Another lens question

[Miladymimi]

I know, I know, you probably get tired of lens questions, but for those of you who like wildlife photography I have a query. I have a canon 7d, with a canon 28-135 F3.5/5.6, canon 50mm f1.8, and a Tamron 28-200 f3.8/5.6. These all work great for most things I want to photograph, except for wildlife. Most of the time it's at a distance and I want a lens that will allow me to get closer. I've been looking at the canon 400mm f5.6. It's at the top end of my budget, so I want to make sure it's worth the price. Anyone have any experience with this lens? Any other suggestions? Thanks in advance.

 

[Rancor]

Well don't forget to factor the whole cropped sensor thing in. I believe a 7D has one. So that 400mm 5.6 will actually shoot like a 640mm 5.6. Now thats some range.

 

[o hey tyler]

Well don't forget to factor the whole cropped sensor thing in. I believe a 7D has one. So that 400mm 5.6 will actually shoot like a 640mm 5.6. Now thats some range.

All Canon cameras except the 5D series, and the 1Ds are a form of "cropped" cameras. Either APS-C (1.6x) or APS-H (1.3x). But don't forget, the focal length of the lens doesn't change, just the effective field of view.

The 400mm f/5.6L is a great lens, I'm sure. Never used it myself however. One thing I want to point out though, is that f/5.6 is not a very large aperture for AF to work well. But since you're using it outside it shouldn't be an issue (plus the fact that the 7D has a great AF system).

 

[Ginu]

I am not a Canon shooter but I stumbled across some reviews and opinions on the 400 5.6 and everyone said the lens is quite sharp wide open. However again I'm not familiar with Canon lens but I would compare that with a 100-400mm L as the zoom will have quite a bit more utility or the 150-500 Sigma although I think the Sigma wont be as sharp as a Canon L lens.

The 400 f5.6 might be the nicest in terms of AF speed as it is a prime lens vs a zoom lens; again I've never shoot with any of those lenses but I'd consider them all.

 

[analog.universe]

I'm not a telephoto shooter, so I haven't go first hand experience with this stuff, but I've always heard that Canon's tele stuff is the best of their lineup, and rarely matched elsewhere in the industry.

One thing I was thinking though.... 400mm is a very long lens, and you will need a _very_ good tripod to ever get the most of it... for this reason the 300mm 4.0 IS might be more appealing? 4.0 gets you a slightly faster shutter, and the IS makes that speed even better than it would be otherwise. It's about the same price as the 400mm 5.6 but wouldn't require nearly as much support. Unless you think 300 won't be long enough...

 

[Ginu]

I'm not a telephoto shooter, so I haven't go first hand experience with this stuff, but I've always heard that Canon's tele stuff is the best of their lineup, and rarely matched elsewhere in the industry.

One thing I was thinking though.... 400mm is a very long lens, and you will need a _very_ good tripod to ever get the most of it... for this reason the 300mm 4.0 IS might be more appealing? 4.0 gets you a slightly faster shutter, and the IS makes that speed even better than it would be otherwise. It's about the same price as the 400mm 5.6 but wouldn't require nearly as much support. Unless you think 300 won't be long enough...

I guess it would totally depend on what kind of "wildlife" were talking about. For bird photography a 400 would be around the sweet spot, but for the deer which at 30-40 feet, the 400 might be a little overkill not to mention the OP might get a little too much deer in the photo and that's why suggested looking at the 100-400 lens.

 

[Miladymimi]

Thanks for all your suggestions. I was thinking primarily of birds, but also some of the wildlife that comes across my front yard, a 50 acre hay field. Getting close is sort of out of the question. You've given me more to think about. Thanks again

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I just picked up the 400mm 5.6. Its a superb lens for the price. You do not get IS though so you need to have ample light and keep your shutter speed up if shooting hand held. As for the person who mentioned the "very good" tripod, this lens is actually surprisingly light for its size and very well balanced with a tripod collar. You should always have a decent tripod in your arsenal, but this lens does not need some special treatment that any other lens on your tripod doesn't. If you start shooting birds and wildlife, you will almost definately end up trying to put teleconverters onto the 300mm f/4. While it is a nice lens and comes with IS, the 400mm is longer and that is in fact why you are dumping the cash, so why not go as long as you can with your budget? The 7D has great ISO handling and AF system. You shouldn't have any problems hand holding this lens if you are careful and shoot outdoors in halfway decent light. It is also easy to maneuver quickly for "bird in flight" shots. The AF is super quick.

The only downside other than it not having IS ( which isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be in most cases ) is that the Minimum focus distance is 12 feet, so if a bird lands close, you won't be able to focus. Also, to fill the frame with smaller birds, you will need to get closer so depending where or what you are shooting, its always handy to have an extension tube on hand. I think a 12mm tube gives it a focus range of like 8ft-15 ft or something like that.

 

[jerryw66]

My son and I do some birding, we use the 100-400L. It isn't really enough. I will get the 1.4 converter soon. I know some guys that shoot birds seriously, they use a Nikor 500 most of the time, sometimes with converters also. I rarely have good waterfowl pics without being at 400 or close to it.