Canon 50D and 400mm f5.6 L USM pictures??? - with added question(s)

squizza

squizza

Eeyore
Messages
2,855
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I am looking to get the 400mm f5.6 L USM. I would appreciate any pictures as a result of this combination (Canon 50D + 400mm) . I could look on flickr, but hate traipsing through images that turn out to have only one or the other. Plus I would like your personal opinions on this combination, and whether you have used it with the 1.4 extender?

Kind regards, and thanks in advance

Sarah
 
Sarah,

Search the "bird" forum for threads started by "Jo" since April. They are actually with a 40D but if they're of the quality you need then the 50D isn't going to be any worse.

Bob
 
Try this - http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?le...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

You might need to try the 40D as well to improve the hit count - http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?le...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

Although this might seem an odd suggestion, it would be reasonable to assume that the 400/5.6L will be sharper and with faster AF than the 100-400 zoom at 400mm, so if you throw the zoom into the mix to further bump up the hit count you might infer the minimum results you should expect with the prime - http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?le...&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3
 
Okay, well thank you and not thank you - only because its made me want one more :D :love:

So...... stupid stupid question alert. (cue the abuse :))

Would I have to have this lens on a tripod all the time? :exit:
 
squizza said:
Okay, well thank you and not thank you - only because its made me want one more :D :love:

So...... stupid stupid question alert. (cue the abuse :))

Would I have to have this lens on a tripod all the time? :exit:
Click to expand...

Not really Sarah.
It would of course help, if it's possible to have it on a tripod all the time, or to reduce camera shake, try to have the shutter speed above 1/400.
If the 50D is as good at high ISO as my 40D is, you'll be ok.

My old mate Alby has this lens on a 40D, and he produces some amazing shots. (Handheld!)

A monopod may comein handy mind!
 
here s one I took with that combo I think its a great lens I would suggest support with any lens if you can but I love this lens

kestrel1-1.jpg
 
I wish just having the equipment alone produced stunning shots like that :eek:

I'm screwed :gag::lol:
 
kaz10 said:
forgot to say don t think it will autofocus with a 1.4 convertor on though and especially in low light you would definately need support but I aways use support anyway if I can
Click to expand...

On a XXXD, XXD or 5D series camera that's true, but will on the 1D series camera's which will autofocus single point upto f8.

As for images check out flickr
http://www.flickr.com/groups/24121876@N00/
 
squizza said:
Okay, well thank you and not thank you - only because its made me want one more :D :love:

So...... stupid stupid question alert. (cue the abuse :))

Would I have to have this lens on a tripod all the time? :exit:
Click to expand...

The basic guideline for minimum shutter speed when hand holding is usually....

Min SS = 1 / (focal length x crop factor)

so for a 400mm lens on a 50D you should be looking to use a shutter speed of at least 1/640 if you have steady hands and a stable stance. However, that guideline is for image enlargements of up to around 10x8 or so. When you view a 50D file at 100% it is like viewing a virtual image which in total is more like 39x26, or pretty much 4X larger. Thus for the image to bear scrutiny at 100% magnification you should be looking to use a shutter speed of 1 / (640 X 4) = 1/2500. That is for shooting from a steady position. If you are tracking a moving target you may need the shutter speed to be a little higher than that.

Of course, if you can fill the frame and do not need to crop, and only print//display at more conventional sizes then you can relax and go back to the 1/640 minimum, plus a bit for safety, so maybe 1/1000 as a realistic minimum, but don't expect the pixels to look sharp at 100% if you shoot like that. You may get lucky but don't count on it.

For these reasons I question the value of high pixel density sensors when shooting action. They may be great for yielding lots of detail when you have stable support and can control both camera movement and subject movement, but for action shooting you will need a fast shutter speed if you want to make the pixels count and in anything but superb light you will need to bump up the ISO, thus increasing pixel noise and limiting the usefulness of individual pixels. In my opinion my 1D3 has just as much useful reach as my 50D when it comes to shooting action as the 1D3's high quality pixels can be used at 100% far more readily than my 50D's noisey little blurred pixels. Shoot from a tripod on a slow or static subject and the tables are turned in favour of the 50D, if I can keep the ISO low enough (100 or 200).

