servo with mode 6 which is subjects that move quickly and erratically. I like to use the 9 point expansion and the centre point with 4 expansion points.

I like the tammy for everything but BIF.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 8, 2015)

tomscott said:


> The 5D works slightly differently to the 7DMKII, you cant set ai focus to the af button on the 5D, you can decouple the af from the shutter but you have to select ai focus to use it in combination with which ever button you want to af with. You can set the dof preview button to one shot although just pressing af button once in ai servo will act like one shot but the 7D is a little more refined in that respect.
> 
> For birds I always use back button focus in ai servo with mode 6 which is subjects that move quickly and erratically. I like to use the 9 point expansion and the centre point with 4 expansion points.
> 
> I like the tammy for everything but BIF.



7d2 seems much more versatile for that action shooting as it is so highly customizable. But I fear we have strayed a bit from the topic of this thread ;D


----------



## MJ (Oct 8, 2015)

Great, helpful tips from everybody and fantastic photos (hard work!!) tomscott and Isaac Grant!


----------



## tomscott (Oct 8, 2015)

We have strayed but I think the techniques are even more important like you say at 600mm! So hopefully will be helpful to other looking at this focal length!


----------



## Isaac Grant (Oct 8, 2015)

MJ said:


> Great, helpful tips from everybody and fantastic photos (hard work!!) tomscott and Isaac Grant!


Just wanted to be sure we didn't hijack the thread too much. How heavy and how difficult these lenses are to use should really be a major factor when deciding which lens to purchase.


----------



## MJ (Oct 8, 2015)

JumboShrimp said:


> My budget solution is to get the excellent EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM and mount it on an SL1 (or 70D). This combo has been my go-to solution for the 100-400 range. Quality is surprisingly good.



I totally agree.. Funny enough some of my favorite opportunistic bird shots have been taken with that lens and I'm still torn on whether I should sell this little gem or not.


But having 70-200 IS 2.8 IS II & 100-400 II as well is kind of ridiculous...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 8, 2015)

This is a fascinating thread and my thanks to all. I am waiting for the 400 5.6 replacement. The 400 DO looks great, except for the price; too high for me. The Sigma 300 2.8 is also intriguing - no IS but fast and sharp, even in corners. But 1.5 lbs. heavier than the Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 Extender III. I am surprised it has not been mentioned here.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 8, 2015)

I don't see owning the 70-200 and the 100-400mm ridiculous they are very different lenses but can be considered similar depends how you use them. My 70-200mm is a bread and butter wedding/portrait lens and the 100-400mm will be used for Motorsport and wildlife. My 70-200mm did both with a 2x extender because the mki 100-400 performed similarly now the 100-400mm is much better and it's focusing distance is amazing and the sharpness with a 1.4 is impressive its truely a versitile lens. Although owning both is costly if your making money with them it's not so much of an issue.

The 70-200mm with a 2x is a great combo imo but the bokeh is nasty and it's slow at times unless it locks on the first frame so I'm looking forward to getting the 100-400mm


----------

