Canon ef 70-300 IS L for bird photography?

gh172 wrote:

I know that 300mm isn't an ideal amount of reach for bird photography, however, having only just dipped my toes into bird photography I'm not keen on spending a crazy amount this early. I have been shooting with a EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II which is a great lens however requires too much cropping for birds At this stage I'm using a Canon eos rp so the 70-200 is quite front heavy. I have the opportunity to pick up a second hand EF 70-300 IS L for less than half the original cost and only two years old which is considerably shorter and lighter than the 70-200 and offers an extra 100mm . Ideally I'd prefer the 100-400mm but that's a lot heavier and more expensive. I've also never bought second hand so that makes me a little nervous. Is it worth spending money for the 70-300 or save up and eventually get the rf 100-500mm or the Tamron 100-400mm?

The 70-300L is an excellent lens, but quite short for birding.  I hardly every use mine.  A starting point is 400mm... and even 400 is short.  If you’re budget is tight, you may want to consider the Canon 400 F5.6 which you can find used for about the price of the 70-300.

However, you’re using a FF, so you may want to consider using something like the Sigma 150–600 which is also in the same ballpark used.

great for turkeys

You might have got away with it if you had a APS-C body (480mm FF equivalent FoV), but 300mm on a FF really is going to be VERY limiting.

I have a EF 100-400L ii on a 6D ii (same 26Mp sensor as RP) and it is limiting a lot of the time - before the 6D ii I had a 70D which worked quite well with the 400mm.

Perhaps a second hand EF 100-400L ii or a RF 600mm / 800mm ?

Colin

gh172 wrote:

I'm not keen on spending a crazy amount this early.

The least expensive route would be a 2x extender iii on your EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732111-USA/Canon_4410B002_Extender_EF_2X_III.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

Another option a used original canon 100-400mm.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/802276163-USE/canon_2577a002_100_400_4_5_5_6_l_is_usm.html

A used 1.4 extender ii on the above lens will give you even more reach. 560mm

https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-1-4x-ef-extender-ii-l-series-tele-zoom-lenses.html

-

Norm

John Sheehy wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

You might have got away with it if you had a APS-C body (480mm FF equivalent FoV), but 300mm on a FF really is going to be VERY limiting.

It's more about pixel density than sensor size, when you get into focal-length-limited scenarios. The 3.1MP D30 should come to mind whenever one is tempted to talk about APS-C magnification powers.

Well yes, obviously.

Most current APS-C cameras have a higher pixel density than a 26Mp RP.

So without getting too technical (ie. actual pixel sizes etc) a 300mm lens on an average current model (around 24Mp to 32Mp) APS-C (with a FF equivalent FoV of 480mm) is barely acceptable for birding (a 32Mp 90D or M6 ii might be OK), and a 26Mp FF is definitely going to be very limiting. That was the only point I was making.

Colin

gh172 wrote:

I'm starting to lean towards the Tamron 100-400mm or the Sigma 100-400mm. I have read so many reviews on these two lens over the last 24 hours. Both lenses seem to be subject to good and bad copies which is a little worrying. I have seen negative reviews in regards to the Sigmas Optical stabilization and focusing speed and the softness of the Tamron at 400mm where I would be shooting with this lens the majority of the time. Get a good copy of either of these lenses and they are apparently stellar.

I am a little biased against 3rd party lenses on Canon, but I would rather look for a good Canon 100-400L (original model - push/pull) than a 3rd party 100-400mm.

I had the original 100-400L for several years and got some nice sharp photos with it. The early copies (closer to 1998) seemed to have more copy variability, but later on they were pretty good. The only reason I replaced mine with a 100-400L ii was I got one at a 40% discount which was too good an offer to pass up.

The main thing to watch for on the original 100-400L is uncontrolled zoom creep. These lenses have a tensioning ring that allows the zoom movement to be tightened or loosened, and that tends to wear out over time to a point where it cannot be tightened enough to stop uncontrolled zoom creep. Apparently it can be repaired at perhaps $300-350.

The 100-400L will probably AF at least as well as a 3rd party lens (and probably more reliably), and it's 2 stop IS was reasonable, although can't compete with the new 100-400L ii 4 stop IS.

Colin

I bought it for tennis and have used it for birding.  I like the light weight and am happy with many of the shots I've gotten.  Certainly a compromise.  The Osprey is from a ridiculous distance and highly cropped.  I'd rather have that than nothing as a memory from the trip.

gh172 wrote:

STR54 wrote:

You would definitely want to save up for a longer reach (>400mm) telephoto to use with the RP. I am using my 70-300L with a T3i so I get to have an effective reach of 480mm with the crop factor. But as you soon find out when birding the quest for additional focal length seems to never end. Need examples of pics using the lens then check out my gallery here on DPR.

Mike

Thanks Mike, I had a look at the Tamron 100-400mm this evening and I could see myself wanting more reach. I'm leaning towards the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary now.

I bought one last month to use with my R5 and I am happy with the results.  If you are in the States check out B&H they include the Sigma dock and filter for the same price others charge for just the lens. I am not a big filter fan, but the dock saves you almost $60. If you do lime filters the included filter has good reviews and is $120 at B&H and Amazon.

300mm is not enough reach if you're going to get serious about it. I think my setup would be the bare minimum recommended (Canon crop body with original 100-400 l). That gives the FF equivalent of 160-640mm.

But, I am looking to get more reach, possibly with a Tamron/Sigma 150-600. On a crop body, that would give me the FF equivalent of 240-960.

I have an RP, I had a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and I have the Canon 100-400 Mk II. For a year or two, I shot lots of wildlife with a Canon 77D APS-C and the Sigma. It worked pretty good. Enough light was always an issue and focus speed and sharpness weren't 100% all the time, but when it hit the images were solid. I would definitely get the Sigma over the Canon for the extra 200mm reach. 300 or 400mm is not enough reach for birding 90% of the time. I tried to use the RP for wildlife, and I found it was virtually useless for birds in flight, which I don't believe it really was intended for. It also is very small and a bit difficult to handle when paired with a larger telephoto because the rig becomes so front-heavy. I would add that the Sigma is worth every penny because you get 80% of the function of the Canon 600mm f4 for 10% of the price.

More examples of the 70-300 IS L acquitting itself well despite being too short for the task.