In full sunshine at f/5.6 you could shoot at 1/3200 and 400 ISO, which isn't too bad at all, but 50D pixels do already look noisey at 400 ISO so don't expect to crop too aggressively and retain detail. However, if the action isn't too lively you might be able to drop the shutter speed to 1/1600 and the ISO back to 200, which would be pretty sweet. :)

The most important thing is to understand the mathematics of all this and not to beat yourself up, or your equipment if things look a little fuzzy at 100%. At 33% they will probably look great.
 
tdodd said:
The basic guideline for minimum shutter speed when hand holding is usually....

Min SS = 1 / (focal length x crop factor)

so for a 400mm lens on a 50D you should be looking to use a shutter speed of at least 1/640 if you have steady hands and a stable stance. However, that guideline is for image enlargements of up to around 10x8 or so. When you view a 50D file at 100% it is like viewing a virtual image which in total is more like 39x26, or pretty much 4X larger. Thus for the image to bear scrutiny at 100% magnification you should be looking to use a shutter speed of 1 / (640 X 4) = 1/2500. That is for shooting from a steady position. If you are tracking a moving target you may need the shutter speed to be a little higher than that.

Of course, if you can fill the frame and do not need to crop, and only print//display at more conventional sizes then you can relax and go back to the 1/640 minimum, plus a bit for safety, so maybe 1/1000 as a realistic minimum, but don't expect the pixels to look sharp at 100% if you shoot like that. You may get lucky but don't count on it.

For these reasons I question the value of high pixel density sensors when shooting action. They may be great for yielding lots of detail when you have stable support and can control both camera movement and subject movement, but for action shooting you will need a fast shutter speed if you want to make the pixels count and in anything but superb light you will need to bump up the ISO, thus increasing pixel noise and limiting the usefulness of individual pixels. In my opinion my 1D3 has just as much useful reach as my 50D when it comes to shooting action as the 1D3's high quality pixels can be used at 100% far more readily than my 50D's noisey little blurred pixels. Shoot from a tripod on a slow or static subject and the tables are turned in favour of the 50D, if I can keep the ISO low enough (100 or 200).

In full sunshine at f/5.6 you could shoot at 1/3200 and 400 ISO, which isn't too bad at all, but 50D pixels do already look noisey at 400 ISO so don't expect to crop too aggressively and retain detail. However, if the action isn't too lively you might be able to drop the shutter speed to 1/1600 and the ISO back to 200, which would be pretty sweet. :)

The most important thing is to understand the mathematics of all this and not to beat yourself up, or your equipment if things look a little fuzzy at 100%. At 33% they will probably look great.
Click to expand...

I think that has to be the most easy to understand guide to shutter speeds. I've struggled to get my head around it before, but this is really helpful, thank you :)
 
I don't have any pictures of the 400 with a 50D as I didn't own both at the same time. However, what I will say is that the sharpness of the lens is stunning. Its as crisp as my 500/4.

Will you need a tripod? Really, to get the best, you should be shooting most wildlife off a tripod as you will often be working at sub optimal light levels and not wanting the higher noise of a higher ISO (I know cameras have got better but they still get noisier as you increase ISO)

Interestingly, I swapped my 400/5.6 for a 300/4 - the other way to you. But that is because I wanted more flexibility. It does take a 1.4x well, but the 400 is better than the 300/4+1.4x

The other thing I would caution is not to get hung up on massive amounts of lens mm. In the old days (film) it was rare to see anyone with more than 600mm, often less. A 400 on your 50D gives an effective field of view of a 640mm lens, so you are already up there. Think about environmental pictures as well as portraits, especially if you are serious about making a living from wildlife. Look at the pics that illustrate magazines such as BBC Wildlife. A lot of the close portraits are in controlled conditions as it is very hard to get saleable images from wild stuff close up. Where the wild comes in is the environmental and more creative aspects.

