A Question For The "Birders" On Lens Choice. [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

PH005

17-05-2011, 10:19am

I love taking shots of birds and I am very lucky that we have a lot of them on our tree covered block. Not so long ago I purcased a Sigma 120-400 thinking that this would serve the purpose. Well I dont like it and I am selling it. So, what to replace it with ? I have sort of narrowed it down to FOUR. 70-200 F4L IS USM, 70-200 F2.8L IS USM, 70-300 F4-5.6L IS USM, and 300 F4L IS USM. If I go the 70-200 F2.8, will it work Ok with a 1.4 or 2.0 X extender. I'm feeling that 200mm is just not long enough for birding. I have read all the reviews I can find but am still not sure. Birding and some motosport will be the only things used for. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers Paul.

WhoDo

17-05-2011, 10:26am

Paul, I have the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG and it's nowhere near fast enough for BIF photography, at least in my uneducated opinion. I don't know if the L IS USM version will be better but if it was me I'd be moving to something at least 500mm in the Sigma EX range. Just my opinion of course and it all depends on dollars for most people. :confused013

andylo

17-05-2011, 10:28am

PH I thought you have the lens attached to the camera all the time and I thought you love it.

Can you let us know what you don't like it? So it will help us to provide a better opinion which helps you have a better choice the next time.

I HAD a 120-400 Sigma and since I am not doing as much birding as I like, I have a 70-200 IS MKII.

The 200mm end is not long enough for birding for most occasion (unless huge bird + super close)

The extender will decrease the light goes into the sensor by 1 and 2 stops accordingly, the focus speed is slower and I can see the image quality has decrease a little too. (with Extender gen. II) So it become a bit useless when the light is a bit low, or the bird is super quick.

From your list the 300L IS is the best choice but still a bit short IMO.

Speedway

17-05-2011, 11:23am

I am quite happy with the Sigma 150-500but for birding, although in lower light the 600 F4 L would be my choice but at around $11,000 it's way beyond my reach unless the lotto ticket comes in. :D :lol:
Keith.

PH005

17-05-2011, 11:29am

Unfortunately Andy, love does not last. Another case of mistaken lens envy. Maybe I just got a not so good lens but mine does not AF very well. That does not bother me too much as I tend to MF 99% of the time. I would like sharper detail and I think that maybe an "L" series will give me that. Plus I read that the AF on the Canons is very good. The four lenses I mentioned are all in my price range.

andylo

17-05-2011, 11:55am

70-200 F4L IS USM - tried one, very sharp, but not a good range for most of birding
70-200 F2.8L IS USM - tried the mark I, have the mark II, sharp! Again not a good range for birding
70-300 F4-5.6L IS USM - tried one - it's slightly better than the 100-400L and your 120-400 Sigma IMO, but compare to the Sigma I can't justify the price difference.
300 F4L IS USM - never tried one, but it's a prime so suppose to be super sharp.

Marion

17-05-2011, 3:48pm

I went through a range of lenses before I bit the bullet. I purchased a Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM Lens . It's super sharp, super fast focus wouldn't use anything else ( aahh winning lotto could change that :) )

Wobbles

17-05-2011, 5:07pm

Hi,
trying to pick a lens for birding and motorsport is going to be a compromise..

For birding (in this price range) I would suggest the 400 F5.6L, as per Marion's comment above and arguably the best BIF lens around. Will take a 1.4x quite well (but lose AF on the 40D). Not great for motorsport, doesn't have the versatility of a zoom and 5.6 will struggle to blur backgrounds on track etc.

For motorsport I would suggest the 70-200 2.8LIS - sharp, fast & versatile. Will also take 1.4x well. Generally too short for birding, even with 1.4x, and the 2x will reduce IQ too much particularly on small subjects such as birds.

If you must, best compromise IMO would be the 300 f4LIS + 1.4x. More practical for the track at 300 and almost as sharp at 420.

Cheers
John

brindyman

17-05-2011, 6:49pm

+3 for the 400 5.6

Bennymiata

18-05-2011, 1:19pm

What about the Canon 100-400L?
I've used mine for birding and motorsport, as well as lots of other things like spiders are long distances, and I find it a superb lens and very versatile.
I admit it is big and heavy, but then again, so are most of the long lenses.

Michaela

18-05-2011, 1:34pm

What about the Canon 100-400L?
+1

It is a versatile lens and is capable of amazing quality once you get the hang of it. Richard Hall's bird shots are a great example of what it can do. :)

PH005

18-05-2011, 2:03pm

kujayee

18-05-2011, 11:20pm

I am surprised that the Sigma 50-500mm OS is not suggested, I am also looking into getting a tele lens for birding and most users are happy with it.

PH005

19-05-2011, 4:45am

I am surprised that the Sigma 50-500mm OS is not suggested, I am also looking into getting a tele lens for birding and most users are happy with it.

Yes Kujayee, the Sigmas are good too but I would like to go with an "L" series this time. Hopefully one that will serve me for many years.

andylo

19-05-2011, 9:26am

L > Sigma > Non L :D

Gollum

19-05-2011, 9:35am

Have just spent the last 12 months making the same decision.

First a confession, I’m not a good photographer, let alone a good bird photographer.

I went for a Canon “L” because I wanted the best IQ and IMO none of the third party lenses come close:

100-400L

Cons

Old design (1998)
Pros

Is getting cheaper all the time, Canon U.S. took another $100 of the RRP this year.
2-Stop IS
Works with all the standard TC’s, but AF may not on your body
Zoom Lens, greater flexibility
1.380Kg

400L f5.6

Cons

Oldest design (1993)
No IS
Fix focal length

Pros

1.250Kg
Is getting cheaper all the time.
Works with all the standard TC’s, but AF may not on your body

70-300L

Cons

Doesn’t work with standard TC’s
100mm less than either of the alternative.

Pros

New design.
Best IQ @ 300mm - See link below
Zoom Lens, greater flexibility
4-Stop IS
1.050Kg

IQ comparsioin between 400L and 70-300L at full length. IMO the 70-300 is sharper but the 400L has less CA.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

In the end I chose the 70-300L because its new technology which should allow it to keep its price. Its lighter, at just over 1Kg its going to be easier to work with. I need both IS and AF, as my eyesight is not the best.

The only problem with this lens is that missing 100mm.

Hope this helps

PS: For those who love the 150-500, there is a Crop IQ comparison chart at 300mm to be fair, at 500mm its very bad:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

ving

19-05-2011, 10:44am

i cant believe it took 10 posts for someone to come out with the 100-400L... sheesh!
just get that one.

fabian628

19-05-2011, 2:36pm

Yes I agree the 100-400 IS is a really nice lens. I did find it hard to hand hold and slow shutter speeds even with IS becuase the lens is so light and long.
You could also try 300mm 2.8 + a 1.4tc. The extra stop of light is very useful when the light becomes a bit dim. Not only for shutter speed but also allowing your camera to focus.

kujayee

19-05-2011, 3:42pm

Yes Kujayee, the Sigmas are good too but I would like to go with an "L" series this time. Hopefully one that will serve me for many years.

My bad, didn't read it properly, so are after the ultimate :)

PH005

19-05-2011, 5:31pm

Thank you Gollum for going into such detail in your reply. All your points are very good and all taken onboard. Cheers.

PH005

19-05-2011, 5:33pm

i cant believe it took 10 posts for someone to come out with the 100-400L... sheesh!
just get that one.

I do feel myself leaning this way Ving. Cheers.

PH005

19-05-2011, 5:36pm

Tannin

20-05-2011, 2:48am

Memo to self: read all the way to the end of the thread before answering.

Memo to Paul: of the lenses you listed, none are really suitable for birding. the 300 is the best of a bad lot. ("Bad" insofar as birding lenses go, that is - perfectly good kit for other jobs, of course.) If you have to use a teleconverter as routine, you have the wrong lens - simple as that.

I see from sneaking a peak at the last couple of posts that you are thinking about a 100-400. good. They didn't get to be easily the most popular birding lens by accident. Enjoy!

PH005

20-05-2011, 5:36am

piXelatedEmpire

20-05-2011, 2:42pm

i cant believe it took 10 posts for someone to come out with the 100-400L... sheesh!
just get that one.

