Starting my research on big lenses!

[Mac]

I am starting to do some research on big telephoto lenses now and I am trying to get some input on some options. I have been looking at pictures and reading reviews all over the net, and I have more doubt now then before I started.

But what I am looking for is a wildlife lens, 400mm or more and around $1200 USD budget. Here are the lenses I am looking at now, if there are others, please mention them, as I am stashing now and it will be a few months before this can happen anyway.

Canon 400 f/5.6
Canon 300 f/4 IS w/ 1.4x TC
Sigma 80-400 EX OS
Sigma 50-500

I know Tamron has the 200-500, but I have played with this lens, and I didn't like the zoom ring...felt odd and took forever to get from 200-500. I also left out the Canon 100-400, I am not fond of the push pull design, and it is a little higher then my current budget would allot for.

Now what I am looking at most of all, well, I want good picture quality. Other then that, IS would be nice for those times I shoot handheld, but it is not a requirement.

I am shooting with a 300D. I was originally debating using this money to hop up to a 20D, but decided glass is more important, and if I wait for the camera upgrade I can get some nice glass first, and when the replacement is eventually released, I can decide then where to go.

Thanks for any help...:D

[robertwgross]

One of the most commonly used wildlife lenses is the Canon 100-400mm L lens with I.S.

The correct choice may depend on what kind of wildlife you think you are going after.

Hummingbirds will dictate one choice, and African elephants will dictate another.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon 400 f/5.6
Canon 300 f/4 IS w/ 1.4x TC

........Now what I am looking at most of all, well, I want good picture quality. Other then that, IS would be nice for those times I shoot handheld, but it is not a requirement.



The primes are you list are going to offer the best image quality in your price range ;)

Don't forget to check the recommendations for wildlife lenses here;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

[roanjohn]

If I were in your shoes........with your budget...........the 400 f5.6 would be on the top of my list.

Ro1

[watermarkphotography]

I did a lot of research on this myself and chose the Sigma 50-500 and I love it.

I have a sail boat and I have taken shots at 500mm standing on a moving boat with no tripod and got crisp clear shots. I took several shots at a time to insure one of them came out clear. It is clear at 50mm also. I shoot lots of nature and wildlife when I can. I will try to post some pics.

[raylks]

I love 300mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter. Given the range and the additional attachment, you have 300mm and 420mm on hand to increase the flexibility. Not to mentionm you put them in your 1.6 crop camera that gives you extra effective reach.

If you shoot wildlife as the main purpose of the lens, prime is always preferrable. It gives you sharpness that is not comparable with zoom. Even you have a zoom like 100-400mm L, you would find that you are just shooting at the longest end instead of the mid-range. Having a prime in this context is just equal to a zoom. Why not choose a prime for the better image quality.

Zoom has also good image quality though less than that of prime. Unless you have the lens for other purposes, you may consider prime.

[condyk]

I did a lot of research on this myself and chose the Sigma 50-500 and I love it.

That's my opening sentence as well ...

My research led me initially to the Canon 400mm and I was going to save up for that. From previous experience of a 400mm prime in Southern Africa I was a little ambivalent about not having the flexibility of a zoom, but then we can always crop images later. I was more sold on the potential output quality than practicality I think!

For birds and wildlife I also think 400mm is the minimum length, though it depends of course on what and where you are shooting and you sometimes ideally need less too! A 1.4x extender is a valuable addition if you need extra.

Anyway, I was offered a great deal on a MINT 50-500mm and took a gamble on ot. Awesome lens and super flexible range. Very fast to frame the target and focus speed is decent. Bang per buck 12/10, value of the extra 100mm length 10/10, build 9/10, weight 8/10, image quality 8.5/10 (hand held, but will be even better once I sort a bean bag/monopod!)

It all comes down to budget, as usual. If you can get a nice sharp Bigma second hand then you'll have a great time with it ... you can always sell it on at minimal loss should you want to upgrade or sidegrade to one of the IS/OS type models, or a prime.

At the moment, the only lens I think I would realistically prefer would be the Sigma 80-400mm OS, simply so I can get more keepers hand held. But first, I'd need to be convinced that it can achieve as good quality as the Bigma. I am sure I would miss the extra 100mm tho'. My extender would help of course.