One final cat amongst the pidgeons on lens choice. The old, non-IS 300/2.8 is a stunning lens. Sue's copy is sharper than my old 300/2.8 IS was. She got it from MPB for about £1200. Its not much more than the 400/5.6 would cost and I would consider saving a bit longer and thinking about breaking into the "big prime" world. Then you would need a tripod and for that money, any lens would be tatty but that doesn't matter if it works well.

Paul
 
buckas said:
ideally i'm looking for 400/2.8 IS now as i've got the big lens bug :nuts: , but they're about £3.5k 2nd hand :gag: :(

drew
Click to expand...

Is that for wildlife Drew? If so, it's not what I'd recommend. They're big, heavy and bulky. I reckon a 500 or a 600 makes better sense for wildlife personally. Although the 400 range on a cropped sensor still works well. I had a 400 f/4 DO and still miss it...
 
grumpybadger said:
The other thing I would caution is not to get hung up on massive amounts of lens mm. In the old days (film) it was rare to see anyone with more than 600mm, often less. A 400 on your 50D gives an effective field of view of a 640mm lens, so you are already up there.
Click to expand...

While that is quite true, it does not give you the magnification of a 640mm lens, and will project no larger an image onto an APS-C sensor than it will on APS-H or full frame. All that an APS-C sensor does is save you money by not capturing surplus parts of the scene outside your subject of interest, if you are focal length limited.

Reach, which I think is the advantage you might be implying, does not change with differing sensor sizes. It ony increases if you increase the pixel density. A 5D2 and a 30D have equivalent pixel density. Despite the narrowed FOV of the 30D it will not provide any more reach than the full frame 5D2.

If you want to improve your IQ significantly you want to capture more light, and you do that by projecting a larger image onto a larger area of silicon. You accomplish that either by moving closer to your subject or getting longer glass. Simply cropping in hardware at the point of capture rather than cropping later on in software does not change your magnification or your IQ one jot. All it does is, as you said, change your FOV, which on its own is not especially helpful. In fact, for shooting BIF, the narrowed FOV can be a disadvantagefor nimble critters - e.g. swallows - because they can more easily slip momentarily (or permanently) out of view. I know that with my 400mm lens on my 1D3 it is far easier to keep troublesome subjects within the viewfinder than it is with my APS-C bodies.

The illustration here - http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/crop-factor.jpg - shows how the various sensor sizes compare. If there was a rabbit in the middle of that image, a 400mm lens would record the rabbit at, for argument's sake, 10mm high within the frame. The size of the sensor would not matter one bit. The rabbit would be 10mm high on all of them. Whether the camera crops for you or you crop later on makes not a scrap of difference.
 
tdodd said:
While that is quite true, it does not give you the magnification of a 640mm lens, and will project no larger an image onto an APS-C sensor than it will on APS-H or full frame. All that an APS-C sensor does is save you money by not capturing surplus parts of the scene outside your subject of interest, if you are focal length limited.

Reach, which I think is the advantage you might be implying, does not change with differing sensor sizes. It ony increases if you increase the pixel density. A 5D2 and a 30D have equivalent pixel density. Despite the narrowed FOV of the 30D it will not provide any more reach than the full frame 5D2.

If you want to improve your IQ significantly you want to capture more light, and you do that by projecting a larger image onto a larger area of silicon. You accomplish that either by moving closer to your subject or getting longer glass. Simply cropping in hardware at the point of capture rather than cropping later on in software does not change your magnification or your IQ one jot. All it does is, as you said, change your FOV, which on its own is not especially helpful. In fact, for shooting BIF, the narrowed FOV can be a disadvantagefor nimble critters, because they can more easily slip momentarily out of view. I know that with my 400mm lens on my 1D3 it is far easier to keep troublesome subjects within the viewfinder than it is with my APS-C bodies.
Click to expand...


Okay I think I'm confused. :cuckoo:

What in terms of reach would these give me

50D plus 300mm + 1.4x

50D plus 400mm

Also would you recommend I get a different camera. I've seen a 1d mk 2 - would I benefit from it? So confused. Sorry guys!:bonk:
 
grumpybadger said:
Is that for wildlife Drew? If so, it's not what I'd recommend. They're big, heavy and bulky. I reckon a 500 or a 600 makes better sense for wildlife personally. Although the 400 range on a cropped sensor still works well. I had a 400 f/4 DO and still miss it...
Click to expand...

