Duncan Gibson wrote:
So wouldn't a 420mm f/5.6 IS be good for BIF?
A 300/4 IS + TC 1,4 (420f 5,6 IS) has very slow AF compared to the 400/5,6. The image quality will not be even close to the 400/5,6. It will also cost more, just to gain 20mm.
ok after lurking around these forums for months (big help and always great information here by the way) I decided to finally pull the trigger on this lens. I have a 40d with the 70-200 2.8 L IS and need a birding lense and have been back and forth for a while trying to decide.
Now to the question, I went to Adorama, B & H, and 2 other places and all of them are out of stock on this lense. I did find 2 places that have a couple of them in so I can get one but I thought it curious that the three main players are all out of stock on an item like this at the same time. Do you think there is something going on here? like a new model coming? or is this just coincidence?
I would hate to buy this and have a new one out next week...... thx.
have you check KEH? maybe get a used one for less money for now, and IF there is a replacement coming out in few months then you can still sell it with little loss.
Just get the 400/5.6L new. Small potatos compared to the cost of your Mark III and if you get any focus issues you can return it or have Canon calibrate under warranty.
Nice lens, great for all around wildlife photgraphy, not just BIF! Especially when coupled withthe 1D Mark III high ISO.
GeneO wrote:
Just get the 400/5.6L new. Small potatos compared to the cost of your Mark III and if you get any focus issues you can return it or have Canon calibrate under warranty.
Well, its so overwhelming unanimous here that the best option is for the 400 f5.6.
Arthur Morris in his revised book which is available on CD only, never brings up the 400 5.6 and mentions the 300.
Yet on his website, he has an article recommending the 400 over the 300 although he reports that the 300 is a good compromise if you want it for other applications as well.
Overall, it makes me think I should get the 400 and possibly sell my 100-400 when I get some more funds and get a 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 as a supplement.
Do you think that is a better mix of lenses for wildlife and nature: i.e. 400 prime + 70-200 versus just a 100-400.
zootp wrote:
Well, its so overwhelming unanimous here that the best option is for the 400 f5.6.
Arthur Morris in his revised book which is available on CD only, never brings up the 400 5.6 and mentions the 300.
Yet on his website, he has an article recommending the 400 over the 300 although he reports that the 300 is a good compromise if you want it for other applications as well.
Overall, it makes me think I should get the 400 and possibly sell my 100-400 when I get some more funds and get a 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 as a supplement.
Do you think that is a better mix of lenses for wildlife and nature: i.e. 400 prime + 70-200 versus just a 100-400.
Arthur Morris is undoubtedly a good bird photographer but if you look at some of his "recommendations" over the past few years you will find that he often contradicts himself. I believe that he is also sponsored by Canon so his opinions are not entirely unbiased.
Like you, I have a Mk III and a 100-400 zoom (my main birding lens being a 500 f/4 L IS) which I use as my "walkabout" lens. It does give good results much of the time even with a 1.4TC so long as the light is good and shutter speeds are 1/1000s or higher (I am blessed with good light and often shoot at 1/5000s or even 1/8000s in which case the IS is redundant and I have it turned off). But, the AF is slow. Having tried a 400 f/5.6 prime I have found it to have much quicker AF, sharper than the zoom at 400mm (beyond 350mm and shooting wide open the zoom loses image quality), is lighter and cheaper, and has a built-in lens hood instead of that piece of plastic rubbish which comes with the zoom.
In my book the 300mm is non-starter for bird photography. I will hang on to the 100-400 zoom as it is a very versatile lens, but I am going to get the 400 f/5.6.
I just sold my 400 5.6 AGAIN! I have sold this lens soooo many times before to fund other purchases.. but it keeps coming back into my arsenal, I just got the 300 2.8 a while back and I will be getting another 400 5.6, quite frankly because it is my favorite birding lens out there... besides the 500L, but c'mon.. that is like the difference between a jumbo jet and an ultralight glider!
I should have never read this. I have the 300 f4 IS and absolutely love it. I admit its probably not as good for birds as the 400 5.6, however, I find it to be incredibly versatile. I'm a wildlife biologist besides being a professional photographer. During the winter I shoot for the WA state senate and use the 300 all the time on the senate floor and in hearings. Then in the spring I do butterfly surveys for fish and wildlife. There the 300 + 1.4 rocks my world with the b-fly's (not the smallest butterflies though). And then when the tweeters pop around I'm on them. Then that there's that peregrine way above me chasing down that redtail, well out of reach! Then I need the extra glass. Too much hiking though to carry extra lenses. I'm going to try the the 400 though and see how it compares. Back in my nikon days I had the 400 f3.5. Very sharp, but of course manual focus and huge! It blows my mind what can/is being produced the new digi gear.
All this talk is getting me excited to get back into the field.
I have sold this lens soooo many times before to fund other purchases.. but it keeps coming back into my arsenal, I just got the 300 2.8 a while back and I will be getting another 400 5.6, quite frankly because it is my favorite birding lens out there... besides the 500L, but c'mon.. that is like the difference between a jumbo jet and an ultralight glider!