These bird shots are outstanding. I've used (rented) the 300mm f2.8 before on my 40D, but I can't picture the extra 100mm helping that much unless you were relatively close already? Or have these been cropped pretty tight?

I'mm wondering because you get to infinity pretty quick on the focus ring, and if you are that far away, is there any need to worry about changing focus? Leave it at max and shoot? Sorry if this comes across as a real newb question.

JimN wrote:
Nice pigeon shots. You are just kidding around about your challenge aren't you?

Jim, only half kidding.

In my old days I have developed a bit of a perverse sense of funny.
Last winter a group of guys were shooting ducks in flight by the lake......Long tails, Buffle Heads, Mallards etc.
All of them had some sort of long telephoto lenses, mostly white.
Then I joined them with my 20D + EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. As I started firing away earnestly, never chimping even once, I could swear I was making the other guys nervous.

There is probably more to be gained by skill of the photographer than by the difference in lenses. I had the 100-400mm lens and the 400 5.6.

The 400 5.6 was much sharper and faster, but with the right level of skill, I expect they both would have supurb images.

I've sold them both for now, and sticking with shorter focal lengths until I can afford a wide aperture long prime.

I still get other photogs that walk up to me and very seriously tell me that I can't possibly get sharp images hand holding the 500mm. They really think I'm nuts when I put on the 2x.

JimN wrote:
I still get other photogs that walk up to me and very seriously tell me that I can't possibly get sharp images hand holding the 500mm. They really think I'm nuts when I put on the 2x.

1000mm handheld ain't an easy feat even with IS.

Three more 100-400 PIFs.
(Damn, after this pijun-fest I'll never be able to bag again the 100-400 for its sluggish AF )

Where have all the pijuns gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the pijuns gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the pijuns gone?
PetKal picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

That's a brilliant shot Dan

gdanmitchell wrote:
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS on a EOS 5D or EOS 5DII. Yes, you can do "action photography" with a 5D class camera.

These guys (Northern Fulmars) don't hang around either:





(Yeah, the whites on head of the second one are hot - but that's a different discussion!)

And lucky! :-)

Dan

joekraft wrote:
That's a brilliant shot Dan

gdanmitchell wrote:
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS on a EOS 5D or EOS 5DII. Yes, you can do "action photography" with a 5D class camera.

Does this qualify? I (with my vehicle + gear) was about to cross the mighty Cagayan river on a birding sortie, and the makeshift barge was steaming towards me at full speed (perhaps at 100 miles per day).



_____________________________

"LITTLEST RORO VESSEL IN THE WORLD? Supported by two wooden boats each with its own 4-cylinder diesel engine, the platform of the raft can carry 3 small cars or tricycles. I initially hesitated to risk the crossing, but when I looked at the faces of drivers that crossed before us, it looked like doing so is the most ordinary thing in the world. Well, the prospect of bagging quite a few lifebirds swayed me to go for it."



1DM2 + 100-400 IS, 235 mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/500 sec, hand held

Liquidstone wrote:
Does this qualify?

Well, Romy, that's still an action although not exactly lightning fast.
However, the uniqueness of the barge makes up for its slowness.

alundeb wrote:
Where have all the pijuns gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the pijuns gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the pijuns gone?
PetKal picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?



Anders, I am moved by your poetry.
Mind you, some of the pijuns have gone to Studio 35 where we shoot PIFs with EF 35L. Here is a sample.

Colin Key wrote:
Nice Puffin shots Keith. I would only "shoot" jetskiers with an AK47 - total environmental scumbags in my part of the world.

Colin

For once I agree; I think they are scumbags everywhere in the world.

Colin Key wrote:
JimN wrote: The 100-400mm is faster than the 500mm with a 1.4x TC ............. attached.



Anyone else disagree with this? I use both lenses on a 1DMk3 and almost always have a x1.4TC on the 500mm but would say that the latter is decidedly faster at AF.

Colin

Much faster IMO as well. And if it's not faster, then I'm not sure why it's keeper rate is much higher.

The supertele AF motors are the highest performing in the lens line-up and adding a 1.4x TC will only slow them in so far as the light is reduced and Canon's algorithms slow them.

Here are a couple to continue the show and tell. Sure its not as quick as the 500mm f/4 but it is no slouch either. One very important point to consider is that the 100-400 has very close focusing capability and if you are shooting quick action subjects that are further than 6.5 m away - be sure to switch on the focus limiter (6.5m – infinity). That switch alone will greatly reduce auto-focusing time.