[condyk]

Even you have a zoom like 100-400mm L, you would find that you are just shooting at the longest end instead of the mid-range. Having a prime in this context is just equal to a zoom. Why not choose a prime for the better image quality.


That's not my experience. I have used both a prime and a zoom (400mm and 50-500mm) in a range of conditions and for usability I do prefer a zoom as you can frame the critter easier without having to crop later. Personal preference and it's not as clear cut as you suggest. I don't just use the longest end either. If that was the case no one would ever buy a zoom. Neither are primes implicitely better than zooms. It all depends on the specific models that are being compared.

[robertwgross]

Again, it kind of depends on the type of wildlife.

If I am going after small wild birds only, then the longer the better works for lenses.

If I am going after large mammals, then 400mm might be way too long.

I've gotten excellent mammal photos (framed properly) with 200-300mm, and that is difficult to do with a fixed 400mm lens.

---Bob Gross---

[Mac]

Again, it kind of depends on the type of wildlife.

If I am going after small wild birds only, then the longer the better works for lenses.

If I am going after large mammals, then 400mm might be way too long.

I've gotten excellent mammal photos (framed properly) with 200-300mm, and that is difficult to do with a fixed 400mm lens.

---Bob Gross---

I should have mentioned the type of wildlife I intend on going after. In true wildlife situations, I am looking at Deer, Moose and occasionally (with some luck) wolves. I have found a spot that looks as though some shots at bobcats will be possible as well. But, I do like to shoot birds. I live in an area full of Bald Eagles, several types of Owls, Osprey and other large birds, but during the migrations seasons, we get some really cool smaller birds too. This is what was causing me to doubt the prime, and led me to the Sigma's...?????????

[GyRob]

the 300Lis -is a nice lens but it goes a little soft with the 1.4.
Rob

[karusel]

I'd say 300 f/4 IS is the way to go. It's slightly sharper than 400mm, when you mount it on a 1.4 TC you get a 420 f/5.6, quite the same sharpness as 400, but you still have IS. And for wildlife IS is definetely a plus, unless of course you intend to keep the lens on the tripod all the time in which case you should take the 400 f/5.6.

Also, note that 'crisp' is not an absolute; to some, crisp means razorblade sharp, to others crisp means 'pretty sharp' and to yet others it means 'crisp for the money you paid for the lens'.

[foxbat]

For large mammals the 300 f/4 IS likely to bring you some superb results. If you want to get into bird photography then I would recommend spending $10 on "The art of bird photography" by Arthur Morris. It's a great book with some truly jaw-dropping photography by the author who's now a Canon contract photographer. Don't buy a zoom purely for birds, it's a waste of money. Zooms are for flexibility. Birds are never flexible, they're always small and they're always far away.

[watermarkphotography]

" I should have mentioned the type of wildlife I intend on going after. In true wildlife situations, I am looking at Deer, Moose and occasionally (with some luck) wolves. I have found a spot that looks as though some shots at bobcats "


With that kind of wildlife the longer the lens the better. I am the guy with the ( bigma ) Sigma 50-500 lens, here is a shot I took standing on my boat handheld while it was moving and so was the loon. You should see the shots I got of the moon.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/watermarkphotography/_MG_36991.jpg

[ScottE]

I have used both a 400/5.6 and the Sigma 50-500. I found the ability of the 50-500 to frame shots the way I wanted to be very useful. In many situations you cannont control the distance from the animal and cannot always frame the shot the way you want with a prime lens. I missed several really good shots while trying to quickly change lenses before the animal moved. The 400/5.6 lens I had was an older Sigma APO version and the 50-500 was actually sharper.

Unless you are religious about using a tripod, I wouldn't rule out the Canon 100-400. For shooting handheld, the IS is worth learning to live with the push-pull zoom.

Scott

[watermarkphotography]

I found that if you can back up your cards or have lots of cards and you really want the shot. Then set it to keep taking shots with the button down. So what if you took 6 shots to get a crisp clear shot, you got it. I was not expecting to get good shots while on a boat, but with that trick handheld shots come out great.

[robertwgross]

For shooting birds "on the fly," you will want a very long prime lens. You will not have any teleconverter to slow down the aperture or drop out the autofocus.

