Canon Telephoto to begin with?

Since having my EOS 7D a few days now and enjoying the quick accuracy of the Center Point AF using my 70-200 f/4L. I'm thinking about purchasing something with a bit more reach for mostly backyard birds and some occasional wildlife on a private lease (deer mostly). Trying to stay in the $1500 range I've contemplated on the EF 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4TC II or the EF 400mm f/5.6L. I've seen some outstanding results using the 300mm and TC. How does is rate using the 1.4 TC with he 400mm? Or would the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS be worth a look?

The stuff I've taken in the 200mm range has been around 15~20 feet away so having to crop on the little fellas.

Thanks

I get a glassed over look with the TC much of the time, not as sharp. Sometimes I can get good results if everything is just right. People like the 400/5.6, very sharp prime. I have the 100-400 and really like it. The IS is awesome for hand held shots when you dont have the monopod or tripod available. The 100-400 might not be as sharp as the 400 prime but the IS is very handy.

I bought the 300 f/4 IS for hand-held birds in flight and I don't like it. It focuses much too close to get nice oof backgrounds, unless it is the sky. While I don't use it for birds much I really like it combined with the 1.4x TC for butterflies and dragonflies handheld. To me this is where this lens really excels as you can get really quite close and it has good magnification.

I would highly recommend the 400 5/6. I know that some favor the 100-400 but the 400 5.6 is sharper, lighter, less expensive and handles a TC better than the 100-400.

The 400/5.6 is probably THE perfect starter bird lens. It's super sharp, fast focusing and makes a perfect flight lens when/if you end up with a longer lens down the road. The 300/4 is nice too but too short, not as sharp and slower to focus. The 100-400 offers great flexibility but at the expense of AF performance and sharpness.

Thanks guys for the input. Yeah looking at it the 400 f/5.6 probably would be the best in my situation. I'd probably find myself constantly reaching for the TC to go with the 300 f/4.

I use the 300mm f4 with an extension tube for dragonflies and a 1.4x for birds, it focuses much closer than the 400mm. I find the 300 plus 1.4x very sharp, a couple of examples:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... =cormorant
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... =cormorant

It really depends on your proposed uses, If its birds in flight, the 400 would be the go, if it's birds in general and you'd like the flexibility of close focusing for insects then the 300mm. I don't see how focusing close would prevent getting oof BGs. You switch it to only focus from 3m to infinity for flight work to prevent it hunting in closer though. Plus it has an image stabiliser which I find quite effective for hand holding down to quite low shutter speeds, a big plus for insects.

Rent before you purchase...I've had several (and only) good experiences with lensrental.com...I don't value IS in a lens much when shooting birds because IS has no affect on subject movement (only camera movement) and birds are generally always moving. Good luck.

Toney,

All of the above recommendations are excellent. Let me add a couple of additional thoughts.

To Greg's point, the 400/5.6 is the perfect first REAL bird lens. It's got reach (640mm effective focal length on your 7D vs. a full frame sensor) and yet is light weight and fast focusing for birds in flight. It is a very sharp L lens. And at a resonable cost.

Anytime you add an extender to a lens, it will slow the AF. A 1.4x slows the AF less than a 2x. This happens in all brands - Canon, and all others. So for birds in flight where AF speed is critical, being able to use a lens without an extender is better. Using the extender for photographing perched or walking birds is fine. Then, AF speed is much less of an issue.

And Steven's point about renting is excellent. Or, if you have a friend with that lens, maybe they will let you try it.

Chris mentions versatility and being able to focus closer. There are a couple of accessories that can be used with the 400. The 500D is a close-up lens that attaches like a filter. It is multi-element and very sharp. Extension tubes also allow close focusing and have no glass, but do reduce the light somewhat. Both of these accessory choices can be used on any lens so they are very versatile.

Good luck.

I am very happy with my 300/4 + 1.4x TC. I use it for birds as well as landscapes. The close-focusing is also nice for large-ish macro subjects. But, I would agree with the others that the 400/5.6 is also an excellent lens. Depending on your primary use, you may not be able to go wrong either way.