Brgds, Dave

msalvetti wrote:
It's a great airshow lens:

Dave Behrens, that is a dynamic and pleasing Gannet shot.......great to see a bird fly full tilt against a non-vacant background.

after researching for long time i decided to buy the 400f5.6L because my main use would be sport and wildlife (especially birds in flight) and both need fast AF. i couldnt be happier after about 4 years of use.

Colin Key wrote:
JimN wrote: The 100-400mm is faster than the 500mm with a 1.4x TC ............. attached.



Anyone else disagree with this? I use both lenses on a 1DMk3 and almost always have a x1.4TC on the 500mm but would say that the latter is decidedly faster at AF.

Colin
I agree with Colin the 500 plus 1.4tc is way faster. I find the 100-400 afis fast enough but not so consistent on my 1D3. On the 5D2 its another story the 100-400 is very consistent. The Af is faster on the prime 400 5.6. I find the flexibility of the zoom and IS outways any loss in af speed.

Believe it or not, I have not used the 1.4xTC on the 500 f/4 even once.
I guess the reason is that I value AF drive speed and IQ much more than the focal length.
Unfortunately, I also do not have Canon AF drive speed specs on the two lenses in question. What we do know is that Canon's 1.4xTC cuts the speed down by about 50 % by design.

My guess is that 500 f/4 speed is about 0.4-0.5 sec. With 1.4xTC that becomes 0.6 to 0.75 sec.
I am also guessing the 100-400 AF drive speed is somewhere around 0.6-0.7 seconds.

Therefore, I'd say the 100-400 and 500 f/4+ 1.4xTC would have comparable AF drive speeds. Any photographer would have a hard time telling speed differences of the order of 0.1-0.2 seconds. That would then go towards explaining varying opinion on which one is "faster".

PetKal wrote:
Believe it or not, I have not used the 1.4xTC on the 500 f/4 even once.
I guess the reason is that I value AF drive speed and IQ much more than the focal length.
Unfortunately, I also do not have Canon AF drive speed specs on the two lenses in question. What we do know is that Canon's 1.4xTC cuts the speed down by about 50 % by design.

My guess is that 500 f/4 speed is about 0.4-0.5 sec. With 1.4xTC that becomes 0.6 to 0.75 sec.
I am also guessing the 100-400 AF drive speed is somewhere around 0.6-0.7 seconds.

Therefore, I'd say the 100-400 and 500 f/4+ 1.4xTC would have comparable AF drive speeds. Any photographer would have a hard time telling speed differences of the order of 0.1-0.2 seconds. That would then go towards explaining varying opinion on which one is "faster".

Like I said before, it's very close, but there are other factors invloved when comparing apples and oranges. Because of focal length, focus limiter settings, start and end focus distance, etc the 500+1.4xTC is likely to be just a little slower, but not always.

This morning I lucked upon a 1/2 dozen Common Terns fishing.
Unfortunately, had the 100-400 on the camera (1DMkIIN).
The lens struggled with smaller, faster and irregular flying targets.
Not only f/5.6 aperture delays the camera's AF response, the AF lens element group just moves slower than 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4 etc. I feel I would have done much better this morning even if I had the 180L.

I suppose one can get some keepers with just about any lens, however, the key difference is in the keeper rate and the effort one needs to put into it.
Thus, I've come to the same conclusion from 3 years ago: the lens goes back to the stationary/slow target duty where it performs very well for me.
Here are three a bit more interesting shots with the 100-400 from this morning.

One more from the same series.

I've posted this one before in other threads about the 100-400:


Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture: f/13
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 640
Exposure Bias: 0 EV

I am going to buy a used 100-400 tonight. I want it to shoot my son doing crew/rowing. This is an easy event to shoot as far as tracking the subject.

Everything I read here seems to confirm my purchase. For shooting something with predictable movements the 100-400 can handle it. For shooting objects that move in irregular patterns that make it harder to anticipate and lock in the focus, a prime would be better. I want the flexibility of the zoom over the prime, even if the prime is supposed to give a little better quality picture.

My son is moving from basketball to crew. Shooting outdoors in the sunlight with a subject moving in a predictable manner sure is a lot easier than indoor basketball.