DO, Nice! yeh would be for wildlife/birding etc - my thinking was I could use it with the 1.4x if needed to get 560 f/4 IS (without addition of in camera 1.6x crop as well)

Will look into the 500/f4 though! Looking at them both now (clicky i know the 400 is 2.8 but I didn't think the 500 would be so much lighter - looks like 2nd hand price would be cheaper as well :)

cheers

drew
 
squizza said:
Okay I think I'm confused. :cuckoo:

What in terms of reach would these give me

50D plus 300mm + 1.4x

50D plus 400mm

Also would you recommend I get a different camera. I've seen a 1d mk 2 - would I benefit from it? So confused. Sorry guys!:bonk:
Click to expand...

It's not "reach" that you get. It's "field of view". They are not the same thing. Please see my additional paragraph at the end of the previous post.

Consider the 30D, 40D, 50D and 7D. They all have the same size sensor. They all have the same field of view. They have different pixel densities. Do they all have the same reach?

Now consider the 30D and the 5D2. One is a 1.6X cropper and one is full frame. They have the same pixel density but a very different field of view. Which one has more reach?


=============================================

Reach is all about placing more pixels on your subject, not narrowing the field of view. A longer lens magnifies the image more and gets more pixels onto your subject, thus increasing reach. Having a sensor with higher pixel density also gets more pixels onto your subject, which again gives more reach, although probably not an improvement in IQ at higher ISOs.

If you want to work out the equivalent field of view for any given focal length all you need to do is to multiply by the crop factor. So on a 50D, with a crop factor of 1.6X your FOV equivalents would be....

300mm lens X 1.6 crop factor = 540mm FOV
400mm lens X 1.6 crop factor = 640mm FOV
300mm lens + 1.4X teleconverter gives a 420mm lens X 1.6 crop factor = 672mm FOV
 
tdodd said:
While that is quite true, it does not give you the magnification of a 640mm lens, and will project no larger an image onto an APS-C sensor than it will on APS-H or full frame. All that an APS-C sensor does is save you money by not capturing surplus parts of the scene outside your subject of interest, if you are focal length limited.
Click to expand...

As a full frame shooter, I fully understand that thankyou. However, my point is not just about the sensor but the field of view and the ability to frame and track subjects with too much perceived "reach"

tdodd said:
Reach, which I think is the advantage you might be implying, does not change with differing sensor sizes. It ony increases if you increase the pixel density. A 5D2 and a 30D have equivalent pixel density. Despite the narrowed FOV of the 30D it will not provide any more reach than the full frame 5D2.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the OP already has a 50D! So comparison to a 30D is not particularly useful. I was actually cautioning against getting carried away in the "reach" race, which seems to be popular on here (I know I have the benefit of owning a 500/4 but generally think that is too long if you are using an APS-C camera due to FOV issues - which is how I worded it)

tdodd said:
If you want to improve your IQ significantly you want to capture more light, and you do that by projecting a larger image onto a larger area of silicon. You accomplish that either by moving closer to your subject or getting longer glass. Simply cropping in hardware at the point of capture rather than cropping later on in software does not change your magnification or your IQ one jot. All it does is, as you said, change your FOV, which on its own is not especially helpful. In fact, for shooting BIF, the narrowed FOV can be a disadvantagefor nimble critters - e.g. swallows - because they can more easily slip momentarily (or permanently) out of view. I know that with my 400mm lens on my 1D3 it is far easier to keep troublesome subjects within the viewfinder than it is with my APS-C bodies.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tim. You've expanded on the point I was trying to make. I am certainly not claiming a great reach advantage (as I said above, my main camera is a FF 1DsII) just cautioning against wishing for too much - especially for mobile subjects.

As for the more light etc, you will see I also recommended a 300/2.8 as an option as that allows more light at its maximum setting and also typically offers improved AF performance.

