2 Questions

**Wayne Brown** · August 3rd, 2011

I shoot with canon and I want to know what you guys use for your birding photos right now I have the 75-300 f4 I find it is not all that sharp and thinking of getting one of those top of the line ones. What one is the best to get.

Do you guys shoot with jpg or raw and why, as I just shoot jpg photos and would like to know about raw.

**James Steele** · August 4th, 2011

Great questions Wayne. I wish I knew more about taking pictures. Something more than a point and shoot

**Dennis** · August 5th, 2011

Good questions Wayne.

I had that lens and found the same issue of it not being a tack sharp lens. I would going the the prime lens the 400mm f/5.6 nice and light and tack sharp the other one is the 300mm f/2.8 and with a 1.4 converter is a sweet setup.
I had both of these lens and ended up with the 300 and the converter and with very good results.

I shoot raw and most of the local guys here do as well. It all depends on how much editing you want to do on your images, if you do very little than jpg may be the way for you, but 1 thing to remember never edit the original image otherwise those that file is toast if you save the changes. With raw once converted goes to a tiff file and your edit the tiff so you have a backup there, you have more latitude to play around with as the camera does not touch a raw image but does so with jpg.

You can still get the same results with both formats but the if you saved the jpg image and you found you missed something and open and edit that jpg again you lost 10% image quaility and every other time another 10% Tiff you can opend and save 100's of times and nothing happnes no loss of data in the image.

**Wayne Brown** · August 6th, 2011

Originally Posted by Dennis

Good questions Wayne.

I had that lens and found the same issue of it not being a tack sharp lens. I would going the the prime lens the 400mm f/5.6 nice and light and tack sharp the other one is the 300mm f/2.8 and with a 1.4 converter is a sweet setup.
I had both of these lens and ended up with the 300 and the converter and with very good results.

I shoot raw and most of the local guys here do as well. It all depends on how much editing you want to do on your images, if you do very little than jpg may be the way for you, but 1 thing to remember never edit the original image otherwise those that file is toast if you save the changes. With raw once converted goes to a tiff file and your edit the tiff so you have a backup there, you have more latitude to play around with as the camera does not touch a raw image but does so with jpg.

You can still get the same results with both formats but the if you saved the jpg image and you found you missed something and open and edit that jpg again you lost 10% image quality and every other time another 10% Tiff you can opened and save 100's of times and nothing happens no loss of data in the image.

That is good to hear that the 75-300 is not the best lens, so the lens that you mentioned must come with a hefty price tag? I would take it that the 400mm would be reasonable price wise, but the 300 would be versatile to use. I will have to check these out and get some prices.

As for the raw and jpg what you are saying I guess is more control with raw than jpg?
So the camera changes the image in jpg mode, but never in raw so the next thing to ask what is needed to edit raw images then? From what you are saying makes sense and I would like to learn more from you on raw edits.

**Wayne Brown** · August 6th, 2011

Wow those lens are not cheap the 400mm might be in my range at a quarter of the cost but the 300mm is the more versatile and you can add the 2 converters to this lens. Will have to talk to the better half about this and see if these are in the budget.

**Don B** · August 6th, 2011

The 400 prime lens does have a good reputation for being a good birding lens. I am very happy with mine.

**larkspur** · August 6th, 2011

I love my 400mm prime. It is not IS but I use a tripod for all shots anyway.

**Dennis** · August 7th, 2011

Originally Posted by Wayne Brown

Wow those lens are not cheap the 400mm might be in my range at a quarter of the cost but the 300mm is the more versatile and you can add the 2 converters to this lens. Will have to talk to the better half about this and see if these are in the budget.

No they sure are not cheap, but they are well worth getting some good glass, it really will make a difference over the lens you have now. I had this lens and loved it, and as Don has mentioned he still has his and if money is an issue this is the one I would go with on the other hand if you can afford the 300 that is a sweet lens.

**Wayne Brown** · August 7th, 2011

Originally Posted by Dennis

No they sure are not cheap, but they are well worth getting some good glass, it really will make a difference over the lens you have now. I had this lens and loved it, and as Don has mentioned he still has his and if money is an issue this is the one I would go with on the other hand if you can afford the 300 that is a sweet lens.

Thanks for the info and I have talked to my wife and I think we are going to go with the 400mm because of the price. I can't wait to get this lens now, 2 weeks to wait before I can purchase it.