Which long lens to go for?

[Overread]

Yes its this dreaded question (again). I've been mulling over this for a while and I still have not really come to a final choice about what longer lens I would like to purchase - ok well that is a lie I would really like to get the 300mm f2.8 IS L and it is on the cards in the furture, but the recent price rise (over £1000) has pushed it out of the running for the moment. However this leaves me without a good longer range lens so I decided that I need something that I can aquire in a shorter time scale that will do the job well and give me the range I need.

to that end I have considered the following lenses:

Canon 100-400mm L (based on the top lenses for wildlife poll this appears to be the correct choice ;) )
Canon 300mm f4 IS L
Canon 400mm f5.6 L
Sigma 50-500mm OS (the new one)

Originally I was set on one of the prime lens options, however I've been seeing more and warming toward the zooms as a viable alternative option and the new sigma 50-500mm OS is an interesting lens that I am waiting on to see how it performs for people - especailly as the original fared quite well against the 100-400mm in tests I read.
The thing is if I go for a zoom option its something that will likley remain in my setup for a long while - sure not as good as the 300mm f2.8 IS L but a lot lighter and its zoom giving a versatiltiy when out and about. However that also means around 1/3ish of the price of the 300mm f2.8 savings is gone - whilst if I go for one of the prime options I could consider selling them on to help pay for the 300mm f2.8. I don't generally like to buy with the aim of selling, but saving and saving means that I am walking and missing shots.

So what are peoples feelings on the matter here? I have a reasonable amount of time to decide (ie the money is not fully saved up and burning a hole in my pocket).
Note for an idea of my current lens setup see my sig.

[matman1975]

Get the ef 400mm f/5.6 prime...it's a killer. Absolutely stunning image quality and sharpness, fast and accurate autofocus. The other three options are no match for this lens

Regards
Teo

[Tom Reichner]

Get the ef 400mm f/5.6 prime...it's a killer. Absolutely stunning image quality and sharpness, fast and accurate autofocus. The other three options are no match for this lens

I'd have to agree that the 400 f5.6 prime is a good, sharp lens - but to say that the 300 f4 IS is "no match" for it is a hard statement to understand. I think in terms of IQ they are both very good lenses for the money.

I just came back from a trip devoted entirely to shooting birds in flight, and used my 100-400 for an entire day. The IQ from it does not even approach that which I get from my prime ( the 400 f2.8 ). It was handy to use because of it's small size and weight, but when the images are not as sharp as I'm used to seeing with the big prime, it becomes difficult to recommend it.

I would definitely choose a Canon L prime like the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 IS. The 300 works wonderfully with the 1.4 extender, so it may offer a bit more versatility than the 400 f5.6

[matman1975]

I'd have to agree that the 400 f5.6 prime is a good, sharp lens - but to say that the 300 f4 IS is "no match" for it is a hard statement to understand. I think in terms of IQ they are both very good lenses for the money.

I just came back from a trip devoted entirely to shooting birds in flight, and used my 100-400 for an entire day. The IQ from it does not even approach that which I get from my prime ( the 400 f2.8 ). It was handy to use because of it's small size and weight, but when the images are not as sharp as I'm used to seeing with the big prime, it becomes difficult to recommend it.

I would definitely choose a Canon L prime like the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 IS. The 300 works wonderfully with the 1.4 extender, so it may offer a bit more versatility than the 400 f5.6

The 300mm f/4 is not a good choise for wildlife photography cause it is too "short", both for mammals and birds as well. In terms of sharpness and IQ , yes it is equal to the 400mm f/5.6 prime.
I shoot wildlife in Africa since 2005 mainly with a 400mm prime. I found myself too many times needing even more reach and finally cropping my images...that's why I upgraded to a 500mm f/4.
If wildlife is a photographer's main activity then a 400mm prime is the MINIMUM required

[troutfisher]

Depends on your budget and how much you will use it.If you can afford it and will get the use out of it then one of the big primes.
If you have budgetry constraints then the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 IS with a 1.4 TC.
I sold the sigma 50-500 non OS to get the 300 f4 because it was too heavy to use, I find the 300f4 with and without a 1.4TC fine for what I do and I use it quite a lot.
But if I won the lottery things would be different

[Overread]

