After 4 hours shooting with Canon 40D among gannets I deleted over 500 images out of 1500. I had changed lens from 100-400mm to 24-105mm about half-way through the session. Image stabilizer was on using both lens. AV @ f/7.1 was the usual setting with ISO400. As I deleted on a good monitor I rated the best shots without knowing which lens was used.

So, having now checked out the lens usage, here are 2 bits of data ...

Survival rate (= not deleted)
-using 100-400 : 56%
-using 24-105 : 72%

Best flight shots
-using 100-400 : 26
-using 24-105 : 99

I could go further and say that the image quality of any of top 90 taken with 24-105 is not equalled by any of the top 20 using 100-400.

Summary: 24-105mm EF lens is remarkably fast and sharp. You may have known this all along. I am delighted and excited.

It is not really possible to judge the performance between both lenses unless both lenses were FIXED on 100mm throughout the test (eg the short zoom set at almost its maximum telephoto setting and the long zoom at its shortest - and widest - telephoto setting).

It's not surprising given the big difference in focal lengths and the subject, a relatively large/slow bird.

Shooting with a longer focal length is not as easy as it looks, even when you're zoomed out, the 100-400 is still a significantly heavier/longer lens.

It is not really possible to judge the performance between both lenses unless both lenses were FIXED on 100mm throughout the test (eg the short zoom set at almost its maximum telephoto setting and the long zoom at its shortest - and widest - telephoto setting).

Quite right Tony. There are several reasons, handheld and others, why my data does not add up to a scientific proof.

I am still encouraged to experiment further. This gannet shot taken with 24-105mm in bright sunlight is one of 90 that are better than any of thousands taken over 2 years with 100-400mm. The second shot, taken in dull daylight today, is the first flight shot of a black guillemot I have ever seen where the eye is discernible; again using 24-105.

I am a little unsure of your point here Brendon, you have no fact based results nor equal testing situations for comparison so what useful data are you offering? The lighting is also not equal or optimal under the conditions you were shooting given the photos you posted. Maybe I am not understanding you here but to me it looks like you are rambling with no point? Clarify if you will?
Even Tony's suggested comparison tips will not render accurate comparisons, far from it. You are comparing two different FL lenses on something other then a test pattern in a fixed situation? You will never get accurate results testing on anything but a fixed and constant target captured under exactly the same conditions as each other.
Each of the two lenses you refer to have different and distinct uses afield. Sure, they can both do captures out to 105 MM but one is made for shorter range and the other longer range. What specifically are you attempting to learn and what are you saying here?
As for your keeper to trasher results, welcome to the world of wildlife photography is about all I can say.
Tim

Although the 100-400 is used by a lot of people that's always been down to price and versatility - not image quality. It's been tested a lot and while not dreadful, it's not great either. Different league to the pro 300,400,500 and 600 Canons (different price bracket too).
Steve

I am a little unsure of your point here Brendon, you have no fact based results nor equal testing situations for comparison so what useful data are you offering? The lighting is also not equal or optimal under the conditions you were shooting given the photos you posted. Maybe I am not understanding you here but to me it looks like you are rambling with no point? Clarify if you will?

You are comparing two different FL lenses on something other then a test pattern in a fixed situation? You will never get accurate results testing on anything but a fixed and constant target captured under exactly the same conditions as each other.

<<<<< Each of the two lenses you refer to have different and distinct uses afield. >>>>>

Sure, they can both do captures out to 105 MM but one is made for shorter range and the other longer range. What specifically are you attempting to learn and what are you saying here?
As for your keeper to trasher results, welcome to the world of wildlife photography is about all I can say.
Tim

Not alone are you quite right in what you say Tim but a second glance at the 500 shots with 100-400mm showed that only 4 of those shots were taken at 100mm focal length, so even in that crucial detail I was comparing 500 handheld shots at 105mm with 496 handheld shots mainly at 250-350 focal length. That puts the futility of my experiment into sharp focus. How the changing light influences detail is illustrated below, though both were at 100mm, when using the 2 lenses. Any guesses which is taken with which lens?

So why did I want so much to learn from this 4 hour shooting experience that I rambled into a false comparison? I think it's because I am frequently confronted by statements like the one I have highlighted above when quoting your response. This statement seems to be factual but, like many such comments in the photography business, throughout manuals, handbooks, bibles, websites and countless reviews, it actually imparts very little. Tell me more, Tim, please about the "distinct uses" and their application.