I do think in camera crop makes a difference in some circumstances as with good glass, good exposure and good technique, I will be able to get a better quality A2 print out of my 7D's full image than cropping my 1DsII to 6Mpx (equivalent of a 1.6x crop) None of the current FF cameras can create more than an 8.2 Mpx image out of a 1.6x crop, whereas 40D/50D/7D can all do so.
 
Paul, I'm not trying to argue with you, or teach you to suck eggs. I'm simply trying to clarify that having a crop sensor does not magically buy you more reach. A lot of people seem to think it does and when people refer to 400mm lenses giving the FOV of a 640mm lens, while technically accurate, that might be taken (wrongly) to imply that a 400mm lens on a cropper is as good as 640mm lens on full frame, which it isn't. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens.
 
Fully agree Tim. FL is FL. But my experience in the field suggests that the optimum length lens for general wildlife gives an FoV equivalent to c. 400mm on 10D/20D/30D/40D etc, 500mm on 1D and 600mm on 1Ds (partly due to the ability to see things in the viewfinder)

I'm not a great fan of cropping and like to think of all my images as being suitable to be made into high quality prints, so number of pixels can matter. But, so can issues such as air quality, light quality, usability, etc.

Interestingly, (well for me!) when I used to run a 1DII and a 5D on safaris, I put the 400/4 prime on the 5D and the zoom on the 1D. For exactly the reason you describe. The same pixel density gave me the freedom to have some framing flexibility on the 5D with the prime.

For me the most important purchase for improving my wildlife photography (and it is so important I'm going to put it in bold) was a decent tripod and head
 
grumpybadger said:
For me the most important purchase for improving my wildlife photography (and it is so important I'm going to put it in bold) was a decent tripod and head
Click to expand...
Yes indeedy, and if I may add to that, getting closer to your subject will do far more for IQ than buying ever longer glass or cameras with ever higher pixel densities. It is also (usually) quite a bit cheaper too.

Consider this example. You want to shoot a deer. It is 10m away and you can use a 100mm lens. That would be easy to hand hold, even without IS, at 1/200. To achieve 1/200 you can shoot at 100 ISO. You could shoot that with a Rebel and a kit zoom lens.

Now suppose the deer is 20m away. To keep the deer the same size in the frame you need a 200mm lens. Without IS you might need a shutter speed of 1/400. You need to increase your ISO to 200.

Now imagine the deer is 40m away. You need a 400mm lens, 1/800 and 400 ISO.

At 80m away you need 800mm, 1/1600 and 800 ISO. Your gear will have cost several thousand pounds, weigh several kilograms and your images will be noisier too.

Of course, a good tripod and head will mean you do not need to keep raising the ISO, so your images will be cleaner, but now you have additional weight and expense. What started as something you could carry all day in your hand now needs a wheelbarrow to transport it.
 
grumpybadger said:
For me the most important purchase for improving my wildlife photography (and it is so important I'm going to put it in bold) was a decent tripod and head
Click to expand...

Quoting this bit for the truth.

It is easy to get hung up on lenses - I know I used to. But until I got a decent tripod & an excellent head setup (Thanks Paul) I didn't realise how important they were.

I'm actually downgrading my main lens for a while to the 300 F4 IS and a canon 1.4 II but I will still use that on my wimberly sidekick.
 
tdodd said:
... getting closer to your subject will do far more for IQ than buying ever longer glass or cameras with ever higher pixel densities. It is also (usually) quite a bit cheaper too.

Consider this example. You want to shoot a deer. It is 10m away ... You could shoot that with a Rebel and a kit zoom lens.
...
At 80m away ... Your gear will have cost several thousand pounds, weigh several kilograms and your images will be noisier too.
Click to expand...
That is brilliantly clear, Tim.
 
StewartR said:
That is brilliantly clear, Tim.
Click to expand...

That is very clear but lets not forget that there are other issues apart from filling the frame with the deer such as perspective and how the background is included. Generally, you will get far better isolation using a longer lens and a narrower field of view.

Not saying Tim is wrong, but there is more than one reason why I spent my hard earned on a 500/4!
 