I thought the same thing! I've very recently converted to Canon with a 7D and that lens. You will need at least the 400 for bird photography, and the zoom focal length should suit your motorsport photography. Win win. :th3:

PH005

20-05-2011, 3:10pm

I thought the same thing! I've very recently converted to Canon with a 7D and that lens. You will need at least the 400 for bird photography, and the zoom focal length should suit your motorsport photography. Win win. :th3:

Thanks Adam. Another tick for the 100-400.

ving

20-05-2011, 3:24pm

paul, stop ticking and just buy it :p

PH005

20-05-2011, 4:01pm

paul, stop ticking and just buy it :p

I know Ving, I know. I just dont want to rush it this time. BTW, Best price I can get the 100-400 is $ 1696.25 delivered. Sounds pretty good.

kiwi

20-05-2011, 4:08pm

Just a bit of experience talking, I've sold plenty if perfectly good lenses that I wasn't good enough for ;-)

PH005

20-05-2011, 4:46pm

Just a bit of experience talking, I've sold plenty if perfectly good lenses that I wasn't good enough for ;-)

I know what your'e saying Kiwi. I sorta rushed in to the Sigma purchase and after a short time kicked myself for not going with an L series. The AF on the Sigma is not good. Could be just a bad apple. I hope to get the " right " lens for Me and my purposes , and one that I will keep for a long time. I am probably not good enough for my Sigma or any L series that I may buy. But hopefully I get something that I am happy with. Cheers.

in2fx

20-05-2011, 8:42pm

go the 100-400 L for its versatility

Tannin

21-05-2011, 1:52am

Thanks Tony. When you only want to have ONE resonably long lens in your kit it is difficult to choose. If I went the 300L f4 IS USM then I think I would need say a 70-200, but if I go the 100-400 I have it just about covered. :confused013

Cheers Paul,

The 100-400 isn't just good for birding. These days, I mostly use mine for - believe it or not - landscapes. Most (not all) of my birding employs the 500/4 and 7D, and the 100-400 lives on the old 1D III, where it is around about equivalent to an 80-320 on a crop camera. It's brilliant! I love the way I can reach out into the landscape and pick out just the part I want, excluding all the irrelevant surrounds, and also the way it lets me flatten perspective and bring unity to a composition by having background and foreground on roughly the same scale.

On a crop body, it's a bit longer and perhaps not quite so inviting, but just the same - don't neglect it as a landscape lens. You might surprise yourself!

PH005

21-05-2011, 9:08am

Thank you Tony. I'm pretty certain that the 100-400 will fit my purposes. My birthdays coming up anyway. Note : Present to Self. :D

BUGSnBIRDS

21-05-2011, 9:21am

Reach is everything but needs to be balanced with price.

100-400 L Canon or grab a second hand Canon 500mm.

Still need to master stalking small birds but you would be well on your way then.

PH005

21-05-2011, 9:38am

Cheers BnB.

mongo

21-05-2011, 10:29am

PHoo5 , Mongo is not surprised about the 120-400 but you have not told us why you do not like it for the purpose. Is it image quality or speed or both ?

The canon lens will most likely be better. From what Mongo knows, the f4 version of the 70-200 is as sharp and at times, sharper than the f2.8 version but you will need it to work well with a converter. The 300mm is probably the best bet and should work well with a converter. Also, if you can stretch it to a 100-400mm L canon (and Mongo recommends a good second hand one of these which should be more affordable) it seems to give really superb results (look at Richard Hall and Shelley’s stuff). Maybe a straight canon 400 f5.6L

If speed is not the issue (if your camera can operate at higher ISO and still give good images) , Mongo must say that Mrs Mongo’s newly acquired sigma 50-500mm is giving fantastic results on a Pentax K5 at about 1600 ISO comfortably.

The ultimate lens is a canon 500 f4 L but pricey and much heavier (again , get a second hand one in great condition). Mongo would if he used canon gear.

PH005

21-05-2011, 10:46am

Thank you Mongo. Am not happy with the AF. Maybe it is not suited to my 40D, I dont know. I really dont like the overall feel of the lens anymore. I dont think it is as sharp as it could be, maybe that is me or again my body. All the feedback slowly comes together and you can get a feel of what the " right " choice might ( and I say 'might' ), be. I'm sure I will be happier with an L series. I hope. :crossed:

Othrelos

21-05-2011, 12:09pm

Sigma do make some pretty average lenses, the 100-300mm f/4 is the best thing they have going for general birding photography, the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 is too slow( but optically excellent) and the 200-500mm f/2.8 is even heavier than my Pentax 67 M*800mm f/6.7 ED - and any 35mm lens that is heavier than that lens is just isn't worth the trouble in my books.

here is an image from my 100-300mm f/4 on My pentax K7 - f/5.6 ISO 800 1/125th -focal length around 200mm, and I used a AF540 Flash with a 1/2 CTO gel

http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/15921/1__BPK8607.jpg

PH005

21-05-2011, 1:11pm

Thanks Othrelos. I think the extra 100mm on the Canon will come in handy. Nice shot .

Othrelos

21-05-2011, 2:02pm

Thanks Othrelos. I think the extra 100mm on the Canon will come in handy. Nice shot .

not if you plan on using it at 400mm all the time, the canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is rather soft at 400mm f/5.6. At the long end your working aperture will most likely be f/11 - and again, that is far too slow IMO, especially if you use flash like most wildlife photographers do, and High ISO won't be of much use.

Tannin

21-05-2011, 10:34pm

not if you plan on using it at 400mm all the time, the canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is rather soft at 400mm f/5.6. At the long end your working aperture will most likely be f/11 - and again, that is far too slow IMO, especially if you use flash like most wildlife photographers do, and High ISO won't be of much use.

Yep. Soft as.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/08/080713-082627-rqac.jpg

(40D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 1600i, wide open at f/5.6, 1/200th hand-held, no flash)

Terrrible lens.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/11/110121-170115-1rc.jpg

(1D III, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/8 1/1600th, hand-held, no flash)

Useless wide open.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/06/060709-165119-4196fc.jpg

(20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/5.6, 1/1000th hand-held, no flash)

I don't know why anybody buys them.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/05/051101-082521-57pfc.jpg

(20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 400i, f/6.7, 1/3000th hand-held, no flash)

:eek:

Annette

21-05-2011, 10:51pm

I have the 300mm Canon L which I used with a 1x4 converter which gives really sharp shots however sometimes the converter slows down the focus ( seems to anyway) I now have the 400 L 5.6 which is great for birding I turn IS off anyway for flight shots so that's no hassle . I thought of selling the 300mm only because for birding the 400 is never off the camera but I love that one so much will keep it for shooting my grandson playing footy!!

Shelley

22-05-2011, 1:16am

I recommend umm, let me think.....

I love prime lens for shooting birds, can't explain it. I love the 400 5.6L, but it has its shortcomings just like the other lens, but it still is the one I would choose.

Tony and Richard's photos certainly back up their reasons for the 100-400. There is no perfect lens for birding, if there was, we would all have the same lens (well if the price was right).

What the heck, here is what it can do :

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/5709549631_e96644dc12_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/5717945077_71dca8276c_b.jpg

PH005

22-05-2011, 7:08am

Kinda seys it all. Even wiyhout the captions. Great shots Tannin. :th3:

PH005

22-05-2011, 7:16am

Inspiring images Richard. I'm sold. Thank you.

PH005

22-05-2011, 7:17am

Lovely work Shelley.

PH005

22-05-2011, 7:21am

Thank you so much to everyone who replied to my query. Your input has been so useful in making up my mind. I will ( definitely ) be purchasing a 100-400. Look forward to many happy years ahead and hopefully sharing some images here.

Thanks again, Paul.

I @ M

22-05-2011, 7:24am

Good move Paul, those who know have offered sound advice. :th3:

Kerro

22-05-2011, 8:45am

Paul, I have the 70-200 F 4 L IS and the 400 F2.8 L IS and they are both great for birding.
I have a Kenko 2x converter and a Canon 2x series 3, makes a heck of a difference on the 400.
love them both.
I have a Sigma 120-300 as well, but use it only when Im relatively close. The pictures are not as
sharp as the 2 Canons. but still a good lens.

unistudent1962

22-05-2011, 9:08am

I've got a 70-200 f4L IS
Beautiful lens, INCREDIBLY sharp.
I've tried a f2.8LII and I can't pick the difference in IQ, BUT as already stated 200 just isn't long enough for birding.
I've thought about adding a 1.4xTC which drops in to an f5.6.
I don't like push/pull type zooms (personal preference + a friend who had one which sucked dust!!) so that ruled out the 100-400.
Canon are about to release the 200-400 f4L IS with built-in 1.4TC, this looks VERY apealing to me BUT the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR is at least $6K grey, so I would expect the Canon to be a similar price.
Have you had a look at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107 to see what people are able to do with specific lenses?

Othrelos

22-05-2011, 12:33pm

Tannin

22-05-2011, 2:32pm

those of you who are trying to discredit my statement that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft at 400mm with web sized images taken with APS-C cameras aren't proving anything. I use full frame canon DSLRs and with the larger sensor the image quality of the EF 100-400L @ 400mm on a 1DSMKIII is lacking at f/5.6 only at f/8 does it become acceptably sharp - my EF 200mm f/1.8 with a 2X teleconverter can beat the the 100-400L any day at 400mm @ f/5.6.

Err ... it's a bit more than not "trying to", various posters here have discredited it.

First, we need to discard this "APS-C" nonsense. We need to remember that there is absolutely no difference in sharpness between different sized sensors. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. (Refer to this thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?20625) for some useful background.) (You might also note that only some of the pictures posted in this thread were taken with APS-C cameras - not that this actually matters.)

