holy grail

A canon 200-500 f4 IS









they don't make it yet.....till then the 400 f5.6 for usability and the 600 f4 for reach - on a tripod ({[IMHO]})
 
whats your opinion of the canon ef 400 f/2.8 is usm lens is it any good for birds
 
600 f4 is the way forward (Canon or Nikon)

I'd probably plonk for the Nikon 200-400 f4 though.... I really must try hiring one sometime!

garymicheal said:
whats your opinion of the canon ef 400 f/2.8 is usm lens is it any good for birds
Click to expand...

No, women generally aren't strong enough to lift it :bonk:
 
garymicheal said:
whats your opinion of the canon ef 400 f/2.8 is usm lens is it any good for birds
Click to expand...
It's very, very heavy.
You cant use it handheld so probably isn't too easy for birds in flight.
And do you really need f/2.8?
 
Holy Grail?
For me?
Got to be a Canon 600 F4 IS
 
Buy it, sell it for a profit, buy something that you can carry :)
 
600 f4 IS Canon + Converters

or

600 F4 VR Nikon + Converters

The 400 will be too short even using the converters you max out at 800mm

What do you call the right money and which version is it.
 
mho said:
600 f4 IS Canon + Converters

or

600 F4 VR Nikon + Converters

The 400 will be too short even using the converters you max out at 800mm
Click to expand...

The 600/4 is certainly a very useful tool but to discount shorter lenses would be folly. Look at some of the stunning shots in the bird forum by CT and Erding (to name just a couple). CT uses a 500/4 and the majority of Tom's (Erding's) are with a 300/2.8 and T/C's.

Bob
 
Bob I have all of them (apart from the 500 sold it) and wouldnt buy a 400mm (unless it was mega cheap) instead of 600mm if birding was my primary use as the op asked.
 
Canon Bob said:
The 600/4 is certainly a very useful tool but to discount shorter lenses would be folly. Look at some of the stunning shots in the bird forum by CT and Erding (to name just a couple). CT uses a 500/4 and the majority of Tom's (Erding's) are with a 300/2.8 and T/C's.

Bob
Click to expand...

Cheers Bob

Its the 'lightness' - compared to the 500 or 600 - of the 300 f/2.8 which makes it particularily suitable, for me, for birds, Very easy to handhold for static or BIF shots even with TC's and many times I have taken the 300 in preference to my 500. The 500 can be handheld - but only for short periods at a time - and for me its usage is predominately with a monopod or tripod because of its extra weight and size.


Of course I would like a 400 f/2.8 or the 600 but realistically I know that because of the extra weight and bulk compared to the 500 the usage would be very limited. I certainly would not be keen taking either of the 400 or 600 as hand luggage on a aircraft.
 
mho said:
Bob I have all of them......
Click to expand...

I have too and think that the 300/2.8 + 2x T/C offers a degree of spontanaity that the 600/4 simply can't match. On the other hand, the 600/4 + T/C offers the length that 300 lacks when the situation is different.

Back to the OP's original question.....
The "holy grail" is a flexible setup of bodies and lenses and not limited to just one option (IMHO)

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I have too and think that the 300/2.8 + 2x T/C offers a degree of spontanaity that the 600/4 simply can't match. On the other hand, the 600/4 + T/C offers the length that 300 lacks when the situation is different.

Back to the OP's original question.....
The "holy grail" is a flexible setup of bodies and lenses and not limited to just one option (IMHO)

Bob
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
The 500 f4 is generally regarded as the best by most pro wildlife photographers for a few reasons over the 600 f4. It is a lot smaller therefore more portable. It is lighter and reportably good for hand holding. It's cheaper :p

Length is one of the least worried about things when it comes to professionals, as you would see from flicking through the Wildlife Photographer of the Year book. Only around 10% of the photos that made it to the book are with lenses over 300mm...and most of those are the 500 f4. Most shots were actually with wide angle lenses!

If you do bird photography as a hobby and only really do reserves then length is usually better, as it allows you to get closer (reserves are usually quite bad for bird photography) and you can usually drive to within a few hundred feet of the hides so weight isn't an issue per se! But try trekking for a couple of days with a 600 f4 and you will soon wish you had chosen otherwise ;)

The 300 2.8 is fantastic option, as it takes both TC's well and offers a fair degree of range with those options, allowing you to adjust for your conditions! No point being 600mm from your subject if you can be 300mm is there?

I've got a 70-200 2.8 and 2x extender and have never missed a shot that would have been 'great' if I'd had better kit. I'd have gotten a closer picture perhaps, but it wouldn't have had the lovely bokeh etc. Most of my wildlife shots come from a hide where I choose the conditions so the 70 - 200 works great, or I can use the 2x extender if it's a bit out of reach. Out in the open, then I use the 2x extender and purposly factor in some of the habitat, and make the most of the light (say if it's sunset) to make the photo nice. It's not all about seeing each individual feather! For me, I prefer to make 'artistic' shots.
 
Interesting comments :) But nobody has mentioned the Canon 400mm f/4 IS DO in the reach vs handheld debate. I've always fancied this lens. It makes a lot of compromises I know, but is such a handy package. Nothing comes near it for size/weight/reach/speed.

I'm not frightened of DO optics - my 70-300mm DO was fine (I just hardly used it - swapped for 100-400mm L). And it's apparently sharp enough to take a 1.4x extender for an amazingly compact 560mm f/5.6. On a 1D/3 body, that's a 728mm f/5.6 equiv with fast focusing and IS of course, plus great high ISO performance, which sounds like a potent combination for a tripod-free life. And I just couldn't handle a 600mm f/4, tripod/monopod or not :eek:

This lens has maybe got a bit of a bad reputation, which I'm not sure is justified as those who have one seem to rave about it. You guys must have looked at this lens, and rejected it for some reason. Care to share?

Thanks,

Richard.
 
I had a 400DO and sold it to get a 500/4. Before I tried the 500, I was happy with the DO, but it is nowhere near as sharp. I've since got a 300/2.8 and use that as a 420/4 quite a lot. With those two lenses, I don't really have a need for a DO. The only time I would want one would be for working out of Land Rovers with no sides or roof in Southern Africa. For that application, the DO is perfect as you are handholding pretty much all of the time.
 
HoppyUK said:
Interesting comments :) But nobody has mentioned the Canon 400mm f/4 IS DO ......
Click to expand...

It's hard to see this as a good birding lens. It's not sufficiently sharp to take a T/C well and it's resolution falls short of the others around it which limits the ability to crop in PP...a must for a 400mm and birds. As a lightweight sports lens it would be just the job.

Bob
 
Ah thanks. So when the DO is put to the test with a TC and a bit of cropping, it can't hack it like a proper lens. A 300/2.8 with TC is a better 'short' compromise and at the long end, the 500/4 seems to be doing it for a lot of birders who struggle with that 600/4 monster. I'll cross the DO off my fantasy lens list :)

Richard.
 
Nifty fifty according to the hyperbole on here about it...............:D

Siggy 300-800 does "it" for me...........:)
 
garymicheal said:
nifty fifty:LOL::LOL:ok for ostrich me thinks(y)(y)(y):LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

Well I used a 16-35 for an Ostrich - not a pretty sight close up, horribble breath and imo the best reason for a very long lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top