Or better still share with us the gear, settings & after effects you used on a few, at least, of your marvellous shots of birds of prey in your gallery, which I enjoy very much.

I have both these lenses. The 100-400 is sharp wide open above 250mm. At least the lenses built in the last three years are. I had an old version that was not sharp.
Certainly its easier to shoot birds with a shorter lens. If the birds cooperate. Need to keep shutter above 1/1000th.
Why are we talking about still photography here?

Why are we talking about still photography here?

I second this question...

I have both these lenses. The 100-400 is sharp wide open above 250mm. At least the lenses built in the last three years are. I had an old version that was not sharp.
Certainly its easier to shoot birds with a shorter lens. If the birds cooperate. Need to keep shutter above 1/1000th.
Why are we talking about still photography here?

Don and Ofer

Fair question. For a few years now I've been hoping to learn that someone has found a camcorder and the settings that would give me single frames of birdflight as sharp as some of the stills of birdflight I can get. I'm not expecting more than a few frames to be as sharp as that in a 10 second clip. Don is correct about shutter speed above 1/1000th for shooting birdflight with dslr. I'm waiting for someone to tell me that if I use shutter of 1/1000th on my Sony V1 or Canon XL2 and tweak some settings I might get some really sharp frames. Some folks say "Who wants sharp frames? It's smooth sequence we should be looking for." I'd listen to a bit more depth on that subject, but not about compulsory tripod. For my few best flight moments a tripod was a non-starter.

Behind all my "birdflight" dreams is this "handheld" challenge. I mean something like this ... Birdflight, to me, is greatly improved if plumage detail can be clearly seen during the sequence. To do that in the wild one must get close. Sometimes I do get close. Then comes part 2 of the challenge ... the bird is not going to fly a predictable flight path ... that means I've got to "handhold" and get as near to rock-steady as possible. Sometimes (very rarely) I even succeed in doing that, but of course the background gets jagged, because I'm using 1/50 shutter and not even one smart tweaking, 'cos I don't know what they might be and I have not experimented nearly enough in the wild (it can be very wild with no hope of laptop monitoring or that sort of thing).

So I am still hoping that someone will emerge that has been there and found the settings and shutter speed and shoots birdflight, even for 10 second clips, handheld, and not at a bird-feeder, and gets the sort of plumage detail on these stills. I know, I know chaps with a lot of experience have said it can't be done and forget it. My hope is that their "lot of experience" does not include a lot of effort at handholding during birdflight. Any hope?

Hi Brendan

Sory i have not the settings, but i'm sure 100-400 Canon is not very good, i prefer a 300/f2,8 Tamron or other like Sigma 120-300/f2,8 (Airy size vary with the aperture F/D) and when photosite decrease aperture increase (go to lower numbers).

For video, may be with an High speed cam like "Hi-spec" (1280x1240) with an f2,8 optic, camera rated at 60 fps or other. But with all the problems like recording time.

Other science fiction idea: 300 fps and all the 30 or 25 frame take an high resolution picture and after correct all the clip with a super "Magic algorithm" why not ?. Is there any scientist here to develop the idea contact me ?

Best Regards

But my question is what are we talking, about Video or still photo ? I know video forum is more active and interresting.

What about using the 5DII or the new 7D? These cameras and RED make excellent stills from video. But there's still the contradiction in shutter settings between stills and motion. 1/1000th is going to look choppy in video.
After Effects is good at smoothing out video.
Putting pixels on the bird, shooting very tight, is the closest you can get to sharp detail with video.
What's the state of the art in wildlife videography? Perhaps understanding the attributes of the best equipment and technique will help you find what you're looking for.

Shooting birds in flight with video and stills cameras are at completely different ends of the spectrum for me. When I want to shoot images of birds or any wildlife subject that deliver results with biting shapness and ultra-detail suitable for publication as double-page spreads in any magazine or book or poster...then a stills SLR or DSLR is my only option - either fast-aperture optics combined with fast shutter speeds (using 35mm film emulsions) or panned at lower speeds, or up the ISO settings on digital cameras that offer low noise, such as the Nikon D3 or D3x.

I would never think of seriously going out to capture single-frame shots of birds in flight with a Sony V1 or Canon XL2 or H1 (even though those cameras offer a single-frame capture mode). The quality just isn't good enough for my needs.

