I looked up Keith Reeder as per your suggestion... He has some good shots, and a wicked temper! His birding site is full of rants and hatred for dogs. That's cool though, it's good to see some passion out there!
Ha...
Yeah he is a bit of a salt, but his photography is nothing short of amazing considering that he hand holds all the time and uses the 1-4 zoom exclusively!
I use the 300mm F4 L IS and 400mm F5.6 L with a 50D & 5D
The 400mm F5.6 is the birding lens of choice. It has the fast focus and sharpness wide open you need. The 300 F4 IS is the lens of choice in lower light. It is also sharp wide open, but focus is not as fast as the 400. Both are excellent lenses.
Bill James wrote:
Gail, willyou be combining all of this advice into an article for your webssite?
Bill
I hadn't planned to. Actually, someone may write an article for me on the subject. They have a lot of experience and I'm very excited about this prospect.
Whenever I buy (and now rent) camera equipment, I share what I've learned in my Blog. Besides my own experiences, I may include tips that come from numerous sources. One thing for sure is that am going to do is put a link to this thread because the information is so plentiful and extremely helpful.
Gail, I too have problems with shaking my camera. Here is a picture using a monopod with the 400L @ 1/4000. Very high shutter speeds have helped me a lot.
I've owned many different lenses over the years and the two lenses I will never part with are my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM and Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM. Both are tack sharp.
dhesling wrote:
I've owned many different lenses over the years and the two lenses I will never part with are my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM and Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM. Both are tack sharp.
I've been reading about the 70-200mm IS. Lots of good stuff said about it.Not usable for birds in flight though, right?
If I can't make it with the much heavier 400mm L lenses, are there any other options for me? Someone mentioned in another forum the 300mm L lens with a teleconverter...but combined, they are as heavy, if not heavier, than the 400mm L lenses.
Your photo is impressive. Amazing detail and beautiful color.
I have similar pelican shots, taken with my inexpensive 250mm IS lens. Not sharp like yours but I don't think they're all that bad considering the price of the lens. The photos were taken the first week I bought the lens, one month after I bought the XSi, my first ever DSLR. Prior to the XSi, I shot with superzooms, the Panasonic FZ18 and Canon S2.
I can't give you any info about the 300L, I've not owned one. But I can tell you that the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM is head and shoulders above the EF-S 55-250 in every lens aspect. I own both of them. I bought the 55-250 so I would have a short, light weight lens for times when I don't want the weight or the attention getting white color of my EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM.
For me, the combination of the 400L & 70-200L covers most of my longer lens needs. I use my feet to zoom forward or back to cover the 100mm that I'm lacking between these lenses.
I find the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM to be a good all round lens for the range it covers including BIF. But it is too short for many shots.
Also, I've found that the AF is much better with the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM than the EF-S 55-250, but not as quick to lock on as the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM.
These are just my opinions, I'm sure there are other options that work better for other people.
How are you making out with the rental of the 400L?
Try to keep your shutter speeds high, it can make a world of difference if you are shaky!
dhesling, I looked at a number of photos in your galleries, and could definitely see the differences between the 70-200mmL IS and the 55-250mm IS. You got some great shots with both but, yes, the differences can be stark.
I took a few more test shots with the 400mm L. Most were taken hand held, leaning against a tree. All but the first are about 50% crops.
I love the clarity and detail of this lens as in the first image. Just imagine if I knew how to hold the gear steadier!
Not sure I'm going to buy any of the 400mm lenses because of their weight, but will definitely treat myself to an L lens, with the 20-200mm L IS in top consideration.
munzir.khan wrote:
take 400mm 5.6 keep your shutter higher along with ISO .. i shoot most of the time shutter 1250 with ISO 400 in bright light hand held most are the pictures comes with 100% details ......
have also done 400mm 5.6 with 1.4x kenko/canon on 1D (focus was accurate and no hunt)
Thanks for the tips and advice.
I think the majority of you responding in this thread use better cameras than my entry level XSi/450D. Again, I picked it because it is relatively lightweight and small. But I doubt it has the performance of your cameras in important areas that are important for birding: better overall performance, particularly speed; more accurate AI Servo and probably a lot of other things.
The last three images you posted are amazing! And don't doubt the camera body...in the right hands a basic one can sing. I think this last series proves that btw....
Gail, I'd say you've figured out how to hold the 400L steady. Those last 3 photos are great!
If you find that you need 400mm in order to get wildlife shots, don't discount getting yourself a monopod. They are lightweight and easy to take with you. I know a couple of people that use their monopods as walking sticks until they get to where they plan to set up to photograph wildlife.
Thank you Duane N and dhesling! Your kind comments have given me more confidence.
Maybe I'm expecting too much of myself. I've only used the lens for three days, and only about a hour and a half each day.
I have an inexpensive monopod but it's really not suitable for a heavy camera. I tried it once and never used it again. But I definitely need some support for the camera and lens, and there aren't always trees around to lean on.
If the weather warms up, I'm going to try to get to the beach with the lens tomorrow.
I love the image quality of the 400mm L lens but do not like holding it despite the fact that I'm getting better, I think, at doing so.
I'm going to put off buying the lens. I really miss IS and zoom capability. I will reconsider this lens, or something similar, in the not too distant future.
I'll try to build up strength in my arms and hands. How? By exercising with my husband's hand weights, and holding the 70-200mm L IS lens, which I've pretty much decided I'm going to buy. It is heavier than any lens I currently own but nowhere near as heavy as the 400mm L and 100-400mmIS L.
Now that I've experienced the image quality from an L lens, I'm spoiled forever. I want (at least) one!
Here are some shots from today. Photos taken hand held; for some I leaned against a tree or dock rail. Hope it's okay that I've shared so many photos in this thread!
Didn't quite get the framing in the first shot, but am glad the lens focused okay:
I've enjoyed this thread... and with the 4,000 + views I don't think that I am alone.
As someone who uses the 400mm 5.6L I'm glad that you've enjoyed and had relative success with that lens.
I wouldn't doubt the body much either. I went from an XTi to a 40D in this past summer and, well, I loved the change.... However, a huge part of it was just that the larger 40D suit my hands better - I'm sure the XSi is a better fit for you. I was lifting my XTi and my 40D yesterday and the weight difference seems significant (OK the 40D has extra batteries and a grip). Anyways, all that to say that I would stick with the light-weight body for now... I think it is capable enough. Certainly, it is the most capable per weight SLR you'll get
I think this last series proves that btw.... 