Matman you make a good point and its one that makes this a hard choice - being trapped out at the long end of a zoom most of the time says that one needs (or could make better use of) a prime of that range. That is why the 50-500mm OS is interesting to me - because whilst it is a zoom its offering the longest range in that price bracket without having to consider far more expensive (and heavy) optins. A 500mm f4 would be fantasatic, but too heavy for me to remain mobile.
As I say my current longer term plan is a 300mm f2.8 IS L which I can use well up to 600mm with teleconverters and yet is still consdiered by most to be light enough to be a walkaround lens option. So the weight of the 50-500mm is not so much a barrier for me. I also have to keep in mind that the UK is not as open as the plains of Africa - so whilst 500mm fixed is great when you don't really want to push closer to a lion it might come up too close if getting into the woods.
The 400mm is also the only lens in this bracket without IS (something that I have come to rely and use a lot with my 70-200mm - esp on duller days in the UK)

[hollis_f]

It sounds as if you're talking yourself into the route I would recommend - get a 100-400 now (second-hand if possible) and use that while you save to get a 300 2.8.

[Overread]

100-400mm is in the running, but I'm warming more to the 50-500mm OS from sigma. From what I have read and seen of the 50-500mm original it was a good comparison to the 100-400mm in image quality, however the IS kept the 100-400mm ahead. However now it has the OS in the 50-500mm I am very keen to see how it compares. An extra 100mm at the long end would be good

[Tom Reichner]

100-400mm is in the running, but I'm warming more to the 50-500mm OS from sigma. From what I have read and seen of the 50-500mm original it was a good comparison to the 100-400mm in image quality, however the IS kept the 100-400mm ahead. However now it has the OS in the 50-500mm I am very keen to see how it compares. An extra 100mm at the long end would be good

Here is the website of an accomplished wildlife photographer who uses Canon equipment and advocates the use of zoom lenses:
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/digi_news.htm
That is the "News, Views, & Reviews" section of his site. You can click on some of the links on the right side of the webpage to learn more about him and his work.

This is an article he wrote reviewing the 100-400 and comparing it to the Sigma 50-500:
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/product_reviews.htm#Lens%20Reviews

I think he has applied many field trials and extensive experience to his evaluations of the lenses he reviews. Almost all of his trials and experiences are wildlife/outdoor specific, so what he has learned should be valuable information to you.

[Overread]

Thanks for those links Tom, they are saying what I have found from the other comarative reviews - that weight and a lack of stabalization held the 50-500mm back from competing with the 100-400mm (unless one used a support setup like a tripod). So again another review that is suggesting that the new OS edition would be the lens to go for.

[riyazi]

You might also want to consider the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM - half the price of the 50-500mm OS! If you get a proper copy it can get some good images - maybe not as good as the 400mm primes but worth the money you pay for.

[condyk]

I've owned multiple copies of the 100-400, 400, and the 300 and the non-OS 50-500 and 2x 150-500mm. A good 100-400 is very nice but I've never had one. All three were weak at the long end and one seemed to have poor resolution through the range. The 400mm is awesome and I doubt, other than adding IS, you could get a better bang per buck lens ... and even nicer as partner to your 70-200. I ran a similar set up for quite a while and would go back to it quite happily.

I know you're aspiring to the 300mm 2.8 but you should think long and hard. I am pretty fussy and I hired the Nikon 300 2.8 VR for a month last year and while it is one of the best you can buy, same as the Canon, I personally don't see the value unless you print large images. At standard web size or say A4 print the difference isn't really there over cheaper options. For wildlife I'm at f8 much of the time anyway and superb ISO performance these days means I need speed much less than previously.

On the Sigma's I have got great results with Canon and Nikon versions of the 150-500 OS. The OS is excellent, definitely better than the 100-400 and the extra 100mm does make a difference ... to me anyway. I'm mainly shooting from a hide or vehicle so weight isn't important ... and it's nothing compared to a 300 2.8 take my word for it!

The 100-400 IS has been long due for replacement and the competition is so strong these days I just can't see Canon holding out that much longer. So I'd wait and either pick up a bargain current model or what is bound to be an improved new model. It's a judgment call whether it'll be replaced of course.

The 300mm is a fine lens, really nice to use, but the length isn't there and, esp. with a TCon, the AF speed isn't there either.

So, if it was me having owned these options, I'd go first 400mm and second 150-500 OS or 50-500 OS. Next would be 100-400 and finally, unless just zoo shooting, the 300.

[waltn]

A Canon lens which has not been mentioned but which is highly thought of by bird photographers is the 400mm/f:4 L DO IS. This is physically about the same size as the 300mm/f:2.8 L IS, due to the use of advanced Diffractive Optics in the front element. I use this lens extensively for birds-in-flight pictures due to the low weight and high quality.