The dual capabilities of cameras such as the D300s & 7D are slowly bridging the gap and offer decent options for both, although for me personally, I'm waiting for a higher-end full-frame DSLR that offers video options beyond the EC tax 30-minute limit rule (30-min SD & 12-min HD), before I seriously think about buying a dual video/stills camera.

Anyone like to offer hope for sharp images of birdflight on video, handheld?

Has anyone got a video clip of birdflight you shot handheld, apart from Gilles' lammergier?

Brendan,

This may not be the reply that u want but I'm with Tony in that if u want to get sharp frames of bif, u will be shooting stills and not using interlaced cameras. But shooting at a high shutter speed can allow u to have sharper individual frames. There will however be interlacing with interlaced cameras so progressive cameras are the way to go. But do u need the video portion? If not then a 500/4 IS with a 1d mark iii will give u the keepers u want, with handholding possible.

If u want sharp frames and great video then the choice is a high framerate progressive camera. With the very high framerate of 200 and above, u will need plenty of light. Handholding will be another issue altogether.

Cheers

Weehan

If not then a 500/4 IS with a 1d mark iii will give u the keepers u want, with handholding possible.

I own both - the Canon EOS 1D Mark III and the Canon 500 f4 IS.
The 500 f4 is probably the best available lens for handheld bird in flight photography. I usually mount a 1.4 teleconverter so you get a fantastic device of 700mm - very sharp.
Having said that the Canon 500 f4 IS is quite heavy and expensive so another option is the Canon 400 f5.6. This is a superb lens, very sharp, not too expensive and it will give you superb results with some practice.
I won't get the Canon EOS 1D Mark 3 for this though as it has quite severe problems with its autofocus. As strange as it sounds - the previous model - the Canon EOS 1D Mark 2n is way superior in this respect.
I don't agree with the concept of short lenses for BIF. You need the target to be big in the frame for the focus to really lock on it and then follow.
I got all of the BIF shots on my website with the Canon 500 f4 and Canon EOS 1D Mark 2.
Cheers,
Ofer
Ofer Levy Photography (http://www.oferlevyphotography.com)

Weehan

Thank you for giving me a glimpse at some possible solutions and alternatives. More of the same would be very welcome. I'll be looking into your suggestions in detail over coming week. I have a lot to learn ... but I do enjoy learning about possibilities.


Ofer

You have pushed the boundaries quite a bit ... thank you very much. More food for thought. Just what I need. Hoorah and yippee! Incidentally, please describe the difference in quality/sharpness between BIF images taken with 400 f5.6 and similar images taken with 100-400 @ f5.6 and 400 focal length?


Any thoughts about sharp handheld video of BIF?

Hi Brendan,

I am sure you can get all the information you need on a dedicated bird photography site such as Home (http://www.naturescapes.net) there are great articles as well as top quality images.
The 400 f5.6 is simply a sharper lens than the 100-400 at the same focal length. You don't have the image stabilizer but over 1/1000 you don't really need it as far as I can tell.

I haven't tried getting sharp images of BIF using a video camera simply because you can't compare the quality of the single frame obtained by a dedicated still camera such as the Canon 1d Mark 2n and a video camera even as great as the RED.

I feel that the whole concept of handholding a video camera with a long telephoto lens is not a particularly good one.
Cheers,
Ofer

Ofer is right about the Canon 400mm f/5.6; it is a sharp lens and very useful for birds in-flight photography. In fact this particluar lens was used by Arthur Morris a lot and became his favourite lens to capture spectacular flight images.

I have to agree with all the other posters about the Canon 400mm f5.6 lens, it has to be the best "handheld" lens available.

Here is one example Flickr Photo Download: Black-crowned Night Heron IMG_2388xxxxxw.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jingbar/3898699153/sizes/o/)

Bob

Very nice heron image, Bob. Did you also use a touch of flash for that shot? - (judging by the eye reflections).

Tony, Thanks for the comment. I am from the "old school" so no flash was used.

Bob

Ofer,

You are right, a 1D II is a more reliable bet than the Mark 3. I spoke to one of my PJ frens who uses a Mark 3 and he was lamenting how unreliable the AF was and wished for his old Mark 2n. Thanks for the info. :)

Brendan,

As the rest have mentioned, the 400/5.6 is in a class of its own. If you are handholding video, then this is a good lens to get but you may have too much focal length here and a zoom is so much more preferable. Hmmmm, I have a Sigma 120-300 but cant rave about its sharpness on the H1. The focal length range of the Sigma is however fantastic and a zoom for BIF is always desirable.