Second, we can usefully recall that the key issue for sharpness is pixel density - not, repeat not sensor size. (Obviously, we are assuming equal lenses and the like.) The more pixels per unit area of the sensor, the sharper the image. We can now refer to the table in that thread to discover that the Canon 5D II which has exactly the same number of pixels per unit area as a Canon 20D.

Third, we can sidestep this "web-sized images" business by taking a 100% crop. (100% crops are not always the correct way to compare resolution - see that thread for details - but in this case they are idea.)

So let's look at an image:

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/051228-191305-832.jpg

Seems decently sharp to me. Canon 20D, 100-400 @ 400mm, 100% crop, no post-processing of any kind (besides cropping). It's a half stop down from wide open (because it is my habit to stop any lens down a touch and I'm too lazy to hunt around for an f/5.6 one) but half a stop is nothing.

I prefer faster working apertures due to the fact that they facilitate the use of flash which I consider to be essential for wildlife work. you can crank the ISO as far as you want - but if the light isn't good, you are wasting your time.

I'm sorry, I am unable to follow your logic here. What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing. You can use flash at any aperture - indeed, one of the nice things about working with flash is that you have complete freedom to use whatever aperture you prefer for depth of field control - or, more often, to balance your flash illumination with the natural light.

The main difference a faster maximum aperture makes for bird photography is focus speed. In general, any lens you use for bird work will be long enough to obtain good subject-background separation, so just having f/4 available doesn't especially matter for DOF. But faster lenses focus faster, and that is always welcome, at any aperture and in any light. Oh, and when you are NOT using flash, a faster lens lets you keep on working and getting good results where you would have to give the game away with an f/5.6 lens. But to achieve that benefit you have to multiply your budget and the weight and bulk of your lens by a factor of four or five.

No matter: I'm sure thgat that 200/1.8 is a very nice item indeed. Not what I'd reach for first as a bird photographer, but a very sweet lens which I'm sure I could enjoy finding a use for. :)

I @ M

22-05-2011, 2:34pm

those of you who are trying to discredit my statement that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft at 400mm with web sized images taken with APS-C cameras aren't proving anything.

I tend to disagree entirely with that, the point has been proven that on a crop sensor body as the OP has and presumably intends to use said lens that the lens is entirely adequate to produce excellent images. Whether they be for web viewing or printing they are going to be more than adequate.

Maybe you got a bad sample of that particular lens, has been known to happen before. From your kookaburra image you may even have a bad sample of that lens and or body, that one hasn't held up well at all.

Tannin

22-05-2011, 2:36pm

The more pixels per unit area of the sensor, the sharper the image.

Just to clarify - this holds true only so long as you hold all other factors equal, and only within broad limits. Very high pixel densities become counter-productive, as we have seen with those idiotic 14MP P&S sensors.

I @ M

22-05-2011, 2:48pm

Four guaranteed ways to get a soft image.

#1 Use a cheap third party lens.

#2 Fit a cheap third party converter to said lens.

#3 Shoot wide open.

#4 Use a Nikon D200 ( Tanin told me they were crap cameras) :D

72710

Tannin

22-05-2011, 2:53pm

I did not! :eek: I might have said that I didn't like their high-ISO performance, however. :)

Othrelos

22-05-2011, 3:20pm

"What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing."

wow mate you really don't get it at all do you? the faster the lens is the less flash power you have to use to illuminate your subject - the less power you use, the faster the recycle times are and the faster the lens is, the more range you get out of your flash unit.

"that there is absolutely no difference in sharpness between different sized sensors"

true, on a per-pixel basis there isn't any difference but due to the difference in the image circle being captured by the sensor there is a rather large difference between FF adn APS-C cameras - there are some lenses that perform well on APS-C perform poorly on larger FF sensors, the Canon 17-40 f/4L is a good example of this.

Tannin

22-05-2011, 4:08pm

"What has a fast aperture got to do with liking to use flash? I'd have thought nothing."

wow mate you really don't get it at all do you?

You're probably right. I don't get it. All my flash photographs of birds are crap. Maybe you could show me how to improve them so that they are decent.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/091027-131451-rfppc.jpg

(580EX II & Better Beamer, 1D III, 500/4, 800i, f/5.6, 1/1000th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090114-165152-ft.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4, 640i, f/5, 1/1000th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090207-142838-rqc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4 & 1.4 converter for 700mm, 500i, f/8, 1/1250th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090129-184805-pc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 500/4, 500i, f/4, 1/1250th)

Shelley

22-05-2011, 4:57pm

Tony, excellent flash work and I just love that last shot.

Can you give some tips on using the flash in birding please??

Othrelos

22-05-2011, 5:30pm

"You're probably right. I don't get it. All my flash photographs of birds are crap. Maybe you could show me how to improve them so that they are decent."

you know it's very telling that you didn't use the 100-400mm f/4.5 ~5.6L for any of those flash photos but instead used the EF 500mm f/4L - not a bad lens however, I prefer to 400mm f/2.8's because they work better with a 2X teleconverters

WhoDo

22-05-2011, 5:41pm

Oh dear! The genie is out of the bottle now! I blame you PH005 (Paul). The next thing you know we'll ALL be suffering from a serious case of GAS! :lol:

Pat

22-05-2011, 6:27pm

For me there is only one lens for birding ,, 400L 5.6 , ok it does not have Is but you don't need it it's that fast , if you don't sell your shots then can you justify spending $8000 or $9000. :th3:

ColinGrenfell

22-05-2011, 6:36pm

I shoot with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 1.4xTC on a 7D - OK the non-IS version which has been discontinued for a new one with IS. I don't shoot motorsport, but all the reports I have seen are that it is the lens of choice for motorsport in the states due to sharpness, IQ, zoom and speed. I feel it is a much better lens than the 100-400L - with a lower cost than the Canon products.

I hardly ever take off the TC as I need the reach for birding, but I would think with much larger subjects in motosport 300mm with max.f2.8 would be useful.

Sorry to put a spanner in the works, but comparing the Sigma 120-400 to a Canon L lens is a little unfair - the new Canon 200-400 I think would be the one to compare to my combo, however you will find the cost hugely different (ok probably much better as well).

PH005

22-05-2011, 8:40pm

Oh dear! The genie is out of the bottle now! I blame you PH005 (Paul). The next thing you know we'll ALL be suffering from a serious case of GAS! :lol:

Thanks Waz. I only pulled the cork out. :confused013 :D

Tannin

22-05-2011, 10:10pm

Yes Richard, those are dreadful pictures, as bad as mine. I'm not even sure why you bother pressing the shutter. :eek:

you know it's very telling that you didn't use the 100-400mm f/4.5 ~5.6L for any of those flash photos but instead used the EF 500

Yes. It is probably impossible to take a decent picture with flash and a 100-400. Look at this dud.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/10/100124-171039-fpc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 100-400 @ 400mm, 800i, f/6.3, 1/800th)

The 400 prime is no damn good either.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090204-152516-qpc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 400/5.6, 500i, f/7.1, 1/1000th)

Seriously now, Othrelos, if you have to do some work in low light, wouldn't you reach for your fastest lens? Of course I mostly use the 500/4 - it's not just faster than the 100-400, it's longer, and even sharper.

The big drawback with a 500/4, though, is weight and bulk. It is very difficult to use hand-held for any length of time, and in any case, with flash, you want to get the flash off-camera to avoid red-eye, and that means a cumbersome flash bracket. End result: you are working from a fairly fixed position, and if moving at all, only slowly and awkwardly. The 400/2.8 must be even worse.

This is one of the reasons why I still like my 100-400: it's just so easy - hold it in one hand, carry it around all day, don't worry about close-up rings and all that cumbersome, awkward fiddling to fit them, and remove them, you can let the bird come right up to you and still focus .... any way you slice it, the 100-400 is a very nice lens to use, and I still use mine a lot (though being a bit strange, probably more for landscapes than birds :)).

But once flash comes into the equation, the convenience of a 100-400 goes straight out the window. You are probably using a tripod if you are using flash, and you are certainly using a tripod if you are (as you mostly should be) using an off-camera flash bracket. At this point you have sacrificed the convenience, the weight, and the ease of movement: you have pretty much thrown away all the things that made you want to use the 100-400 in the first place! The only advantages that remain are the closer MFD and the ability to zoom, and the MFD doesn't really count as this is a circumstance where close-up rings are no real inconvenience.

So to gain the ability to zoom and not much else, you give up reach, a full stop of speed, much faster focus, brighter viewfinder, and ultimate big white prime image quality. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Still, I have used the 100-400 to do flash work. Typically I'll have it handy on a second body while I'm standing at the tripod with the big 500, and switch to the 100-400 if the creature come in very close.

But obviously, if I didn't have the 500/4, I'd use the 100-400 all the time, with or without flash, and be happy to do so. It's an excellent lens, elderly and way past due for an update, but still the best all-round birding lens there is under about $7000.

agb

22-05-2011, 10:17pm

Yes Richard, those are dreadful pictures, as bad as mine. I'm not even sure why you bother pressing the shutter. :eek:
Tannin you have some beautiful photos on your web site.
And I think the page, if that is what it is called that is the background for the home page is great.
When all this dies down tell me about flash sync or whatever it is at fast shutter speeds please. I thought that it was only possible at up to somewhere about 1/250th.