I shoot a lot of birds perching, standing, and wading, so the autofocus speed is not so much of a priority. As a result, I use my zoom lens with two teleconverters stacked.

---Bob Gross---

[Mac]

For large mammals the 300 f/4 IS likely to bring you some superb results. If you want to get into bird photography then I would recommend spending $10 on "The art of bird photography" by Arthur Morris. It's a great book with some truly jaw-dropping photography by the author who's now a Canon contract photographer. Don't buy a zoom purely for birds, it's a waste of money. Zooms are for flexibility. Birds are never flexible, they're always small and they're always far away.

What I meant by flexibility was the ability to frame larger wildlife by zooming in or out.

For birds, the longer I can get the better I would think, as you say, they are always small and far away. But I would have to move to adjust with a prime if it were too big for some of the larger animals, and if I move, they run. So I am stuck here...better quality and prime, less quality but better flexibility and zoom...:confused::D

So far though, most of my bird shots have been of them perching as well...so the idea of TC's on primes still offer some flexibility.

[robertwgross]

For birds, the longer I can get the better I would think, as you say, they are always small and far away.

Most of the time, this is true. However, two weeks ago I got to shoot a rare California Condor. This one was a juvenile, so its wingspan was about seven feet. I was able to use my zoom to clearly see the number on its wing tags, and I could see the little radio transmitter and antenna on its wing. <no joke>

It's a big bird. I almost had to go to wide angle.

---Bob Gross---

[Mac]

Most of the time, this is true. However, two weeks ago I got to shoot a rare California Condor. This one was a juvenile, so its wingspan was about seven feet. I was able to use my zoom to clearly see the number on its wing tags, and I could see the little radio transmitter and antenna on its wing. <no joke>

It's a big bird. I almost had to go to wide angle.

---Bob Gross---

WOW! That would be cool. The closest I have gotten to a big bird was a bald eagle with a 5-6ft wing span...I was walking with my wife, only had the 28-75 on the camera, if I would have had the 70-200 I would have been able to get a better shot...

But so far, the zoom seems to have an upper leg on the primes because I really like the idea of versatility...hrmm...so more reading and research is in order...thanks for all of the help...:D

[Medic1]

The 300mm will retain IS with the 1.4X correct? I am in the same dilemma as you right now.....if the 300mm retains IS with the TC, then the 300 it is for me....otherwise the local camera shop has a 400 5.6 demo for a bit cheaper than regular price......

[watermarkphotography]

Here is an eagle I got handheld on a boat ( again ) at 500mm bigma.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/watermarkphotography/eagleinflight1Medium.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 300mm will retain IS with the 1.4X correct? I am in the same dilemma as you right now.....if the 300mm retains IS with the TC, then the 300 it is for me....otherwise the local camera shop has a 400 5.6 demo for a bit cheaper than regular price......

Yes, IS is not effected by T-cons.

The 400mm f/5.6 on the other hand has far faster autofocus and tracks moving subjects better. It is the small wonder of the "birds in flight" lenses.

[Medic1]

Yes, IS is not effected by T-cons.

The 400mm f/5.6 on the other hand has far faster autofocus and tracks moving subjects better. It is the small wonder of the "birds in flight" lenses.

CDS: How close in image quality will a 300mm f4L with a 1.4X TC, be to the 400 5.6? I plan on using the 300 and TC for aviation photography....is the 400 5.6 going to do a better job? I thought that maybe with slower passes of the aircraft, that the IS may he helpful at long focal lengths. As I thinking wrong?

[robertwgross]

WOW! That would be cool. The closest I have gotten to a big bird was a bald eagle with a 5-6ft wing span...I was walking with my wife, only had the 28-75 on the camera, if I would have had the 70-200 I would have been able to get a better shot...

So, what you do is to have your wife don a rabbit suit and start hopping down the trail when the eagle comes along again. When the eagle starts to make its lunge to the prey, you shoot the scene, and then your wife jumps out of the suit.

But so far, the zoom seems to have an upper leg on the primes because I really like the idea of versatility...hrmm...so more reading and research is in order...thanks for all of the help...:D

Yes, set your priorities. Zoom if you need the versatility for many different kinds of wildlife at varying distances. Prime if you need the absolute sharpness for small birds at a distance.