Cheers

Weehan

I have to agree with all the other posters about the Canon 400mm f5.6 lens, it has to be the best "handheld" lens available.

Here is one example Flickr Photo Download: Black-crowned Night Heron IMG_2388xxxxxw.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jingbar/3898699153/sizes/o/)

Bob

That photo of the Night Heron is so beautiful, Bob. I'm digging out my best little bittern shot taken in Crete 2 days ago with 100-400 which does not compare (because it's not a flight shot) but may be interesting.

I've never used a fixed lens so would someone please tell me can the 400mm f5.6 be used only at a 400mm focal length? Or is it the f5.6 that's fixed?

On second reading I'm beginning to think that Weehan has answered half my question?

A fixed lens is known as a 'prime' lens and has the same aperture ranges as zoom lenses.

Most prime lenses have less moving internal glass elements and often offer faster maximum apertures when compared to zoom lenses. Most lens companies offer a 400mm f/2.8 prime (fixed) lens for example, but none offer a 200-400mm zooom lens with an f/2.8 maximum aperture (because it would cost the same as a house and weigh as much as a truck!).

The 'fixed' aspect of a prime lens refers to the focal length remaining the same, so a 200mm remains at 200mm and a 400mm will stay at 400mm; but a 200-400mm zoom will offer all focal lengths between 200mm to 400mm.

Some top pro zooms remain at the widest aperture (such as f/4) throughout their zoom range, but the majority of zoom lenses do not hold that widest aperture setting, and close down slightly between wide and telephoto.

So your 400mm f/5.6 will have a full range of aperture settings between f/5.6 to f/16 or f/22, but will always reamain at 400mm focal length.

but none offer a 200-400mm zooom lens with an f/2.8 maximum aperture (because it would cost the same as a house and weigh as much as a truck!).
.

Although of course there is the Sigma 200-500 f2.8, that's an interesting piece of kit and doesn't quite weigh as much as a house, though not far off!
Steve

Although of course there is the Sigma 200-500 f2.8, that's an interesting piece of kit and doesn't quite weigh as much as a house, though not far off!
Steve

Oops! Yes, I forgot about the bemoth Sigma lens! It 'only' weighs 35lb... :) It also comes with its own 400mm-1000mm converter!

Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 – eclecticism (http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2007/03/08/sigma-200-500mm-f28/)

PMA Tradeshow Blog - PhotographyREVIEW.com (http://www.photographyreview.com/BLG_30641crx.aspx)

A nice chunk of glass if you've got a spare $20,000 to spend! :)

Thank you for combing out that piece of wool over my eyes, Tony. Once a prime 400 always a 400.

On the Sigma + converter, I'll pass, 'cos I'd surely be pulled over for exposing myself again if i stuck that out of my porsche window ... sorry for bragging and all that; no, not about my ferrari; oh, never mind ...

You guys are forgetting about the Canon 400 f4 DO. Shorter than the 400 5.6 and 4x the price. I believe that's what Arthur Morris now uses handheld.

Thinking about this more, I expect high speed capture may be the way to get good video and sharp stills. Say 120p. Use a high shutter speed. Then use After Effects to average the 120p to 30p.

In the real world of today, I suggest the 400 5.6 on a 7D. With one push the shutter button stops the video, takes a still photo, and restarts the video. Seems to take a couple of seconds total.

A fixed lens is known as a 'prime' lens and has the same aperture ranges as zoom lenses.

Most prime lenses have less moving internal glass elements and often offer faster maximum apertures when compared to zoom lenses. Most lens companies offer a 400mm f/2.8 prime (fixed) lens for example, but none offer a 200-400mm zooom lens with an f/2.8 maximum aperture (because it would cost the same as a house and weigh as much as a truck!).

The 'fixed' aspect of a prime lens refers to the focal length remaining the same, so a 200mm remains at 200mm and a 400mm will stay at 400mm; but a 200-400mm zoom will offer all focal lengths between 200mm to 400mm.

Some top pro zooms remain at the widest aperture (such as f/4) throughout their zoom range, but the majority of zoom lenses do not hold that widest aperture setting, and close down slightly between wide and telephoto.

So your 400mm f/5.6 will have a full range of aperture settings between f/5.6 to f/16 or f/22, but will always reamain at 400mm focal length.

Thank you all for your thoughts about lens for BIF.

