Post by Edward Legaspi on Mar 6, 2012 10:35:34 GMT
As of now given all the information I've read plus my own shooting style, I can say that I would go for the 400mm f/5.6, simply because of the sharpness and mostly I'm shooting in the light. The problem with it is I love crawling under the canopies, and there's not much light in there :-). Still I'll not buy a lens yet, as I'm still looking at other combinations (the typical me :-?). 100-400mm would give mo more flexibility, but I'm having second thought because of the sharpness issue and personally it doesn't really give me more flexibility. Perhaps 400mm, then get 70-200mm 4L IS.
100-400mm would give mo more flexibility, but I'm having second thought because of the sharpness issue and personally it doesn't really give me more flexibility.
Hi Edward, what do you mean by 100-400mm not giving more flexibility? Compared to the 400 f/5.6, the 100-400mm offers the following:
Image Stabilization (IS) - flexibility to shoot with slow shutter speeds (handy for low light).
Closer MFD - flexibility to fill your frame with the subject if you can get close.
Zoom - flexibility to control the size of the subject in the frame without having to move.
IMHO, for bird photography, these 2 lenses offer the best value for someone on a modest budget. The next option will probably be a 300 f/2.8 + 2x which costs 4-5 times. I also agree with Plain Idol Tina's remarks.
I hope this helps. Good luck on your decision and we look forward to seeing the first images from your chosen lens.
@ms Tina, unfortunately I think there's no cheapest lens when it comes to lens for bird photography :-) but you're right on this :-). Actually though I have many choices in the beginning, in the end it boils down to either 100-400mm or 400mm, with 400mm winning.
mark, 100-400mm for me is not flexible enough. Because I'll still be shooting down below 100mm, since I'm also into portrait. So looking further I might get another lens which is 70-200mm f4l IS.