More feedback please - hard choices here. As for prime discussion - we're not looking at those... just the right zooms.
From what I'm reading the 70-300 is better (AF, IQ, weight, etc) if you can get by without the reach... if you must have the extra 100 then you must put up with the other losses though they are not overly significant.
At this point, I guess mostly I'm wondering
1) how hard is it to shoot the 100-400 handheld
2) does it fit in medium sized camera bags or only quite large ones
3) is the weight very bad on it?
Thanks -
As an avid bird photographer but a Nikon shooter, I think Canon's 100-400 is the appropriate budget birding lens in either version one or two. Again, among Canon budget birders, with the key word being "budget," I see a preponderance of this lens over all others put together on the birding trails and various club meetings.
Now that we have Tamron's somewhat new 150-600, this is slowly changing in that I'm starting to see a lot of this lens, along with a few Sigma 150-600 models. Sigma makes two of this zoom range. One is the Sport model and sells for close to $2000 while the other is the Contemporary Model and comes in close to the Tamron's price of a little over $1000. I'm not sure between like prices, which is better between Tamron and Sigma, but I know the Tamron is well received. That said, it would depend heavily on the price you're paying for the used Canon.
I would never suggest the 70-300 as an appropriate
single birding lens, though I've used one often for birding. Since I specialize mostly in wild Florida wading birds, pelicans, sea birds including gulls, I can often get by with shorter lengths. The point is that good field craft and moving closer often can trump good long glass, but not always. Many amateur birders attempt to go with a long inexpensive lens without trying to get better at field craft. Their images can suffer.
Some also display shots of birds on feeders or in a zoo which also often doesn't require a whole lot of focal length. In fact, I have a portable lighting rig where I sometimes use a feeder in the wild with both the camera on a tripod and studio strobe on a stand, using Pocket Wizards to trigger it all from a distance. I sometimes tie a piece of wood or a branch close by and target the camera and lights at a spot I hope the birds will land prior to inspecting the feeder up close. I've used as little as an 85mm for such conditions. I've also used a 50mm and that 85mm on wild gull and pelican offshore colonies when we do banding, so as you can see, a lot has to do with how you're close you are and what type of birding you're involved with.
My two favorite birding lenses are my Nikon 300 f/2.8 with and without teleconverters and my new Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR. I get a some bit of use from my Nikon 500 f/4 with a converter as well. Again, here in Florida with wading birds and sea birds, I don't need 800mm glass and the expense that goes with it even though I might often crop to that level.
Also, don't automatically reject the idea of zooms over prime lenses. The absolutely vast percentage of the time, most use their zoom lenses at the maximum focal length, so a 100-400 is treated as a 400 prime. More often than not, we tend to have to crop to the bird and then enlarge to make up for reach especially with full frame, most of the serious birders tend to use. You watch. Even with her crop camera and that 100-400, she'll be at 400 and cropping a good bit too, unless she can get really close like on a feeder or in a zoo. So, between those two zoom lenses, the choice is 300mm or 400mm, not the zoom range.
Summary: Even though a 70-300 might work sometimes for me in Florida, I don't believe it's the right choice for most people in a variety of birding conditions. In the Canon world, the 100-400 and 400 f/5.6 are probably the most popular budget choices. The zoom is the most popular while that prime is with the long timers. IS/VR is often useless because birds tend to twitch and move even when perched. Fast glass, long glass, and fast shutter speeds can make birding expensive indeed. For most of us with thinner wallets, it's always a compromise.
One couple I sometimes run into on the trails each have a Canon 5D MkIII and each have a Canon 800 f/5.6 with 2x converter. Each uses a folding shopping cart which includes extra glass. That's well over $30,000 between them not counting the extra glass, tripods, heads, etc. Not to mention overkill in my mind. ;-)
Good luck and make it a great weekend.
I'm showing these Nikon lenses not to compare Nikon and Canon, but for comparison between the two zooms. Both the Nikon and Canon models are close enough to the same size from brand to brand. Because I don't own the Canon models, I can't show those like this. Unfortunately, I don't have one of the 70-300 extended to 300mm, but use your imagination. It should work out to around 25% less extension than the longer zoom. I don't know.
That said, you must admit Nikon black is much prettier than Canon white. ;-)
Nikon's 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR for comparison, about the same as Canon's 70-300 IS USM
Nikon's MkII 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR for comparison to the Canon 100-400 at minimum zoom
Nikon's MkII 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR extended to 400mm, about the same as that Canon
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