There's another issue that has not really been emphasised here and while not wanting to confuse the OP even further, it is not easy to find the best way forward on all this!

'Reach' is a hard term to define. It is about more than field of view, and pixel count/density is not the whole flip side either.

The other vital factor, that is even harder to measure, is the final image quality itself. For example, if it was purely about planting the maximum number of pixels over the subject, then fitting a long lens onto a compact camera would do the trick. That's basically what digiscoping does, but the results are poor.

Not only do you need as many pixels as possible, but they also need to be as large as possible, yet it is impossible to have both. The obvious conflict in that statement defines the problem, but not the answer. It's a compromise, and different cameras deliver different results.

The other absolutely vital consideration from an equipment point of view is lens sharpness. The demands of 18mp resolution on a Canon 7D's crop format sensor pushes lenses beyond their original design limit; they were never intended to be used in this way and the fact that Canon's L super-teles do so well is a lucky coincidence. Lesser lenses however will run out of usable contrast at that level of resolution, regardless of field of view, or pixel count, or any other considerations of reach.

I think the camera/lens combo that probably comes out top in all this is a Canon 1D3 or 4 with a big L prime. But that's £10k-plus and a hefty lump lug about. And that is yet another set of issues - weight and cost. It is all these factors that have to be weighed up together. The exciting thing for me is that cameras like the 7D (and also the 50D) present a new set of affordable, practical options for things like birding. A 7D with 18mp and a 400L 5.6 is an extremely potent and wieldy set up for £2k.
 
Hoppy, I totally agree. I have always felt that my 1D3 offered more useable reach than my 50D from 400 ISO and up, simply because although the pixel desntiy is low the pixel quality is high, so you do not have to downsize so much. Tiny pixels end up recording blur and shake as much as they do actual detail, and then add insult to injury by being noisey too. I do not think that a high pixel density is a good thing for an "action" camera. It can be a good thing for maximising detail in optimum conditions, but it is a pointless waste of storage, processing time and false expectations in sub-optimum conditions.

Here is a shot I took today with my 7D at 400mm, 6400 ISO, 1/500, f/5.6, hand held. Of course, it is not a keeper shot, just testing out the limits of the camera in sub-optimal conditions.

4081146938_f22396ac74_o.jpg


This is uncropped, but even at this size the IQ is shakey. I daren't crop in tighter or enlarge any more though. The underlying pixels are truly horrendous. As you may also notice, there has been a liberal dose of NR applied to this, but no adjustment to levels/curves etc..
 
I'm torn between this lens and the 300mm f4L for my next lens, are you looking at replacing your 300mm, or adding to the quiver?
 
Craikeybaby said:
I'm torn between this lens and the 300mm f4L for my next lens, are you looking at replacing your 300mm, or adding to the quiver?
Click to expand...

I guess you're meaning me ? :D :thinking: I think I'd keep it actually. I don't think I've got the best out of it yet. What does concern me is the lack of use my 70-200mm L F4 IS gets now I have the 300. :shrug:
 
jontucker said:
I thought you were hanging fire!?!?!?! :nuts:
Click to expand...
I'm just intriqued as to why Tim's bought the 7D in view of his oft repeated views on crop sensor cameras. On the one hand over on the Bird Forum he's posted a running dog sequence taken with the 7D which is as impressive as any I've seen, yet here he is posting this ridiculous long range shot of this maggy at 12600 ISO. Quite what it's supposed to tell us about the abilities of the 7D I really don't know. Tim, would you really expect to get a usable image from any camera with a subject occupying that tiny part of the frame?

Presumably also, this is with the 100-400L at full stretch, which is pushing the abilities of any lens let alone a zoom. What you're doing mate is pursuing bird photography with inadequate tools or certainly expecting way too much of the tools you have. I wouldn't have bothered lifting the camera at that maggy let alone try to deduce anything about image quality from that shot. Yes - bird photographers invest in long glass which they moan about humping around but they don't do it for their health and they can't all be wrong.

Tim I think you need to put the slide rule and calculator away mate and concentrate on taking pics. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top