Lighter lens to pair with Canon 500mm f/4 Version I

[redforester]

Hi All,

I use a Canon 7D Mark II and a Canon 500mm f/4 Version I for my bird photography.

As much as I like this combination, it's a lot to carry around or hand hold. I've had decent success with a tripod or my monopod, but am looking for a second lens to go out with just the camera and a lens.

Note, I also have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L with a 1.5 teleconverter that's just not long enough for me.

I've been debating between the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. I'm leaning more towards the prime primarily because of the cost.

Would the 500mm and 400mm prime be a good combination or are they too close in range to be worthwhile?

Thanks

[rpcrowe]

Hi All,

I use a Canon 7D Mark II and a Canon 500mm f/4 Version I for my bird photography.

As much as I like this combination, it's a lot to carry around or hand hold. I've had decent success with a tripod or my monopod, but am looking for a second lens to go out with just the camera and a lens.

Note, I also have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L with a 1.5 teleconverter that's just not long enough for me.

I've been debating between the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. I'm leaning more towards the prime primarily because of the cost.

Would the 500mm and 400mm prime be a good combination or are they too close in range to be worthwhile?

Thanks

I am familiar with both the 400mm f/5.6L lens and the 199-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens.

The 400L is sharp and quick focusing and the lightest weight of the batch but, this lens doesn't have Image Stabilization. Sure, most of the rime for BIF, you will be shooting at a high enough shutter speed so that he lack of IS won't be that important. But, if you want to shoot in many other venues, IS would be a great addition.

The 100-400L II is no lightweight. It weighs right about what a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS weighs. The focusing and the image stabilization are superb as is the IQ! All in all, this is a truly excellent lens. I can easily hand hold it due to the great IS capability.

Another thought might be a 300mm f/4L IS lens with a tele converter added. That would give you focal lengths of 300 and 420mm with a 1.4 extender. I believe that there are third party 1.5x power teleconverters available. This would give you a 300mm and a 450mm combination. The 1.4x TC worked quite well with my 300mm f/4L IS lens and I really didn't notice any appreciable degredation of AF or IQ.

[William W]

For a long time I have been of the opinion that the 'best' Canon Super-Tele combination (on a 'reasonable budget') is a 300/2.8 and a 500/4. Additionally the 1.4MkIII and 2.0 MkIII (or the MkII versions I would keep because I own those)

That's my advice to you.

The EF500mm f/4L IS USM, is a robust and sharp optic, albeit old, now.

The EF400mm f/5.6L USM is also a sharp optic, but has no Image Stabilization, and noted it is older (design) than your 500/4L, not having IS has always been the reason why I would not fork out my own money to buy a 400/5.6L the second reason is, F/5.6 is slow by comparison.

I have not used the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, but I have used BOTH the First and Second Releases of the First Version of that lens. The second Version (i.e. "MkII") is reported by reputable sources to be an improvement on the first Version. I am not a fan of that zoom range. Likely the main reason is because I would typically take two cameras, (as one example) mounting a 70 to 200/2.8 on one and a 400/2.8 on the other. Noted I do not do BIF or birds generally, but I have a lot of flying hours doing Sports with Canon Telephoto and Super Telephoto Lenses. Additionally my first instinct is to avoid Varying Maximum Focus Zoom Lenses. Again that’s been based in the way I shoot – usually in M Mode, having locked in any compensations for different Lighting Scenarios (usually only two) that might apply to the particular Playing Field where I am shooting.

A simplistic summary for my ideal tele coverage for all circumstances and doable at a ‘realistic’ price for a keen photographer is:
70 to 200/2.8 IS
300/2.8 IS
500/ 4 IS
1.4MkIII
2.0MkIII

That's a wide FL coverage at very fast apertures.

WW

[redforester]

Thanks guys for the detailed response.

I too am worried about the lack of IS on the 400. I also owned the first version of the 100-400 and never thought my copy was particularly sharp and 95% of the time, I shot at 400mm so the zoom wasn't that appealing to me.

My gut tells me, that as tempting as the 400 prime is (because of the lower cost and light weight) I would really miss the IS. I already assume without IS and the slower speed, that I would come home with a lot less keepers when using the 400mm vs. my 500mm.

[rpcrowe]

I am familiar with both the 400mm f/5.6L lens and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens.

The 400L is sharp and quick focusing and the lightest weight of the batch but, this lens doesn't have Image Stabilization. Sure, most of the rime for BIF, you will be shooting at a high enough shutter speed so that he lack of IS won't be that important. But, if you want to shoot in many other venues, IS would be a great addition.

The 100-400L II is no lightweight. It weighs right about what a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS weighs. The focusing and the image stabilization are superb as is the IQ! All in all, this is a truly excellent lens. I can easily hand hold it due to the great IS capability.

Another thought might be a 300mm f/4L IS lens with a tele converter added. That would give you focal lengths of 300 and 420mm with a 1.4 extender. I believe that there are third party 1.5x power teleconverters available. This would give you a 300mm and a 450mm combination. The 1.4x TC worked quite well with my 300mm f/4L IS lens and I really didn't notice any appreciable degredation of AF or IQ.

Here are two shots using the 300mm f/4L IS lens on a crop format camera. I shot both of these at f/5.6 and am posting them to show what subject isolation this lens is capable of and what nice bokeh it produces...

[russellsnr]

Hi, Well far from being an expert in bird/wildlife photography I purchased a used (albeit like new) 400mm F5.6 and what a brilliant lens to carry around, it seems so light compaired to other lenses I have, no it does not have IS but where I live light is not really a big problem and if I need to I use AUTO ISO to cover a faster shutter speed, the lens has to be one of the fastest focusing lens there is, it almost instant. Would I buy another lens to go along with it? YES but like the OP I am also a little stuck between land and the deep blue sea. I also have the 70-200mm F4 and a Sigma 150-500mm but would not recomend that one, far to heavy and in my case I seem to get soft images and a slow focus, the one good thing about that Sigma is that it does have IS but so heavy to hand hold for long periods of time. The image was a snap shot with the 400mm. Russ.

[redforester]

Thanks for responding and posting the images. As usual there's lots to consider.