Yes. It is probably impossible to take a decent picture with flash and a 100-400. Look at this dud.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/10/100124-171039-fpc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 100-400 @ 400mm, 800i, f/6.3, 1/800th)

The 400 prime is no damn good either.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090204-152516-qpc.jpg

(580EX II, 1D III, 400/5.6, 500i, f/7.1, 1/1000th)

Seriously now, Othrelos, if you have to do some work in low light, wouldn't you reach for your fastest lens? Of course I mostly use the 500/4 - it's not just faster than the 100-400, it's longer, and even sharper.

The big drawback with a 500/4, though, is weight and bulk. It is very difficult to use hand-held for any length of time, and in any case, with flash, you want to get the flash off-camera to avoid red-eye, and that means a cumbersome flash bracket. End result: you are working from a fairly fixed position, and if moving at all, only slowly and awkwardly. The 400/2.8 must be even worse.

This is one of the reasons why I still like my 100-400: it's just so easy - hold it in one hand, carry it around all day, don't worry about close-up rings and all that cumbersome, awkward fiddling to fit them, and remove them, you can let the bird come right up to you and still focus .... any way you slice it, the 100-400 is a very nice lens to use, and I still use mine a lot (though being a bit strange, probably more for landscapes than birds :)).

But once flash comes into the equation, the convenience of a 100-400 goes straight out the window. You are probably using a tripod if you are using flash, and you are certainly using a tripod if you are (as you mostly should be) using an off-camera flash bracket. At this point you have sacrificed the convenience, the weight, and the ease of movement: you have pretty much thrown away all the things that made you want to use the 100-400 in the first place! The only advantages that remain are the closer MFD and the ability to zoom, and the MFD doesn't really count as this is a circumstance where close-up rings are no real inconvenience.

So to gain the ability to zoom and not much else, you give up reach, a full stop of speed, much faster focus, brighter viewfinder, and ultimate big white prime image quality. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Still, I have used the 100-400 to do flash work. Typically I'll have it handy on a second body while I'm standing at the tripod with the big 500, and switch to the 100-400 if the creature come in very close.

But obviously, if I didn't have the 500/4, I'd use the 100-400 all the time, with or without flash, and be happy to do so. It's an excellent lens, elderly and way past due for an update, but still the best all-round birding lens there is under about $7000.

Othrelos

22-05-2011, 10:31pm

"Seriously now, Othrelos, if you have to do some work in low light, wouldn't you reach for your fastest lens? Of course I mostly use the 500/4 - it's not just faster than the 100-400, it's longer, and even sharper"

So this is at least a tacit admission that the 100-400mm f/4.5~5.6 isn't all that it's cracked up to be @ 400mm? - and that is all i'm saying, i'm accustomed to the image quality from Canon and Nikon range of long primes. I do use a sigma 100-300mm f/4 and FA*600mm f/4 with a Pentax K7 and that combination works very well, though the sigma is left wanting in comparison to the FA* lens @ f/4.

With my full frame cameras I used to switch between the canon EF 200mm f/1.8L and EF400mm f/2.8L IS and swap the 2X teleconverters between them. Though I sold my canon 400mm f/2.8L IS some time ago and I am now using a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR lens on my D3s. I'm keeping the EF 200mm f/1.8 because it is simply a phenomenal lens, and one of the fastest lenses of it's kind. I'm presently looking at the Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR to replace it.

Tannin

22-05-2011, 10:38pm

It certainly is not!

You have this weird gearhead idea stuck in your head and you have had comprehensive proof presented to you nine different ways - not just from me - that the idea is w.r.o.n.g. wrong but you just stick religiously to it no matter what.

I give up.

If you want to take this any further, you will need to present some evidence, such as photographs of a clearly superior quality.

kiwi

22-05-2011, 10:45pm

The fact that looking at the examples that a $1500 lens gets anywhere near a $7000 lens is a pretty good value proposition I would have thought. I certainly wouldn't expect a 80-400 Nikon at 400 wide open to be quite as sharp as my 400 prime either, and it's not. Then again there's also a huge price variation.

Tannin

22-05-2011, 10:55pm

It wasn't a $7000 lens when I bought it.

sob

I could buy a 5D II and have change if I'd bought my 500/4 yesterday instead of when they were ten grand plus. And all my pictures in this thread would make a certain poster happy, 'cause they'd be made with a 100-400 or not made at all. :eek:

Gollum

23-05-2011, 8:31am

This is one of the few interesting discussions on this forum, even though it has gone OT, people are at least expressing their opinions.

On the topic of the 100-400L being soft. This lens is, at least, two generations of optics behind current Canon releases. This means that the statement from Othrelos is correct. If you compare this lens with current technology lenses it is soft.

The 200mm f1.8 was, unarguably, the sharpest lens in Canon’s range and possibly the market (even many Nikon sports shooters said it was the best). A few years ago it was superseded by the 200mm f2 and when you compare the charts the 1.8 is now soft.

When you are talking about Canon L Series “What is old is soft, what is new is sharp”.

I @ M

23-05-2011, 8:41am

Gollum, I don't see it as going off topic at all, the thread is about the suitability of a lens for "birding" and Paul has received plenty of replies advising him on various lenses and among those lenses is the 100-400 that is being "discussed" regarding its merits as a birding lens.

Now I don't have said lens or any of the other exotic Canon lenses mentioned but I can see the results in images on here that leave no doubt in my mind that it produces very sharp images and I for the life of me cannot fathom your reasoning behind your statement that just because it is old it is not up to standard.

Can you please show us images that you have taken with that lens and then the current generation lenses that you are comparing it to so that we can see how much sharper the "new" ones are in real life usage.

Gollum

23-05-2011, 10:21am

I @ M

As for the OT comment, some of the discussion has moved to Flash, Megapixels and PP, and some should remember we are talking about a 40D body. I’m not saying that this OT discussion is wrong, I fact I have been learning from it and would like it to continue.

My statement about the newer technology lens being sharper than the older version is a statement of fact, it’s not my opinion.

You are talking about what is good enough and that is purely subjective (I never used the term up to standard). There are some here who will never be satisfied unless they have the newest and best equipment. While there are others that say the Sigma 150-500 is as sharp as a tack. In my opinion its as sharp as a Crayon in the hands of a 2 year old, but that’s only my opinion, I’m sure that the owner(s) are very happy with the results.

What I presented in my original post were the facts about the 3 lenses I was interested in and what caused me to make my decision. If I have made any errors of fact in this data, I would be happy to acknowledge them. I also provided links so that these lenses could be compared for CA & Sharpness. These are all tools so that anybody in the same situation can make an informed decision.

The decision in the end is up to the user.

As for pictures, I have not had my new lens for very long, so when I get a chance to go birding (and it stops raining and the sun comes out, a Melbourne winter remember) I hope to post some images.

Art Vandelay

23-05-2011, 10:25am

Great discussion, with some awesome images popping up as well. Thanks to all posters.

piXelatedEmpire

23-05-2011, 10:41am

Firstly, I gotta say, this is one of the best threads I've read on these forums.. just in time for the May prizes eh? ;)

Also, if you can stretch it to a 100-400mm L canon (and Mongo recommends a good second hand one of these which should be more affordable) it seems to give really superb results (look at Richard Hall and Shelley’s stuff). Maybe a straight canon 400 f5.6L
I think you'll find Shelley uses the 400 f5.6 prime.

not if you plan on using it at 400mm all the time, the canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is rather soft at 400mm f/5.6.

On the topic of the 100-400L being soft. This lens is, at least, two generations of optics behind current Canon releases. This means that the statement from Othrelos is correct. If you compare this lens with current technology lenses it is soft.

The later production runs of the 100-400mm are rumoured to have addressed the "soft" image issues reportedly experienced with some copies of the earlier produced lenses.

I've read countless discussion about the apparent "soft" images produced by the 100-400, mostly old discussions, especially at 400mm. But I just don't see the proof. The images I have seen produced by this lens, and I've viewed plenty, would certainly counter that arguement. And while some of the earlier produced lenses may have suffered from soft images at 400mm, indeed it would appear that the more recent samples of this lens do not suffer from such issues.

At the long end your working aperture will most likely be f/11 - and again, that is far too slow IMO, especially if you use flash like most wildlife photographers do, and High ISO won't be of much use.

Why would you most likely be at f11?

But once flash comes into the equation, the convenience of a 100-400 goes straight out the window. You are probably using a tripod if you are using flash

I'd disagree with this. I use flash with my 100-400mm, and it certainly doesn't reduce the convenience of using the lens compared to the larger primes. I use my set up with a monopod, and while the set up does become heavier, it is still MUCH more portable than a 500mm f4, still with the convenience of zoom and MFD. And for the areas I tend to photograph birds (bushland and forest type areas), the zoom and MFD are a must.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE one of the big primes as well, but I wouldn't give up my 100-400mm for it. And the 100-400mm would still get more use due to its versatility.

When you are talking about Canon L Series “What is old is soft, what is new is sharp”.

:confused013

PH005

23-05-2011, 11:13am

I would like to thank a lot of you Guys n Gals for One thing. Making the job of choosing a lot Harder ! I never thought that the response would be so great, and the knowledge, detail, imagery, and emotion would be so intense. I'm feeling like every few hours I change my mind when I read something new here, or something that someone has recommended to read. Information overload. I guess that in the end the decision is mine alone and if down the track I feel it was the wrong one, then I have no one else to blame because all the views and advice was here for me to ponder. Many many thanks again, and keep doing what you all do so well, which helps make this site so Great.

Cheers, Paul

ps. I wont tell you what I get. I will just post up a pic and see if you can guess. :D

kiwi

23-05-2011, 11:30am

Paul, Im sure that in Brisbane there are a number of members that have a 100-400......perhaps it would be a good idea to have a meet-up and actuially borrow one to have a go with.

PH005

23-05-2011, 11:43am

A good idea Kiwi, but I am 99.99% certain on my choice now. Think I'll just take the plunge....again. :)

I @ M

23-05-2011, 1:08pm

Gollum, let's go back to the start, Paul was specifically seeking views on a "birding" lens ( with some motor sport thrown in ) and the resultant views and discussion have covered many facets of a choice for a birding lens.
I don't consider discussion on flash technique or suitability in conjunction with XXXX lens to be going off topic.
I don't consider discussion on megapixels and post processing in conjunction with the suitability of XXXX lens to be going off topic as the megapixel count of a camera will always have a bearing on suitability for cropping which is after all part of post processing, just as CA removal from a particular lens is now so easy in this day and age to do with post processing.

Yep, we can see that Paul is currently using a 40D body, just as images presented in this thread are taken with a 40D body.
Should he jump up the megapixel ladder to something like a 7D he may find that the newer and supposedly better body will stretch the resolution ability of the lens but somehow I can't see that step making the lens any "softer".

OK, maybe my phrase of "up to standard" was not the best way of putting it.
Let us substitute that with "acceptably sharp" and apply it directly to the images presented on here.
We all know it when we have taken unacceptably sharp images, we all grin like Cheshire cats when we take pictures that are all acceptably sharp and stand up to pixel peeping, the difference from acceptably sharp to make you suck your breath in, nearly faint and start drooling sharp are usually measured in obscenely high dollars.

Do you see unacceptable images in terms of sharpness take with a 40D body and the 100-400 lens? I don't and I have no doubt that they would print perfectly sharply as well.

Yes, I agree that later generation lenses may be sharper but a statement was made that the 100-400 is "rather soft" when used at 400mm simply do not stand up when the images provided prove otherwise. You further propagated that statement by saying it is correct. I think that you and the original poster of that statement are wrong, I see no images posted to support that theory yet I see plenty to debunk it.

Yep, gear heads will always want the latest and greatest but as far as I can see there are people using a "rather soft" "old" lenses to good effect whilst some gear heads sit and polish their tripod collar locking knobs whilst reading reviews of a newer lens than they own made of unobtanium.

Gees, I am not a Canon user but the 100-400 has always impressed me because of a few things,
Nikon ( still :mad: ) don't make a lens to compare to it.
It covers a very useful focal range, topping out at 400mm which is widely regarded as the minimum length needed for birds on an APSC body.
It can actually be used to produce sharp images at 400mm and F/5.6.

kiwi

23-05-2011, 1:39pm

Andrew, I agree with what you have said re pixel peeping.....and let's face it the vast majority of bird photos (and motorsport for that matter) never are sold or used commercially, never are printed to above 8x10 (if at all), never get scrutinised apart from us at a pixel level.

So......if you can afford it and want the very best images money can buy - get a MkiiisD or whatever they are and a 600 f/4 - and there are MANY that will do so as a hobby. The same reason people will buy a Ferrari. Yes there is a difference between. It's relatively small however.

Its purely a personal choice

Now, Nikon does have a comparable lens - the 80-400 AF-S is it not ?

I @ M

23-05-2011, 1:57pm

Now, Nikon does have a comparable lens - the 80-400 AF-S is it not ?

Leave the S out of the model you mentioned above, that is what Nikon did and that is why that lens can't compare. :(

Maybe they will release one next month next year next decade, let's start a rumour. :D

Talk about getting off topic ------

ving

23-05-2011, 2:26pm

Gees, I am not a Canon user but the 100-400 has always impressed me because of a few things,
Nikon ( still :mad: ) don't make a lens to compare to it.
.nikon 200-400 f/4 VR? ;)

ok its not as portable but i reckon it'd be a hot lens to have.

Tannin

23-05-2011, 2:28pm

I thought I remembered a Nikon announcement not so long ago - six months maybe - that they were doing a new model of the 80-400 VR with ring USM. (Sorry, I forget the Nikon term for it. AFS? Whatever ... fast focus motor.) Did I imagine that? Maybe it was just a rumour? Maybe I have simply lost the plot.

jim

23-05-2011, 2:30pm

Good, now let's have a discussion on the same question, but with Nikon lenses.

Should be a bit shorter anyway.

kiwi

23-05-2011, 2:35pm

n, i think youre right, there was a flurry of rumours and yet no announcement.......I actually honestly thought it was af-s when they put VR in. Weird (and off topic)

kiwi

23-05-2011, 2:38pm

Good, now let's have a discussion on the same question, but with Nikon lenses.

Should be a bit shorter anyway.

OK - to get to 400mm+

Choice 1 - 70-200 and 2.0 TC
Choice 2 - 300 F/4 & 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TC
Choice 3 - 300 2.8 & TC
Choice 4 - 80-400
Choice 5 - 400 2.8
Choice 6 - 500 f/4
Choice 7 - 600 f/4
Choice 8 - 200-400 F/4

Not sure it's all that easier really

I @ M

23-05-2011, 2:42pm

nikon 200-400 f/4 VR? ;)

ok its not as portable but i reckon it'd be a hot lens to have.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :eek:

I @ M

23-05-2011, 2:44pm

Maybe it was just a rumour?

There have been a few of them, it is one of the "old" lenses in the line up that need a makeover, quite a good lens optically from what I have seen but the screw driven focus slows it badly.

jim

23-05-2011, 2:45pm

kiwi

23-05-2011, 2:50pm

Yes, agreed its slow. I have had a go with one and it was painful.....but....I have seen truly fantastic birdie pics taken with it too.

I @ M

23-05-2011, 2:51pm

OK - to get to 400mm+

Choice 1 - 70-200 and 2.0 TC
Choice 2 - 300 F/4 & 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TC
Choice 3 - 300 2.8 & TC
Choice 4 - 80-400
Choice 5 - 400 2.8
Choice 6 - 500 f/4
Choice 7 - 600 f/4
Choice 8 - 200-400 F/4

Not sure it's all that easier really

You forgot the word comparably and to me that means price as well as all the other bits. The Canon is priced about where you would expect a quality lens to be.
Choice --

1. expensive
2. fixed focal length
3. see #1
4. no afs
5.see #1
6.see #1
7.see #1
8.see #1

My solution, see post #56, Sigma 100-300 F/4 + 1.4 TC

Cheap, pretty good quality but heavy.

jim

23-05-2011, 2:58pm

You spot some birds doing something interesting and whip out your trusty 80-400. By the time it's achieved focus they've had a smoke, the female's on the phone and the male is in the kitchen going through the fridge.

Bennymiata

23-05-2011, 3:01pm

I'm almost sorry I was the one who originally suggested the 100-400L!

I don't find it soft at 400mm, or at 100mm or anywhere inbetween.

In fact, on Saturday I took some shots of a ship 5 km away at 100mm, and when I blew the photo up to full size, I could clearly read the ship's name on its stern, and this was something I could NOT see by eye.
Mind you, my 100-400 is only about 6 months old, so it may be one of the newer ones.

Just buy the 100-400L.
I'm sure you'll not only be happy with it, but ecstatic!
It's such a versatile lens, you'll find you use it for lots of stuff.

I thought i would only use it for birding and motorsports too, but now find I use it for landscapes, flowers, bugs, all sorts of things, and whatever I throw at it, it comes up with great, sharp pictures.

PH005

23-05-2011, 3:01pm

kiwi

23-05-2011, 3:03pm

...or you could god forbid manually focus :eek:

PH005

23-05-2011, 3:07pm

[QUOTE=Bennymiata;848220]

Just buy the 100-400L.
I'm sure you'll not only be happy with it, but ecstatic!