Landscape shots with 300/4:
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... il2_bw.jpg
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... tions2.jpg
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... prints.jpg

Landscape shot with 300/4 + 1.4x TC
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... detail.jpg

Wildlife/other with 300/4:
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... ghorn1.jpg

Wildlife/other with 300/4 + 1.4x TC
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... 2_copy.jpg
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... _krat3.jpg
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... allow3.jpg
http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.c ... lican3.jpg

Hope this helps!

For birds, which was the original question, the 400/5.6 is superior to the 300/4 in that it focuses much faster due to it not focusing close. It is also significantly sharper than a 300/4+1.4x and on a pro body is a credible 560/8 with AF on the center point. the 300/4 is a great all around and versatile telephoto but it is not a great bird lens when compared to the 400/5.6.

E.J., if you want the best possible comparison then I suggest you take a trip to visit the World Wildlife Park Zoo and try out both my 100-400 and 400 f/5.6; lots of test targets there, both static and dynamic.

A few points to consider. According to Canon's MTF chart there isn't a much difference between the two lenses. The 400 has an advantage shooting BIF because its lighter weight is nicely distributed from the standpoint of hand holding (at least for my set of hands) and, now I'm not really positive about this, it appears to focus faster than the 100-400. AFAIC the 100-400 has an insurmountable advantage due to IS, zoom range flexibility, and most importantly (IMO), a really small MFD compared to 400 f/5.6.

Let me know if I can help.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Joe, I have tested a dozen 100-400's vs the 400/5.6 in controlled test environment and even wrote articles on it. The 100-400 doesn't even come close to the 400/5.6 in real life for sharpness at 400mm. in fact the 400/5.6 is sharper at f/5.6 than the 100-400 is at any aperture which is a pretty amazing thing actually. Note that Canon's MTF charts are based on theoretical calculations, not actual measurement data.

The 400/5.6 is much faster for AF as it has much less glass to move and a much narrower focus range to deal with.

One can not argue with the versatility of the 100-400 though!

I have both. The 400 does not have IS and as I'm not as steady as I used to be, my yeild of sharp images from the 400 is obviously less than the 300. So, IS may be a factor.

Lat, use a tripod

I agree with all the post about the sharpness of the 400- I just wish it balanced a little better- but its been around for a long time - so as things are replaced or upgraded like the 100 IS Macro - I would look forward to a version 2 of the 400/5.6.

Jim Roetzel wrote:I agree with all the post about the sharpness of the 400- I just wish it balanced a little better- but its been around for a long time - so as things are replaced or upgraded like the 100 IS Macro - I would look forward to a version 2 of the 400/5.6.

The way my luck goes they'll come out with an updated version II with IS after I make my purchase ...

I had two copies of 300 f4.0 L IS and one 400 f5.6 L no IS.
I had them both for a period of time. At one point I sold the 300 just to find out that I greatly missed it.
Bought another 300 and sold the 400.
I was happy for a long time with it.
Eventually I upgraded to 300 f2.8 L IS and 500 f4.0 L IS.
I gave the 300 to my wife.
She takes some amazing pictures many times comes up with a better picture than I do.
When I had both lenses, I did a comparison test on two totally different targets at a fully controlled situation.
To my surprise, the 300 was the winner witha a slight margin, even with the 1.4 TC on.
My conclusion:
If you want to use it for BIF 90 percent of the time, go for the 400 f5.6 L.
Otherwise, the 300 f4.0 L IS is a much betterall around lens, based on my experience.
If you switch off the IS for BIF as I did, it focuses extremly fast just as fast as the 400 f5.6.

Also using the focus limiter to restrict the lens to 3m to infinity speeds things up. The AF can't be too shabby as I find I can use it for shooting dragonflies in flight, though I have to use MF to get in the right ballpark so I can even see the dragonfly through the viewfinder:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... 1&t=173364

ChrisRoss wrote: I don't see how focusing close would prevent getting oof BGs. You switch it to only focus from 3m to infinity for flight work to prevent it hunting in closer though. .

Not to highjack the thread but, as it (300 f/4 IS) focuses so close at minimum it also has a "shorter" infinity focus and so the background will also be in focus or close enough to cause distractions when shooting birds at normal ranges.