I can now redefine my lens problem in terms of my usage ... 90% of my BIF stills are of birds with wingspan that would be clipped at 400 zoom ... some of my sharpest images with 100-400mm are of vultures that flew so close that I clipped thier wings at 200 focal length. So 400 fixed might be perfect for a kingfisher shot but it will be a few more years before I get tired chasing & enjoying images of underwing patterns of big raptors, herons and gulls.

For that purpose, what zoom lens would you recommend for sharp BIF details, on 40D or 7D, handheld most of the time?

In that respect, if you feel that most of your best shots are at around 200mm, then I'd be inclined to choose a fixed lens such the 200mm f/2, f/2.8 or f/4 depending on your light levels and pocket.

The fixed 300mm F/4 would be another option, although I do prefer the 300mm f/2.8 - both are close in image quality.

And lastly, if you prefer a zoom, then go for the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 mentioned in another thread.

Thank you all for your thoughts about lens for BIF.

I can now redefine my lens problem in terms of my usage ... 90% of my BIF stills are of birds with wingspan that would be clipped at 400 zoom ... some of my sharpest images with 100-400mm are of vultures that flew so close that I clipped thier wings at 200 focal length. So 400 fixed might be perfect for a kingfisher shot but it will be a few more years before I get tired chasing & enjoying images of underwing patterns of big raptors, herons and gulls.

For that purpose, what zoom lens would you recommend for sharp BIF details, on 40D or 7D, handheld most of the time?

Lucky you. No wonder you're using a 24-105 for BIF when they're that close.

Two suggestions here would be the Canon EF 300/4 IS and the Sigma 100-300/4.

2 questions, please

1. Would the Canon EF 300/4 IS and the Sigma 100-300/4 be your recommendations if I had Canon 1D Mark 3? If not, what would you recommend?

2. How would you explain the IQ advantage/superiority for BIF shooting of having a lens with f/4 (or f2.8) over a lens with f/4.5-5.6? Please give me a BIF example, if possible, as well as brief technical theory?

1) Given your description of how close you get, a 1Dm3 would be faster and get you a slightly wider view especially with the EF300/4L IS. If you've never shot with a 1D series + faster prime like the EF300/4 or EF400/5.6, you're in for a very nice surprise.

2) For AF speed, the Sigma 100-300/4 is probably about the same as the EF100-400/4.5-5.6. I have handled the EF100-400, and I have the EF400/5.6L, and there's a world of difference in AF speed. With the EF400/5.6L, it's basically a "touch the button, and you're there". The EF300/2.8L is even faster, it's basically the fastest focusing lens that Canon makes. The problem with using it for BIF's, is that it's _heavy_. To go from a 40D + 100-400 to a 1Dm3 + 300/2.8 is going to take some getting used to... a little weight training might help.

Technically, how a lens is built has much more to do with AF speed than how large the aperture is. On paper, the 400/5.6L and 100-400L look about the same, but the design makes the prime lens _alot_ faster for AF. If you have a good copy of the 100-400, then sharpness is about the same, but that's not a guarantee. The 400/5.6L is a much simpler lens in build, and I rarely hear about one being a lemon.

The larger the aperture, the shallower the DOF, you know that already. The shallow DOF also helps the camera in AF, but the design of the lens is even more important.

I'll see if I can find some examples later.

Very helpful Kin Lau, thank you. On second thoughts my claim to be clipping BIF at focal length 200mm applies only to a particular national park in Spain where there is a huge resident population of griffon vultures and other raptors.

In Crete, where the image below is no. 16 of a 21 shot sequence within 17 seconds, my focal length was 400mm. Any comments on the settings for this shot (same as the others in the sequence) would be appreciated. In any event to improve on this sort of shot I may have to go for EF400 f/5.6L USM with 1DMk3. Is that fairly true? (The weights seem to be similar, about 1.8kgs). How much would I miss the IS on the prime?


Camera Model Canon EOS 40D
Firmware Firmware Version 1.0.8
Shooting Date/Time 22/09/2009 14:13:10
Owner's Name
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/1600
Av( Aperture Value ) 7.1
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 800
Lens EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Focal Length 400.0mm
Image Size 3888x2592
Image Quality RAW
Flash Off
White Balance Mode Cloudy
AF Mode AI Servo AF
Picture Style Neutral

With a 1/1600 shutter speed, IS won't be an issue.