Yeah Benny. But dont ya just love the banter ? :D

Mark L

23-05-2011, 3:32pm

Worth a look http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931 for zooms
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59929 for prime lens.

mongo

23-05-2011, 3:36pm

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :eek:

but results can be spectacular or just ordinary - it is a very hit and miss lens in terms of keepers. Mongo thinks it is in the AF system that makes it a little touchy for accuracy. Just found out the VR1 model (and maybe the VR11) does not have a tripod mode like the 500mm and 600mm. This could also contribute to the problem until you really work out what works best with this lens and combination. Disappointing with all converters except X1.4. So, overall, for the $$$$$$$$$ MOngo expected much better. Nonetheless, when its stellar - it is really stellar and it may be unfair to judge it using a D200 body. In that regard, If Mongo had his time over again and knows what he knows now, he would have bought a good reasonably ranked second hand canon body and second hand 100-400 canon for this purpose with a lot of play-lunch money left over.

So, back to Mongo's original advice because Paul uses canon (not nikon) - get a canon 100-400 or 400 f5.6

PS - some of you guys are very easily excitable and Paul seems to have made a decision umpdeen posts ago - so why are we still posting ????

I @ M

23-05-2011, 3:38pm

PS - some of you guys are very easily excitable and Paul seems to have made a decision umpdeen posts ago - so why are we still posting ????

Simply so that we could sucker someone into making the 100th post in the thread. :p

mongo

23-05-2011, 3:42pm

...or you could god forbid manually focus :eek:

There is nothing wrong with manual focus !! Kiwi has surely been around professionally to have worked in the days of manual focus and still made a career of it. Admittedly , these days you have choice but that does not mean that manual focus is not one of the two choices.

mongo

23-05-2011, 3:44pm

Simply so that we could sucker someone into making the 100th post in the thread. :p

Did Mongo win that booby prize ? - if not, he will have another go in a bit. Kiwi is looking good for it

Othrelos

23-05-2011, 3:55pm

"My solution, see post #56, Sigma 100-300 F/4 + 1.4 TC"

Or just get the 100-300mm f/4 without the TC. the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG has the advantage of a 1 stop faster working aperture than the canon EF100-400L f/4.5-5.6L though the downside is that it doesn't have IS. Though if the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is any indication, sigma will remedy that eventually.

kiwi

23-05-2011, 4:06pm

Gollum

23-05-2011, 6:43pm

I @ M

Unfortunately you seem to have missed my point, I hope this will help you understand what I’m getting at.

With terms like soft and sharp we can all look at shots on this site and give our impression. Here is a couple of very nice shots done with a Sigma 150-500.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?84103-Introducing...another-Female-Wren

These IMO are truly very good shots, something to be proud of with this lens, but this is only my opinion. My opinion is that this is still a soft lens, no matter how many top shots I see.

When I’m checking out a lens I want something objective, this is the reason why I posted the link to a comparison tool.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I you use this link you can compare the 100-400L with any lens you wish, even a Nikon (this is definitely OT). If you would like to use this tool to find a softer L zoom lens, current technology in the 200mm or greater, then we can talk about soft and sharp.

If you don’t like this method I can also obtain MTF charts for most of these lenses as well, but they do take a lot to understand correctly.

Let me make this clear I’m not advocating any lens, even the one I have. Each person will buy based on their needs, likes, dislikes and most importantly budget. What is important is you have something objective to work with.

I @ M

23-05-2011, 8:20pm

Gollum,
I don't think I missed the point at all.

The original statement was ----

not if you plan on using it at 400mm all the time, the canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is rather soft at 400mm f/5.6.

and your statement was

This means that the statement from Othrelos is correct.

Despite plenty of shots taken with that lens at 400mm and F/5.6 that are sharp you still seem to want to drag other lenses into the equation.

How about a straight answer.

Do you say that the 100-400 is a soft lens when used at 400mm and F/5.6?

As for your next statement ---

If you would like to use this tool to find a softer L zoom lens, current technology in the 200mm or greater, then we can talk about soft and sharp.

of course I can't find a 400mm F/5.6 L zoom lens that is softer, there is only one.

PH005

23-05-2011, 9:46pm

Thank you Gollum for the link to the comparison chart. I spent some time going over different comparos and found it to be very interesting. Someone spent a lot of time to set that all up. I have read many reviews from that web site and find them to be good value also.

Cheers, Paul.

mongo

23-05-2011, 10:09pm

err no, for the record I used a Pentax P30 badly and in an amateur P&S manner for 6 months in circa 1984 and then picked up my fisrt DSLR (a D40 with both kit lenses) in November 2007

Ive never used a manual focus only lens in my life :eek: but that doesnt mean i dont use manual focus at times.

Kiwi, as far as the years and breadth of experience Mongo thought you had, Mongo will now have to treat you less venerably than he has been - consider yourself downgraded to merely "guru" status rather than "exalted one". :(

As far as never having used a manual lens, that is a truly worrying revelation. Are you one of those guys who thinks he is a great driver but can't drive a real car - a manual ?!! :D

kiwi

23-05-2011, 10:15pm

Lol, no, I drove manual cars up until recently, even now in my automatic i have now I still have fun using the flappy paddles :)

Othrelos

23-05-2011, 10:54pm

"I can't find a 400mm F/5.6 L zoom lens that is softer, there is only one. "

well there is your answer: the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is soft in comparison to lenses of that focal length from canon.

I'm not a fan of lenses slower than f/4 - sure they are typically smaller than faster lenses and in many cases cheaper - and some of them are outstanding performers when used within their limits. However being able to have a wider working aperture is always going to be an important consideration especially if someone intends on hand holding a lens and fast shutter speeds are called for. And what I mean about working aperture is where resolution and contrast from a lens is at it's peak, and this is what I look for in a lens so I don't have to waste time in front of my computer trying to wring every ounce of contrast and sharpness out of my files. I would rather be out taking photos.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/15921/1__APK1437.jpg

Gollum

24-05-2011, 9:08am

PH005

Something that you need to note is that many of the crops are taken with only a FF camera. This means that the CA you see in the corner crop of the 100-400L will be greatly reduced or even non-existent on your body (big plus for the crop body). This is because the crop body you have uses less of the glass area, you can see how much if you go to the lens flair section (see link below for the 100-400L and 70-200L IS II). You will notice in these images there is a rectangle superimposed to show where the crop sensor operates.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I @ M

I have just had a few suggestions for analogies that might help explain what I’m talking about with soft and sharp.

If you go to a PC Gamer and say that a 2 generation old PC & Video card combination (3 years old) is fast, he would think that you are crazy, as this is so old and slow.
If you look at the Glossy Mags from the 70’s & 80’s (shots taken with top of the range Hasselblad gear no doubt) but you wouldn’t call these images sharp. In fact top of the range lenses from the 70’s & 80’s would be regarded as consumer grade today.

The term sharp and soft are always relative to what we (the viewer) consider normal or the best.

The reason why many Pro’s have just traded up their 70-200 f2.8 L IS lenses to 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is IQ. As this is current generation zoom technology it should be regarded as the best from Canon (until we see the 200-400 f4 L no doubt). If I use the lens comparison toll to compare the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II set at 200mm/f2.8 with any setting of the 100-400L or 70-300L, it is the clear winner in IQ (Sharpness, CA, distortion and flare).

How many of us stop to think just how good the camera and imaging technology is today. When you compare the 70-200 f2.8 L (1995) with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II (2010) you see an outstanding improvement in imaging technology, 15 years and 2 generations.

Canon Engineering & Imaging brilliance for all to see.

I @ M

24-05-2011, 9:25am

Gollum, there were two statements made directly about that lens without references to other lenses within the Canon range, without reference to other brands and without reference to pc games.

The first was by othrelios saying that the 100-400 is rather soft at 400mm and F/5.6, the other statement was made by you and you said that he is right.

I will put the simple question to you again, a yes or no answer without obscure refernces is all that is required.

Do you stand by your statement that the 100-400mm F/5.6 lens is rather soft?

Gollum

24-05-2011, 11:20am

I @ M

Yes, I standby my statements.

jim

24-05-2011, 12:57pm

If you look at the Glossy Mags from the 70’s & 80’s (shots taken with top of the range Hasselblad gear no doubt) but you wouldn’t call these images sharp.

You don't think they made sharp photos in the '80s? For goodness sake, you can make a sizzlingly sharp image with a hundred year old Tessar. And a good 50mm F2 from the '50s would easily compare with much of today's pro gear for sharpness.

Othrelos

24-05-2011, 5:35pm

"you can make a sizzlingly sharp image with a hundred year old Tessar. And a good 50mm F2 from the '50s would easily compare with much of today's pro gear for sharpness"

I agree, for instance The pentax takumar 50mm f/1.4 - introduced in the 60's. Optically nothing to write home about at f/1.4, but at f/4~f/5.6 it is just as sharp as any other fast 50mm lens out there - the SMC takumars are still widely regarded as the best M42 lenses around.

though with telephoto lenses manufacturers tended to cut corners, even the old Carl Zeiss Sonnar 250mm f/5.6 lenses for the 501 series cameras were not all that great optically - telephoto lenses were largely a niche product in those days. Pentax produced the 67 800mm f/4 which had some nasty LoCa that wasn't eliminated until they came out with the M*800mm f/6.7 ED - and used an apochromatic lens design, for once.

Shelley

24-05-2011, 10:40pm

It is with interest I have followed this thread and with some amusement on the direction it has taken. To Paul, I say don't think just because you have "the lens" you now are guaranteed those bird shots or whatever genre you go to. I will talk about the bird shots, cause, well I consider myself a birder.

Know your subject, go back again and again - anticipate where they will go "for the shot of the day"
Angle you shoot - background is important
have you branches blocking the bird
Some good stalking skills, won't go astray (closer you get to the bird - the sharper the image) your image from 2 miles away won't be sharp whatever lens you use :D

At the end of the day it was Tony that got the shot with the help of 500 or whatever he uses and Richard got the shot because of his patience and skill on stalking and getting close, yes he tweaked the 100-400 to sing for him (but it was his skill).

To be a good birder it takes more than the lens on the end of your camera - though it does provide help.

Paul, I look forward to what you produce when you get your lens.

Kym

24-05-2011, 10:54pm

Hmmm... Facts based posts vs opinions ... I'll go with the advice of those who posted real life sample images. :th3:

Pine

25-05-2011, 3:01am

PH005

25-05-2011, 7:45am

Thank you Shelley for those very handy tips and sound advise. I have narrowed my list down to just two now. The 100-400 ( not surprisingly ) and the 300 F4 IS, which I think maybe OK with the 1.4X to get the min reach I will need.

Bennymiata

25-05-2011, 11:47am

Or if you're flush with cash and can wait a few months, Canon have an all-new 200-400mm L F2.8 lens with a built in 1.4 converter just about to be launched.
Mind you, they reckon it will cost around $12,000!

Sounds perfect to me!

PH005

25-05-2011, 12:41pm

Tannin

25-05-2011, 1:40pm

1: Should be a very nice lens indeed - the long-awaited Canon response to the excellent Nikkor 200-400/4 VR.

2: f/4, not f/2.8! A 200-400/2.8 would weigh around 4kg and cost around $15,000!

3: Should be a bit less than $12,000. Around $6-7k would be fair. (So expect more - maybe high nines.)

4: will NOT be a replacement for the 100-400/4.5-5.6! Apart from the cost, it will be vastly bigger and heavier - probably around 3kg (as compared to 1.4kg). Think of it as a competitor / near alternative to the 500/4, not as an upgraded 100-400.

5: some people will say it is soft and ignore all evidence to the contrary

bricat

25-05-2011, 1:58pm

I'm sorry but I am waiting to see some more of those poor quality images. It really is disapointing to see such a display from so many respected members. I'm surprised they put their names to the post. Anyway give me a few more.............

Tannin

25-05-2011, 2:27pm

I hear you, Bricat. This 100-400 image at 400mm is so soft that I'm ashame-

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/110223-133049-_1.jpg

Well, actually it was someone else that took it. It was ... um ... Shelly did it! Honest! Don't blame me!

I @ M

25-05-2011, 5:34pm

Here's some more soft images taken at 400mm I found on the net.

Rich, you should be ashamed of yourself!!!!

That is how lenses, cameras and companies get bad reputations, people that keep repeating things that they "hear" on the net.

Stingray

25-05-2011, 7:54pm

hi paul, i have the Sigma 120-400 as well.. and although I am not 100% happy with it (wether its me or the lens I dont get as "Sharp" photos as I would like when birding), I cannot really complain as my insurance purchaced it in replacing a soligor 100-400mm that got dropped .. I am thinking of renting a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens to see if I can get soem better quality bird shots .. and if so then I will start thinking about saving for the $2000+ it will cost me .. LOL

PH005

25-05-2011, 11:16pm

Cheers Stingray. I am still Humming and Harring. When you view images like the ones above it kinda makes you think, " maybe I could get ONE shot as good as this " :rolleyes: Trying is half the fun. :th3:

PH005

25-05-2011, 11:19pm

Tannin and Richard. Stop showing off. :) Naaaa, Keep posting those "soft" shots. :D

PH005

26-05-2011, 7:57am

OK Guys n Gals I've finally done it. I laid down my hard earnt and ordered a.................................................................................................... EF 300 f4 IS usm. ( will be getting a 1.4X also ).

mongo

26-05-2011, 10:34am

Well, It has all been said on this post (perhaps some of it should not have been).

But rejoice members, our brother PHoo5 has been enlightened by all our wild encouragement to ultimately invest in equipment for birding prowess. After all, that is what this post was originally all about. So all of this may have achieved its purpose.

The next thing Mongo wants to see and hear about are Ph005's images and what he thinks of his new acquisitions. Mongo is almost certain that will start a fresh round of controversy and hot debate - can't wait !

PH005, congrats and good shooting - show us the goods when you are ready

cheers
Mongo

agb

26-05-2011, 10:52am

PH005

26-05-2011, 4:52pm

:D
Well, It has all been said on this post (perhaps some of it should not have been).

But rejoice members, our brother PHoo5 has been enlightened by all our wild encouragement to ultimately invest in equipment for birding prowess. After all, that is what this post was originally all about. So all of this may have achieved its purpose.

The next thing Mongo wants to see and hear about are Ph005's images and what he thinks of his new acquisitions. Mongo is almost certain that will start a fresh round of controversy and hot debate - can't wait !

PH005, congrats and good shooting - show us the goods when you are ready

cheers
Mongo

Thanks Mongo. It has been rather interesting and sometimes damn right hilarious reading. I hope no one has been personally offended by any of the remarks. As for my new acquisitions, hopefully will arrive next week. Early BD present to oneself. :D

PH005

26-05-2011, 4:55pm

Congratulations. I hope you love it, as you will.

Thanks agb. Your are a close neighbour. I was in Cleveland today, and whle I was walking around the marina thought, why didn't I bring my camera.

agb

26-05-2011, 5:40pm

Thanks agb. Your are a close neighbour. I was in Cleveland today, and whle I was walking around the marina thought, why didn't I bring my camera.
My wife and I walked through there this afternoon too, and at about 4.30 it was about the most calm and reflective that I have seen it for a while and the boats were in sunlight. Looked worth a photo, but I too did not have my camera.

Shelley

26-05-2011, 8:46pm

congrats, you will be pleased :). I really look forward to what you do next with it.

Annette, another birder on this forum and friend, used to use that combination - she produced some pretty good images with it. :th3:

Max

26-05-2011, 8:48pm

I didn`t just want a good lens for birding I also wanted one with fast auto focus when I chase the kids around. As weathersealing and IS was important for me, therefore I chose the 70-300L. I still got he old 75-300 on the Sony so new what range I was getting. Being able to take your gear out in any weather shouldn`t be underestimated.
My best mate has the 100-400L and a 40D, I have used it a bit and tried it on the 7D. It focus is quick, but not as quick as the 70-300L.
I guess it depends on what birding you are doing, if you are chasing small birds you can get plenty close enough with it before you enter their threat zone. There is no doubt that the extra 100 is useful, but I needed the flexibility on the close end. Its more portable than the 100-400. The 7D in AI Servo and the 70-300L is brilliant at tracking fast moving objects.

I have used it with the kenko 1.4 extender and its a bit slower to focus, but quite alright. If you use the lens at 300mm plus extender it hunts a bit, but if you start at 270 and then zoom in it stays focused on the target. The 70-300 L with extender cost me the same the 100-400L would have.

If they ever refresh/upgrade the 100-400L, better IS and weathersealing ( mate had his back to canon twice to get dust out of it after a couple of dusty Avalon airshows, but it is 10 years old), it would be hard to beat. I found it too hard to hand over cash for the old 100-400L as good as it is, I think I would rather get the 400L 5.6 prime the 500F4 if I could ever justify the cost.

ving

01-06-2011, 3:21pm

this has been one very funny thread. I'd like to thank all that contributed :D

hmm... loving those soft shots guys

Othrelos

02-06-2011, 9:08pm

enjoy your Canon 300mm f/4L it's a very good lens for the price....though as someone said earlier longer lenses are nice but if you show respect and let the local wildlife get to know you, you will be astonished at how close you can get...For instance I got this kookaburra portrait with a Pentax K-7 and the Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 - without cropping.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/93397d1307010585-post-your-%831-2-photos-%831-2-only-_cpk1201-jpg

PH005

02-06-2011, 9:12pm

this has been one very funny thread. I'd like to thank all that contributed :D

hmm... loving those soft shots guys

Sure was Ving. Cheers.

PH005

02-06-2011, 9:15pm

Thank you again Othrelos. I hope I made the right choice. I have a X1.4 coming for it also. So that should get me pretty close. Look out for my first shots. Fingers crossed. :)

ps. Love the Kookaburra.

PH005

02-06-2011, 9:18pm

Finally. If there is anyone still interested in this post to read it. I would like to thank each and everyone of you who contributed to this discussion and help me come to a final choice.

Regards, Paul.

I @ M

02-06-2011, 9:29pm

Purely to take it further off topic:

For instance I got this kookaburra portrait with a Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 - without cropping.

50mm is pretty lame, 10mm uncropped is the way to go with kookaburras.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/10mm%20Kooka.JPG

Kym

02-06-2011, 9:32pm

Birding at 10mm ... Great work!!

