400mm? 300mm? 100-400mm? 50-500mm? Can't choose!!!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

So, I need a long telephoto lens and I figure I should get my mind set on one right now so I can start saving for it. Problem is, there's so many darn options out there!!! I primarily want one for shooting birds. Other than that, basic wild life, zoo's, maybe some sports. Mostly birds though. Oh yea, don't want to spend more than $1,500.00.

Right now I"m looking at the;

400mm f/5.6L
300mm f/4L IS
100-400L
Sigma 50-500mm

Any suggestions on what lens and why? Are there any other lenses out there that would be better?

[jaypie77]

One thing you might want to consider is getting a lens and a teleconverter, but as far as the above lenses go, you'll need good light to get those birds and you'll need the lens to be as sharp as possible which is why I'd get a prime... EXCEPT that you seem to want to use the lens for sports and other things and for that a zoom might be more convenient b/c it is versatile.

[CyberDyneSystems]

-=Top 10=- Recommended wildlife Primes (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59929)

-=Top 10=- Recommended wildlife Zooms (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59931)

[malla1962]

i have the 100-400L is and love it

[condyk]

At that budget I would opt for the Canon 100-400mm L because of image quality and framing flexibility. I'd probably sell your 70-200mm f4 too and look for something faster within the standard zoom range, or a couple of nice primes, to bridge the gap to 100mm. Just a thought. Depends what you like to shoot.

Check out fredmiranda.com review section as the real world user views are always useful as a suppliment to those you get here and elsewhere.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks every so far. Condyk, I was thinking the 100-400L too. The 300mm is really appealing right now though because I could use it for sports (when kids are on the other end of the field. it's annoying) and throw on a t-con when I want 420mm for birding, but I'd loose 10% image quality. That and I'm not a fan of primes. Zooms are just so much easier. Less frustrating. (And yes, I have given primes a chance)

The 400mm f/5.6 interested me too, but no IS, and a f/5.6? Eeehhhhh........ I love the range on the 50-500, but I've heard it's pretty soft after 400mm? And really need a lot of light? and also has no IS........

I agree on your recommendation on selling my 70-200 f/4L later on. I figured once I've saved up all the cash, and paid off all my current gear, I could pick up a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 100-400L or what ever I decide on. That should cover all my bases. I could really use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS for the indoor sports. Tried shooting a indoor soccer game with my f/4 version. Didn't work out so well....

Alright, well, I would also like some more reach than 400mm at times because I'm sure even that'll be short here and there. So, I've heard you can add a Tamron 1.4x t-con onto a canon lens, and even if it pushes it past a max f/8 apeture it'll still maintain AF. Is this true? If so does it slow down the AF a lot, or kill the image quality? Just curious because that would be nice!! $80.00 to turn a 400mm f/5.6 into a 560mm with AF. Sounds too good to be true. :-)

[gasrocks]

Get the 300/4 L IS and a canon 1.4x - logical next step to what you already have.

[weemannie]

I've just gone through the same traumatic experience :)

I looked at Fred Mirandas' reviews and others on the web. I too, will shot birds and deer and hopefully otters.

I decided on the 400L 5.6. I know its slower in terms of max aperture, but I don't think that's such a problem with my camera. Its very sharp, and more importantly, the AF is very, very quick. I considered that to be a real boon for bird photography.
Also, when compared to the 100-400 its sharper at 400mm and I reasoned that much of what I do will be in that range, ergo the 400L would be a better choice for me.

I wish you luck. :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

300 f/4 seems nice. I like the IS.... but I donno, the reach isn't appealing to me....

Yea, the only thing that really bothers me about the 400 f/5.6 is the fact that it has no IS. For a thousand bucks it'd be nice, ya know? I'll probably pick up a tamron 1.4x t-con to go with what ever I get since 400mm prolly isn't enough for the tiny tiny birds. Yet another reason I'm shying away from the 300 f/4.

I donno.... I plan on getting that 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at the same time as the long lens. So, I could just throw the t-con on that and go out with the 400 prime and the 70-200 and have a great range between the two. Not a fan of primes, but I keep hearing about how much sharper the 400 prime is than the 100-400 zoom. Is there really that much of a difference?

And does anyone know how the 400 f/5.6L works with the tamron 1.4x t-con? Is AF still good? Image quality?

[csnudelman]

Get the 300/4 L IS and a canon 1.4x - logical next step to what you already have.

I second the motion

[lomond]

If you want birds get the 400, thats all there is too it.

I have the 300 and it's a great lens, especially with the IS but for birds you need at least the 400.

By all accounts it's very sharp and AF is fast.

The 100-400L is a fine lens but a bit soft at 400 for small birds at any distance.

Just my tuppence worth.

Regards,

[condyk]

Mr RbrtPtikLeoSeny

Two things ... slight tangents maybe, but relevat to the big picture ;)

I spoke to a couple of birders by accident a week or so back on one of my regular photo practice outings and they said most great shots are taken in hides at known spots and it's near impossible to get consistently decent shots of smaller birds just by walking around, whatever lens we have, because we are too noisy and they hop it before we even know they're there.

They say in hide conditions 400mm is usually fine, 500-600mm even better, zoom is easier if you don't mind loss of some quality, but prime is grand for speed and quality ... personal choice. Also, 400mm is your absolute minimum for walking around. I know it is for sure because my 420mm doesn't cut it walking around looking for birds, unless it's chickens at the supermarket!!

Dunno if that's true or just how they do it. But, it explains why my success is so negligible as I have been walking and stalking around like a mug hoping Wrens and Redstarts and Firecrests would just leap out in front of me. Hey ... birding's not my thing, so that's my excuse :lol: it's just some fun!

Anyway, before deciding, it might just be worth your while popping down somewhere 'proper birdy' local and see what conditions are like, what others are using, how close any birds are, whatever. I'm hoping to get out this weekend for that reason. Sure, it's only one place, but an hour somewhere like that is worth a day talking on the Internet ... maybe!

Second point. They reminded me of a birder web site I found a while back but haven't visited for ages as traffic is slow there. I found a discussion about the new v's old Bigma and lots of decent pic's. Seems the new one is actually even better and sharp pretty well all the way through. Around 250-450ish it has always been good. I'd like to see that before I believe it myself, BUT I mention it because if you are serious about it as an option then you may be offered a previous one at a good price. It would be worth just checking the new one out first. Some owners commented the light performance was notably improved (my bugbear!) and how fast the HSM AF performance was too. So, looks worth considering even more now.

I would still like one of the Image Stabilised efforts for walking safari's rather than birds, the Canon L or Sigma OS, as handheld shooting is more practical in that situation. BUT if you're in a hide and on a tripod or beanbag, the Bigma would give 50-500mm of range and value!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you want birds get the 400, thats all there is too it.
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2hdzu/pics/sunshine.gif

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Condyk, totally agree. I was trying to shoot birds one day with my 70-200mm and realized it was impossible to get decent shots of the birds because they always either hopped/flew further away from me, or flew away all together. (I know 200mm is rediculously short for birds, but hey, I like trying to make due with what I have) So anyway I resorted to spreading seeds all over the place to attract the birds, and hiding behind my porch. Eventually I was able to capture 1 good shot from the half hour long endever. I was pretty pleased with myself. :-) So, I'll definately do the whole hiding thing even with my 400mm when I get it. Set some bait, and wait. :-)

Anyway, I was really leaning towards the 100-400L before starting this thread, but now I'm really leaning towards the 400mm f/5.6 or the sigma 50-500mm. Many say the 100-400L gets a lil soft at 400? For birds I'll probably be at 400 almost afor $1,400.0lways, and 0 I think I'd get pretty ticked off with even slightly soft results. Sigma is probably even more soft though huh? Too bad since 500mm would be seriously nice! I'll just add that tamron t-con onto the 400 prime and all should be well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 400mm prime also has significantly faster and more accurate AF than the Zooms you are looking at.

[foxbat]

For birds I'll probably be at 400 almost always, and I think I'd get pretty ticked off with even slightly soft results.Not only will you be at 400 all the time you'll be wishing you had 500, 600 even 800 but that's life I suppose. The 400 is absolutely pin sharp wide open.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Faster and more accurate AF sounds good to me!! Hm, I think a prime would be fine for birding.

Foxbat, I bet! It'd be nice if 500,600, or even 800mm lenses were affordable. That's why I'm curious about the tamron 1.4x t-con though. Anyone know anything about this?

[Dew]

How does the 300 f/4 + 1.4x t-con compare with the 400 f/5.6? On the face of it it's a 420 5.6 with IS - anyone use this?

[lomond]

How does the 300 f/4 + 1.4x t-con compare with the 400 f/5.6? On the face of it it's a 420 5.6 with IS - anyone use this?


I think the 400 f5.6 has it on sharpness and AF speed, assuming good light.

[xuxu1]

I voted for the 100-400L.

Well yes... the 400 f5.6 might be a bit sharper but i like the advantage of the zoom since i´m not only "birding". :)

As often said... it depends which preferences you have. That what you choose for yourself is OK and the best choice (for you).

ED

[lomond]

I voted for the 100-400L.

Well yes... the 400 f5.6 might be a bit sharper but i like the advantage of the zoom since i´m not only "birding". :)

As often said... it depends which preferences you have. That what you choose for yourself is OK and the best choice (for you).

ED

Like I said the 100-400L is a fine lens, I know I have it.

But for birds ( unless you're at the zoo ) you will always be at the 400 end of the zoom.
At the 400 end this lens is soft compared to the 400 prime.

If you want a good long range zoom get the 100-400L.
If you want to do wildlife/birding get the 400 prime....please.

[xuxu1]

....If you want to do wildlife/birding get the 400 prime....please.
...or get the 100-400L and do some USM with PS :lol:

ED

[Spatch]

I have the 300F4L and use it with the Canon 1.4TC. I have been very pleased with the results. I was also looking at the 100-400 and 400F5.6 but the 300 won it because:

1) It was F4
2) It had IS (which would also work with TC)
3) Meant I had the flexibility of a 300 or a 420 whichever I needed.
4) Supplemented my 70-200F2.8 (I see you have a 70-200 as well).

All I can say is that I have been extremely happy with the 300 (and 1.4TC combination), the AF is quick (quick enough for car and bike racing) and is beautifully sharp. I have not tried the 400F5.6 but the 300F4 option just seemed to offer more flexibility.

Cheers,

[loebas]

I was in the same situation. I was leaning toward the 300 F4 with IS.
It is a great and sharp lens. My uncle borrowed me his 100-400 and after getting used to it I think that it is a very good allround lens. I use it for walkaroud wildlife photography mainly.
Wildlife is very unpredictable and with this lens you can rapidly change from focal length.
After two month's in the field I had a lot of situations in which I was very happy to have 100-400 in one lens.
Wildlife moving away or comming toward you is easy to follow and make a nice composition with the lens.
If you have a prime you have to change lenses or converters. Very often the photo will be gone then.
Enclosed some threads in which I posted some of the photo's i took with the above mentioned lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82079
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81843
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81236

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks so far everyone!

Anyone know about the Tamron 1.4x t-con though? (the black $80 one) I'm really curious to know how it works, because I'd like to get it to go with what ever lens I choose.

[DavidEB]

the cheap-o tamron t-con works well for me, but I don't have any of the lenses in this discussion thread. See my lens list below.

On the sigma 70-200 it produces decent images with some distortion apparent in the corners (corners on cropped camera, that is), but quite good in center. The AF is not as quick. The converter does not report back the increased focal length or the decreased f-stop to the camera, but that may not be a bad thing.

[HJMinard]

When confronted by the same "dilemma" about a year ago ... I went with the 400/5.6L. I certainly do not have any regrets. I can only recall one time that I found myself wishing I could zoom out a little for compositional purposes. On all other occasions (hundreds, if not thousands) I would have been zoomed to 400 anyway.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Awwww, yea, I think I'm pretty fixed on the 400mm f/5.6. :-) I like the idea of having the versatility the 100-400L provides, but I'm very picky most of the time and I think I'd be pretty upset if there was any hint of softness at 400mm.

So, now there's still that need to fill the gap between 200 and 400mm. Hmmm, I was thinking of picking up the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with the 400mm f/5.6L but maybe I should pick up the 300mm f/4L IS and the 400mm f/5.6L instead.... cheaper combonation, and it'd cover my ranges... not a good set of lenses for indoor stuff, but screw it, most of what I do is outdoor and so far my f/4 lenses are more than enough for outdoor use. What do you guys think? 300 and 400 primes? Good idea to add to what I have?

[blackviolet]

they aren't birds, but i just posted some bigma wildlife shots (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82596) in the nature and animals section. on a sunny day, the bigma is fantastic. the AF is pretty fast. unfortunately, it's too slow (apeture wise) to be a great wildlife lens. i would have liked to tried my 80-200 L 2.8 + 1.4x pro telecon(s), but there was a very tight weight restrictions on the charter flight :(

[I Simonius]

So, I need a long telephoto lens and I figure I should get my mind set on one right now so I can start saving for it. Problem is, there's so many darn options out there!!! I primarily want one for shooting birds. Other than that, basic wild life, zoo's, maybe some sports. Mostly birds though. Oh yea, don't want to spend more than $1,500.00.

Right now I"m looking at the;

400mm f/5.6L
300mm f/4L IS
100-400L
Sigma 50-500mm

Any suggestions on what lens and why? Are there any other lenses out there that would be better?

I'm getting the new 200-400L 2.8 DO IS, it is nearly £5000 but worth it! :D :D

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks for the example shots blackviolet! and Simon, is that even a lens that is out, or is comming out? Haven't heard of it.:p

[I Simonius]

Thanks for the example shots blackviolet! and Simon, is that even a lens that is out, or is comming out? Haven't heard of it.:p

Sorry that was mean of me- there is no such lens - Yet.

It was just wishful thinking on my part, well not the cost , but the specs were hinted at on a Canon website, they were there then quickly taken off again, but it looks like it might be in the pieline, or something very close to it.

So start saving! ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

That sounds sweet! That'd go nicely with a 70-200mm. :-) I don't think I'll be dropping more than 2 grand on a single lens anytime in the next decade though.

[I Simonius]

That sounds sweet! That'd go nicely with a 70-200mm. :-) I don't think I'll be dropping more than 2 grand on a single lens anytime in the next decade though.

perfect FL! If its affordable they'll sell a shedload-when it comes out :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[david_thompson]

oh boy first post....

I am looking at both the Sigma 50-500mm and the Canon 100-400L. Which has the ultimate overall edge in CA? Sigma or Canon?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Bump.

[Michaelmjc]

I vote for the 100-400, a zoom would be more convenient in your case.. and its f4 which is better than 5.6 or the bigmas 6.3.

[lomond]

I vote for the 100-400, a zoom would be more convenient in your case.. and its f4 which is better than 5.6 or the bigmas 6.3.


:? The 100 -400L is f4.5 @100 and f5.6 @ 400.

[sanjeedbd]

Zooms have the advantage of having flexible reach. However, all man made developments suffer from drawbacks. Zoom is an improvement over prime but suffers from inferior IQ. Secondly it's slightly heavier than the prime. Thirdly the push/pull zoom system is deemed inconvenient by users and it might pump in dust into the sensitive parts of the lens and camera. Fourthly, it costs 300 dollars more. On the other hand, absence of IS on the prime outweighs these 4 bottlenecks by a considerable margin. In good light with little high ISO if needed – nothing beats its results.

[Tapeman]

4 year old thread? I hope the OP has already made a decision.

[20DNewbie]

4 year old thread? I hope the OP has already made a decision.

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gif I hope so.

Thirdly the push/pull zoom system is deemed inconvenient by users

I like it just fine.

[DeaconG]

4 year old thread? I hope the OP has already made a decision.

No wonder the BigmOS isn't on this list! Wasn't around yet!

[whitehawk]

300 + tc or the 400.

wow... just read the original post date. dang.