Better yet, get one of each. <just joking>

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

The 300mm will retain IS with the 1.4X correct? I am in the same dilemma as you right now.....if the 300mm retains IS with the TC, then the 300 it is for me....otherwise the local camera shop has a 400 5.6 demo for a bit cheaper than regular price......

A lens does not get its I.S. system disabled with a teleconverter.

It is possible for a teleconverter to cause autofocus to be disabled, depending on the camera body and the wide aperture of the lens.

---Bob Gross---

[Medic1]

A lens does not get its I.S. system disabled with a teleconverter.

It is possible for a teleconverter to cause autofocus to be disabled, depending on the camera body and the wide aperture of the lens.

---Bob Gross---

I knew I had read somewhere that IS can be disabled with a TC, but I guess I didn't read closely enough. In the EF lens guide it said that the 400 f4 DO IS will have IS disabled with a 1.4X TC, and the 300 f4 IS, 500 f4 IS, 600 f4 IS and 100-400 IS would have IS disabled with a 2X TC.

What I didn't read closely enough was that it is only disabled with the following camera's: EOS 650, 620, 630/600, RT, 700, 750, 850, EOS-1, A2/A2E, 10s, Elan, Rebel/Rebel S, Rebel II/Rebel SII.

My fault....I didn't read the whole paragraph...lol.

Thanks for the help.

CDS: If you back in this post: 400 5.6 vs. 300 f4 for aircraft photography...would IS be beneficial? You mentioned the 400 5.6 was a better sporting lens......

[condyk]

Medic1

johndm over at AV Forum is an expert plane shooter and chose the 100-400mm. Might be worth asking him why he went that route for his specific specialism. I think I remember the IS was important to him.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/index.php

I think he visits here too, but don't know if he's a member or just reads a few posts now and again.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

If I were you, I wouldn't purchase any primes. With wild life photography the critter will be too far away, or too close, and you wont be able to move around by foot because you'll risk scaring off your subject. So, like everyone else has said, the versatility of a zoom lens is definately worth it. Me, I'm a big fan of the 100-400mm L lens. Some people don't like the push and pull, but I think it's even better because sometimes you need to zoom in or out REAL quick. Being able to quickly push, or pull that thing gives you that ability. It takes longer for most people when they have to twist it. Plus, the Image stabiliization is fantastic for hand held shots. It exceeds your budget by 200 dollars, but trust me, it's well worth it. Other than that, the sigma 50-500mm would do the trick as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

IS actually can make photographing moving subjects more difficult,. there is a panning mode though that should work well. Though I have not shot many planes, I would hazard a guess that IS in panning mode would work quite well.

Of the two lenses the 400mm is the "Star" of tracking moving objects in the air.
Also despite some opinions to the contrary,. my own personal experince, and the "MTF" charts descirbed in another current thread, have the 400mm being the better lens of the two optically.. though the differnce is ever so slight.

No,.. the real compromise being made when deciding between these two lenses is Image Stabilization Vs. Focus speed.

For larger objects such as planes,. the slower focus speed and tracking of the 300mm may not be such a concern.. (though the addition of the T-con will slow the focus further) But for birds in flight there is no comparison. The 400mm wins hands down.

And of course the 300mm offers the option of 300mm @ f/4 as well as the 420mm @ f/5.6 with the T-con.

As for wildlife,. I have to disagree with the recomendation for a zoom over a prime. I shoot Birds with primes about 85% of the time,. and am allways happier with the results.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Quick question; what length does the Sigma 50-500mm lens extend to?
bhphoto says 13.7 inches, but I'm guessing that's at 50mm.....

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

.

[condyk]

You're correct, including hood.

Approx 24cm at 50mm and approx 32cm extended, excluding the hood which adds approx 8cm. We don't do inches any more in Europe :lol: ;)

[Medic1]

Medic1

johndm over at AV Forum is an expert plane shooter and chose the 100-400mm. Might be worth asking him why he went that route for his specific specialism. I think I remember the IS was important to him.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/index.php

I think he visits here too, but don't know if he's a member or just reads a few posts now and again.

Condyk: Thanks for the tip

CDS: thanks for the info

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hahahaha, yea, they're trying to get us Americans to use centimeters now too. In the schools at least.
Personally, I prefur inches. :-)