Othrelos

02-06-2011, 9:41pm

Kym

02-06-2011, 10:00pm

"50mm is pretty lame, 10mm uncropped is the way to go with kookaburras."
not bad, with all that DOF you get from a 10mm lens it's pretty hard not to get a result like that with a static subject. And is that a shadow from the lens hood I see?

Chill :lol: Andrew is having a bit of fun. At 10mm the Kooka has to be damn close ... so even if the shadow is from the lens hood (and I don't think it is) its an excellent piece of work

Art Vandelay

03-06-2011, 12:06am

That's one mean and chubby Kookaburra Andrew. Love it. :th3:

agb

03-06-2011, 8:54am

And there was I thinking that everything that could be said about birding lenses had been said pages ago.:D

Kym

03-06-2011, 9:01am

Now there's a challenge ... birds at 10mm !!

PH005

03-06-2011, 9:03am

That would test the stalking ability Kym. ;) This thread is like a cockroach, It just wont DIE ! :D

agb

03-06-2011, 9:48am

The thread had such an innocent title too.

DNA

15-06-2011, 4:26pm

Personally, I would not recommend a zoom for birds. I can count on one hand out of tens of thousands of shots when I wished I had shorter than 400mm to be honest. :)

Shooting birds you will most often need the longer end of that 100-400 lens. I contemplated the 400/5.6L and that 100-400. Ended up with the 300/4L IS since I like the MFD at 1.5 meters as well as the IS. I used to hand hold lots with that lens (my new one likes a tripod as it's quite large) so IS is awesome for hand holding. The 300 also makes an excellent portrait and close-up lens.

I have used the 300/4L IS for the past three and a half years with excellent results. Sure, it needs a converter to get to 420mm and 600mm (loses AF on all but the 1D bodies with the 2x) but it certainly made me more careful and the better photographer (I sure hope so).

Whatever you end up getting, I am sure will be far better than any Sigma. As long as it's an L lens. :) Cheers and happy bird photographing..... :th3:

I @ M

15-06-2011, 5:02pm

Personally, I would not recommend a zoom for birds. I can count on one hand out of tens of thousands of shots when I wished I had shorter than 400mm to be honest. :)

Different strokes for different folks I guess, personally I haven't photographed a bird with anything other than a zoom lens --- and plenty of those shots have been at 200mm and less. :)

Tannin

15-06-2011, 7:04pm

I disagree.

Yes, I mostly use a prime for birding, but the 100-400 zoom is very handy too. The main reason to go for a 100-400 is, I reckon, the massive advantage that IS provides, but the ability to zoom is useful too, and not just for landscapes and mammals, birds also.

Here are some examples where the ability to use less than 400mm for a bird shot was very handy.

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/091108-123707-1rrfmvc.jpg

(340mm - 20D, 400i, f/5.6 1/250th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/06/061128-111307-3821fc.jpg

(330mm - 20D, 800i, f/6.7, 1/1500th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/06/061210-124001-4853b3fca.jpg

(190mm - 20D, 200i, f/6.7 1/2000th)

Besides, sometimes someone else is using the prime lens and I have to use the zoom .... :eek:

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/101213-064949-.jpg

(100mm - 1D III, 400i, f/11 1/250th. Unprocessed, uncropped. Should have used f/8 or 5.6, but too late now.)

mrDooba

15-06-2011, 8:42pm

haha Hope the Yellow-throated didn't leave any surprises :D

DNA

15-06-2011, 9:13pm

Not everyone has to agree Tony, I merely offered my personal view. :) IN your shots I counted three times, so for me that's less than a handful. ;) Cheers mate. :p

Tannin

04-07-2011, 11:01pm

In your shots I counted three times, so for me that's less than a handful.

Cheers mate. No worries. Is another three or four enough for the sake of example? Say the word if you want more. :)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/08/080924-171718-rqc.jpg

(275mm - 20D, 400i, f/8, 1/1000th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/06/060930-142127-3496f.jpg

(20D, 200i, f/6.7, 1/1500th)

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/091205-065223-fpc.jpg

(320mm - 20D, 400i, f/7.1, 1/3200th

http://tannin.net.au/upload/08/080310-160528-1jr.jpg

(260mm - 40D, 400i, f6.3, 1/160th)

Woops! That last one wasn't a bird - but that's the point, isn't it - you just don't know what creature is going to pop up next, so it's really handy to have a versatile lens mounted on your camera.

Bottom line: yes Virginia, you really do use the zoom range when you are shooting birds with a 100-400.

Pine

05-07-2011, 6:44am

Pine

05-07-2011, 6:46am

Great shots Tannin :lol:

Regards

Bennymiata

05-07-2011, 10:22am

Woops! That last one wasn't a bird - but that's the point, isn't it - you just don't know what creature is going to pop up next, so it's really handy to have a versatile lens mounted on your camera.

Bottom line: yes Virginia, you really do use the zoom range when you are shooting birds with a 100-400.

1/60, F13 Canon 100-400L at 275mm

74718

The 100-400 is useful for all sorts of things.

Cage

05-07-2011, 10:58am

Paul, have you seen this ?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/returns/

larrywen

05-07-2011, 12:07pm

Paul, have you seen this ?

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/returns/

Is this only for UK or for Australia as well?

Bandit4000

09-07-2011, 12:21am

DNA

27-07-2011, 2:14pm

Tony, would you mind posting full frame image of the Red-kneed Dotterel at 275mm? I am curious as to how you were able to get so close to shoot with such short FL. Or is that a big crop? Thanks mate.

Tannin

27-07-2011, 2:31pm

Cheers DNA. It's a pretty big crop, but yes, it came very close. I just sat in the car beside the water and tried to keep reasonably still for an hour or two and let the birds do as they pleased. I was really after Black-tailed Native Hens but you never say no to whatever comes along, do you. :)

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/080924-171718-rq.jpg

DNA

27-07-2011, 2:57pm

Thanks Tony. I thought you were trying to make me look stupid with your smartie posts earlier and it appears that I was right and it worked. In my opinion, a 400mm or longer lens would have given you a far better quality image than cropping this above image to some 1/5th of its original size. My point was meant to be and is proven now that people tend to crop images to bits, whereas I personally like to get as close to a full frame image in camera as possible. Hence why I would NEVER consider using a lens shorter than 400mm unless in a zoo or at a duck pond and I will always stick to that advice. :) If people look at the image you have posted earlier they would think that gee, I can do that at 275mm? Would you think they would be amazed? I think so, but experienced photographers would know better. The inexperienced ones will not. I think presenting actual facts when advising about equipment is useful for less experienced photographers when it comes from experienced photographers like you or others. I think I will refrain from advising in future because I feel that I really have little value to add to any discussion, because I have little or no idea about equipment or photographic technique when it comes to photographing wildlife; therefore, I would hate to mislead people who might be genuinely interested in learning something useful.

Tannin

27-07-2011, 3:23pm

^ With respect, that is nonsense, DNA.

I had, and still have, no intention of trying to make you "look stupid". You are perfectly entitled to use a prime lens if that is what you prefer. I use one myself for bird work about 80% of the time.
It is not sensibly possible to fill the frame with a moving bird reliably, and most certainly impossible to do that and achieve sharp focus. You need space around the bird to work with. This is one of the great advantages of zooms for bird work. Ideally I'd have preferred a bit less space and a bit more bird in this particular example, but far, far better to leave too much and crop a bit than leave too little and throw away the shot. It's the result that counts, and I submit that the final version is worth keeping. In the case of this particular shot, I probably overcooked the zooming out as the bird came closer - easy done with the push-pull 100-400 - (or perhaps I was half-wondering whether to go for a bird plus reflection composition - give me a break here, this was winter 2008 and I don't recall every detail now) but I most certainly could not have got this shot with a 400mm or 500mm prime. They don't focus anywhere near close enough, and there would not have been time to fit an extension tube. (Indeed, the fact that, as is my habit, I had a 500mm Canon prime and a 1D III on the front seat beside me but chose not to use them speaks to this point.)
You are perfectly entitled and indeed welcome to advise others, DNA. You have demonstrated in other threads that you can make quality bird photographs and that seems to me to be a pretty good qualification for having an opinion. (Not that most people need qualifications!) Similarly, I am also entitled to offer advice. The reader is free to make his own assessment as to the worth of that various advice. I imagine that some readers will follow yours, and others will follow mine., That is as it should be - diversity is good!

I @ M

27-07-2011, 3:24pm

If people look at the image you have posted earlier they would think that gee, I can do that at 275mm?

And so they can do that at 275 mm just as that one was taken. Many many photographers crop, either to bring the subject into more prominence or for compositional reasons or both.
The fact that that image was taken at 275mm and stands as a good clear image is testament to several things, the photographer knew what they were doing with their gear both pre capture and post and also that the gear is up to scratch to record the image well.
Simply put, it is a fact that it was taken at 275mm and yes, others with the gear and the knowledge can reproduce that image at 275mm.