Colchester Zoo mini-meet, 17th March

My turn to show a few photos from a lovely, impromptu day out with Alan and Dave to Colchester Zoo....

Just a couple more....

Stunning !!!!

Great shots Tim..thought you said 'Dem birds is hard'
Good work..

Cheers, guyus.

As for the birds, with the 5D2 and 100-400 it wasn't as easy as it might have been, at least for those flying shots. You should have seen the ones I threw away. My "X" key is nearly worn out

Here are a few more birdies....

Really like the tiger shot, just a shame about clipping the ears. Also loving the owl in flight but the pick has to be the last one. The reflection on the eye and the detail over the brow are stunning. Great capture.

Were these taken with the 100-400? I'm torn between one of these or the 400 prime, so looking for users to feedback pro's and cons.

MG TF 135 said:

Really like the tiger shot, just a shame about clipping the ears. Also loving the owl in flight but the pick has to be the last one. The reflection on the eye and the detail over the brow are stunning. Great capture.

Were these taken with the 100-400? I'm torn between one of these or the 400 prime, so looking for users to feedback pro's and cons.

Click to expand...

Cheers. The ears on the tiger are as I took the shot, although I have cropped in from the original to tighten up on boring stuff below and beside the tiger. I don't actually mind the ears being cropped. The eyes are what counts for me.

All the shots were taken with my 5D2 and 100-400, all hand held. Most of the shots I kept were at 400mm, although one was at 300mm and another at 190mm. Of course, given I was using a full frame body it's not much of a surprise that I was at the long end for the majority. Had I used my 1D3 or 7D I might well have preferred shorter lengths, especially for the bird displays. Dave and Alan were both using 1D3s and were using a 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8. Alan did break out a 2X TC for his 300/2.8 for the meerkats.

My most common shutter speed was 1/800, but they did vary between 1/400 and 1/1000 (chosen manually) so the IS was a significant benefit for my shooting. Without it I would have definitely felt the need to take a monopod, which could be limiting for some types of shooting - useless for the bird display, for example.

The arguments about the 400L and the 100-400 are never ending. Both lenses have their place, without question. I've never used the 400L, but its advantages, as I understand it, are....

- slightly longer at 400mm than the zoom;
- sharper when wide open than the zoom;
- faster AF than the zoom, especially advantageous for things like BIF;
- lighter than the zoom (I think);
- takes a TC better than the zoom;
- I don't recall ever seeing reports of soft/duff copies (unlike the zoom).

Advantages of the zoom are....

- It's a zoom! It is far better at 100mm, 200mm, 300mm etc. than the prime;
- The value of IS can not be ignored for general walkabout shooting;
- It is more compact (shorter) when bagged up for travel (I think);
- It has a closer MFD (1.8m), with the prime perhaps needing a tube for anything within 3.5m.

I think few would argue that the 400/L is the better lens for birding, where usually even 400mm is insufficient, but as a walkabout wildlife (and outdoor sports at a push) lens, I think the zoom is hard to beat. I do also have the 70-200/2.8IS, so one could argue that with that lens and a 1.4X TC I could cover a good part of the range of the 100-400, and at a constant f/4 too, which means I might be better off with the prime as my long lens, but who wants to cart two lenses around and keep swapping glass when one lens can do it all? I don't. If I was to buy something else to improve my results for birding (and other things) I can't help feeling that the 300/2.8 IS would be my choice, together with a 1.4X or 2X as needed for extra length. The alternate choice would be the 500L, but I don't see that as anywhere near so versatile, and it's more expensive. To me, the 400L would be a bit of a sideways move, not replacing the versatility of the zoom, and not really advancing my lens capabilities much either.

Thanks for the feedback. I don't intentionally go out birding but sometimes take advantage of a location i find myself in. So most of my shots are wildlife/ conservation parks, plus sport in the future (i would love to tog football once i stop playing!). I am leaning towards the 100-400 as it is versatile and sliding up and down that zoom range would be a benefit to me.

At the moment i get a little frustrated that the 70-200 falls a little short and i can not fill the frame. I think that i would get more frustrated with the 400 and not being to open up the frame!

All of the people i have spoken to really rate the 100-400 so i think i may go down that road. You have noted that you can bolt it on and shoot for a day with the one lens, which is obviously appealing, it's a little heavier than the 400 prime but then i would not have to carry a shorter lens too, thus saving weight!

Superb pics, Tim. Like Dave, I seem to remember hearing you say you were having trouble using the 5D for the birds. It certainly doesn't look like it.

Particularly liking this one: