Canon 500mm f4 and converter or Sigma 800mm f5.6

[steve nunn]

I am thinking of making the investment and buying a high quality telephoto lens to improve my bird photography. Would I be better off with the Canon 500mm f4 and using 1.4 or 2x converters if necessary or looking at the Sigma 800mm f5.6?

I would appreciate any advice.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Personally.. if I had the $$ I would go for the Canon 500mm.

Yes.. you lose some range.. the 1.4X T-Con will only give you 700mm @ f/5.6 as opposed to the Sigmas amazing 800mm @ f/5.6...

But.. the 500mm has many advantages.

First.. it gives you the option of 500mm @ f/4 when f/4 may be of use for DOF and better light gathering.

I have a 500mm (Sigma) and use it at 500mm much more often than I use it with a T-con...

The Canon has IS of course..

It is lighter and physically shorter (the 500mm ) and thus much easier to handle and get to the loacation.

In a pinch.. you can allways use the 2X T-con for 1000mm @ f/8 and still have AF on a "1" series DSLR.

Hope this helps.

[Scottes]

I had been thinking about the Canon 500mm versus the Sigma 300-800... CDS and I had a long talk about it on a photo trip, and I (we) decided on the 500mm - for many of CDS's reasons explained above.

800mm on it's own can be very limiting. Very. But the IS and quality of the Canon 500mm - and CDS's other reasons - really win the day. IMHO.

[Anders Östberg]

I'm seriously looking at the Canon 500/4... awesome lens. Would make a great Xmas present for myself. :)

My personal experience with Sigma lenses isn't all that great, and I have more or less promised myself to never buy a long lens without IS.

[robertwgross]

Having spent all morning out doing bird photography, I should add that the lens choice depends on the types of birds and your normal distance to them. For example, a hummingbird at 100 feet takes a lot of firepower. A sandhill crane at 20 feet does not.

I was shooting at burrowing owls, which are little guys about 7-8 inches tall as they stand outside their burrows. If I tried to approach within 30 feet, they would fly off. So, I was standing back with my 100-400mm lens with two 1.4 teleconverters. The height of the owl filled about 80% of the short dimension of the frame.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is a good point Bob,. if I were shooting primarily small warbler sized perching birds,.. then I might go straight for an 800mm or even the amazing 300-800mm zoom.

Fret,.. I hear you re: Canon Vs. Sigma.. but I have to say my own experience with Sigmas manster telephotos tells me the streotype is unfounded at this level. The EX Supertelephotos seem damn near the equal of the Canon in many reagrds.. and better in some.

Alas... they do lack IS....

...Minolta anyone?

[robertwgross]

This is a good point Bob,. if I were shooting primarily small warbler sized perching birds,.. then I might go straight for an 800mm or even the amazing 300-800mm zoom.


Don't make me salivate.

---Bob Gross---

[sGu]

I'd say Canon 500mm f4.

If you want sample of bird photos taken by this beast, check this (http://www.miguellasa.com) out, most of them are shot with 500mm f4 on 1D MK II.

Hope this helps with your decision making :)

[Canuck]

This is a good point Bob,. if I were shooting primarily small warbler sized perching birds,.. then I might go straight for an 800mm or even the amazing 300-800mm zoom.

Fret,.. I hear you re: Canon Vs. Sigma.. but I have to say my own experience with Sigmas manster telephotos tells me the streotype is unfounded at this level. The EX Supertelephotos seem darn near the equal of the Canon in many reagrds.. and better in some.

Alas... they do lack IS....

...Minolta anyone?

I can't say I have used anything other than the 120-300mm F2.8EX which I have one and am constantly blown away by it. Also, I wish that it had IS but again what can you do. This would add weight to an already 5 3/4 lb lens and in the cas of CDS, his 500mm lens, what is too heavy? I could always just put a tripod on it and do it that way.

[scottbergerphoto]

The Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX APO is about $1800 cheaper then the Canon 500mm f/4. I bought it and love it. I used the money I saved to buy a Wimberly Head.
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/image/26490952.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/image/26490950.jpg
Scott

[robertwgross]

Is that a ring-billed gull?

---Bob Gross---