A question for the bird photographers, please.

[Sarawak]

Hi there, a question if I may on lenses.

I recently upgraded to a 5DMk3 because I was feeling restricted in taking bird shots, particularly birds in flight. The lens I'm using is a somewhat ancient 400 f5.6. It remains a good lens and is sharp. I've tried using a Mk2 TC 1.4, but autofocus is slow, it tends to hunt around a bit, and I loose a stop or so of light. This makes that combination not very good for BIF. I've sold the TC recently.

I don't know whether to upgrade my lens or not. I was thinking of the 500 f4 which would give reach, is faster and might not need a TC. I did consider the 400 f2.8 Mk2, but this is heavier than the 500, and as I like to wander around a bit as opposed to sitting in a hide all day the weight is an important factor. The 600 is totally out of my price range!

Have any of you birders tried any of these lenses and if so what are you observations? Can either be carried around for long periods? What are they like for BIF, which at present is my main interest? If I wanted to use a TC would the new Mk3 1.4 give autofocus fast enough for BIF?

Alternatively should I just stick with what I have - am I chasing the impossible dream?

[scarletti]

Re: A question for the bird photographers, please.

I can't really answer your question, but here are a couple of links that I frequently visit that have bird photography tutorials. The tutorials also have a fair bit about what equipment to use, so you may find your answers there.

http://www.ophrysphotography.co.uk/p...dtutorials.htm
http://www.mikeatkinson.net/tutorials.htm

[Riggers]

Re: A question for the bird photographers, please.

I'm no expert but I would have thought with a 5D3 giving you over 22 mega pixels you should be fine with the 400 at 5.6 without a TC. You would just crop away in post as required. You may see a little noise but some of that can be removed with e.g. Lightroom. I use a 70/200 2.8L II with 1/4 and am starting to see decent results with cropping. I've looked at all other possibilities in the 200/300/400 mm range with and without 1.4 and 2.0 TC depending on the aperture of the lens. Basically unless you pay £5k or more all these combiinations seem to be offering much the same result.

[colin C]

Re: A question for the bird photographers, please.

I am a great fan of the 400mm f5.6. Great optics, comparatively light weight and reasonably priced. No IS, but you don't need it for wildlife photography, birds, sports, or aircraft, because for those subjects, you will always above 1/400sec ............. maybe not propeller aircraft, but you know what I mean.

I have always thought that 400mm was the ideal long lens. It gets you close enough to be in the action, but far enough away that you are not overfilling the frame. I use a 500mm f4 and there are times that my chosen subject comes too close, hence the need for a second body with a 300mm.

I still want an 800mm for hide work, but that would need yet another body, because although most stuff is far away, they still come a lot closer, so I would still need the 500mm and 300mm at the ready. We are never satisfied, so we revert to 1.4 and 2.0TC's and these are never ideal, but we tend to use them in desperate circumstances and them blame the TC's. In good light, the performance and speed of focus is much better such that, with the 1.4x I barely notice it is on and when viewing the results, couldn't tell which shots I had used it on. A different story in dull light, but realistically, in that light I should have already packed up and gone home. Dull light = Dull pictures.

With the introduction of the MKII lenses this year, there may be a few more MKI's available second hand and that will give you a little more choice to find a good one. Beware ex pro motorsport versions - they are beaten to buggery and although regularly serviced, probably missed the latest one.

Until then, or the coveted Loto win, the 400mm f5.6 is still a solid performer and if it doesn't get you close enough, study your field craft to get you that little bit closer.

[Sarawak]

Re: A question for the bird photographers, please.

Hmm, thank you Colin. I think staying with the 400 might be the sensible option. Whilst I am a keen photographer of birds, and any wildlife, it's not an overriding area for me. i do like to take a variety of shots, and maybe the high cost of a 500 or similar couldn't really be justified. When did common sense ever have anything to do with it? As you say whatever length lens I own I'm always going to want some more.

Maybe I'll keep the money in the bank.