Looks like the vulture is flying across your field of vision, which is normally not a difficult subject to AF since it's also reasonably large in the frame. What difficulties are you having?

The image is cropped to 50%. Even though I had it in reasonable focus for almost all 15 prior shots as it flew across my field of view the focus is never as sharp as I would like. I think there is not much between the detail on the bird's plumage and the detail on rock cliff in the background.

I am wondering if this was the best (another dozen were as good but none better) I could get from that lens, handheld, with IS ON, at 1/1600, f/7.1, that my best option is to use f/5.6 giving me a faster shutter to get a sharper bird image next time.

Please tell me would I get an appreciably sharper BIF (than the image shown) if I change lens or camera or both ... is that the way to go? What do you think of Canon EF28-300 f/3.5- 5.6L IS USM with 1DMark3? I've noted the reasons why primes are sharper and thank you for explaining that to me but I am reluctant to restrict myself to one focal length.

The EF28-300 would be a lot slower, and likely not as sharp.

Given that the vulture is not a small bird, and that's only 50% of the frame, you might also be fighting thermals, dust and all sorts of other factors that would make the shot less than sharp. Make sure you follow thru smoothly when doing BIF's, it helps alot.

I've been using a Sigma 50-500, less for the range, but rather it's one of the sharpest 500mm's under $2000-. I recently picked up a EF400/5.6L, but I've also been using a Sigma 400/5.6 (much slower AF but good sharpness). Since I never seem to have enough focal length, the 50-500 is almost always at 500mm anyways. The 400/5.6L is just so much faster at AF. I'm not getting rid of the 50-500, but for BIF's, it'll be the 400/5.6.

You might consider selling the 100-400, getting the 7D + 400/5.6, and still keep the 40D and 24-105. I often carry two bodies, one for birds and the other for scenics.

Here's a BIF set with my 7D + 400/5.6L. It's just a test, the mallards and Canada geese weren't co-operating, light was getting low, so I picked a Ring-billed gull coming almost straight for me with a non-sky/busy background.

7D BIF tests - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/88821321@N00/sets/72157622601408424/detail/)

Here are some of my latest BIF using Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens, all are handheld and taken in the polluted conditions in Hong Kong

Flickr: jingbar's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jingbar/page2/)

Brendan - leaving the lens wide open will give shallower depth of field, and so should make the bird sharper than the rock in the background. It will also mean you can use a faster shutter speed. However, most still camera lenses work best at around f8 (I don't know about your specific lens) so there may be a trade-off to consider. On the other hand, you could ask the vulture to fly a little further away from the cliffs in the background . . . . .

Here are some of my latest BIF using Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens, all are handheld and taken in the polluted conditions in Hong Kong

Flickr: jingbar's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jingbar/page2/)

Your Eastern Marsh Harrier has lovely plumage patterns, Bob. I have not seen this bird among your galleries. Is it on migration, like so many birds? I wonder about your shutter speeds for those BiF's, Bob? How many birds evolved/survived because they developed flight to enable them to migrate for food and habitat? Anyway you had a great day's shooting on Oct 18th, pollution or not. Unlike in Ireland, the air in HongKong must remain fairly static for days.

I'm just chattering while still trying to think of the crucial question about prime lenses for my usual locations & situations. I was thinking that Bob's images reveal that the greater benefits of Canon 400mm f5.6 L emerge when the bird is at distances of 50metres or more. But now I have to observe, unless I'm blind, that my vulture shot above was well within a 400mm focal length. The bird flew a path from 35m to 100m away from me during the 21 shot sequence, at all times well within frame. So what am I hesitating about? I only get nearer to big birds when I'm in special hides, which have yielded marvellous shots and video, but happens very rarely. Isn't that close to the point? I'm going to check back through my better images to nail down the exact focal lengths used effectively outside of hides (= 95% of my shots). That should lift some more of the wool and help me think more clearly. Thank you all for the helpful ideas.

Reading back I see that both Kin Lau and Bob Thompson are singing the praises of 400mm f/5.6 for BIF! That's significant; and my 1D MkIII has just arrived! Annie's suggestion will just have to wait for now!

Brendan, Yes the Eastern Marsh Harrier is a migrant. I was using ISO 320 and AV mode with the f staop at 5.6, the shutter automatically selected 1/8000 sec which was necessary as the bird made only one fast pass of the bird hide.

Bob

Brendan,

This is a full frame (without crop) of the Eastern Marsh Harrier for your info

Bob