The primary difference between this lens and the others mentioned throughout this thread is the relatively low contrast of the images caused by the DO architecture However, with post-processing in DPP or ACR (or other RAW processors) the contrast can be easily increased with no negative effects on the resulting images. New, this lens costs around $5800 (I bought mine used for ~$4500). See here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239654-USA/Canon_7034A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_4_0.html) for information

Another lens which I have owned (and am looking to own again after foolishly selling one) is the Sigma 300-800/f:5.6. This lens, known as the Sigmonster, is absolutely incredible, producing high-contrast, tack-sharp images if used on a suitable tripod with a gimbal head. This is not a hand-held lens (though I have done so for a few minutes at a time); rather, it is superbly suited to taking pictures of birds from extreme distances. In addition, it will work with both 1.4X and 2X Canon converters, though AF won't work if your body requires f:5.6 or faster. New, this lens runs $7K-9K depending on the dealer.

[Overread]

Many thanks for the continued input to this!

I have to say I've been looking at comparissons and reviews and from what I can gather the 50-500mm OS Sigma lens is either performing just as well or a shade under the performance of the 100-400mm L. I've yet to read or see any review/comparison that is outright saying that the 100-400mm L is underperforming against the lens.

However I have also been checking out comparisons of the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 against hte 100-400mm - originaly only out of curiosity as I had heard how well people were liking the performance of the M2 of this lens, but as this thread here shows I think its performance might be far better than I originally expected:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=869226

I've also been comparing test shots on that site that does reviews and comparison shots (can't remember its name) comparing the M2 against the 100-400mm and agains the 300mm f4. I have to say considering that its a zoom lens and in both cases is having to use teleconverters to get a similar range its performance is quite outstanding - and for my own needs I am thinking that they would suit my need until I can add a more heafty workhorse of a long lens to the setup.
With the sale money from my current 70-200mm lens I should be able to upgrade to the M2 without much more cost than it would be to get a lens like the 100-400mm L. At the moment this sounds like the most sound plan to me and gives me a stella 70-200mm (which I already use a lot) as well as a credable option to go longer and reach up to 400mm whilst retaining a usable image quality.

[TaggM]

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ

[riyazi]

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ

LOL - I never realised that Amazon could provide so much humour :D Check out the pics and the "reviews"!

[MCAsan]

We just got back from our first photo safari to South Africa (Kruger Park and Cape Town). We used Tamron 18-270 as "close up", canon 100-400 for medium distance, and rented 500 f4 lens on site. We sometimes used the 1.4 converter with the 500. In Kruger Park you can get close enough that using a 100-400 is a great choice for marjority of shots.

You can see a few of our shots at wwww.ourimages.net

[Daryl-Hunter]

I use a 400 5/6L and get good results, many like the 100 400 zoom even though it isn't as clear but it is much more versatile and can take tele extenders.

[Immaculens]

Great thread - thank-you!

I'm looking for an upgrade but it all seems larger and heavier than I want to walk around with :confused:

[homersapien]

My primary concerns usually are portability (hiking and biking) and image quality (wide open of course). I've found the 300mm f/4 IS to be the right tool for both. The one's I've owned have been so sharp that upsizing is not a problem, and I can always slap on a teleconverter if I need 400mm.

[JuliusUpNorth]

Easy for me--the 100-400L. I seldom leave home without it, and most of the photos I have sold were taken with that baby.

Julius

[pprice]

I have been looking at the 100-400 pretty hard, might have to buy and try it out!

[troutfisher]

Very interesting thread. I have the 300f4 IS which I use with a 1.4 TC and the 70/200 f4 IS but I am giving very serious consideration to selling the 300 and getting the 100-400.Fortunately Jessops in the UK have a 30 day returns policy so I can buy it and return it if I dont like it, but I am still undecided over the 70/200 it has a lot going for it but if I get the 100/400 I am not sure if I will use the 70/200

[garyark]

I concur on the 400mm 5.6. I've used it for bird pix. The AF is lightning quick and its very sharp. Its not as sexy as some of the other canon big guns, but at $1000 used, you won't need to sell your house and sleep in the car.

[Entu]

I'm also have problem with choice for my 7D ( which i get at january probably so i got some time to think ;) ) sadly i can't reant any lens here in Poland so i can't really try it.

I'm decided already for 300 F4 prime but i'm also need a zoom for my hideout shoots when i got birds or mamals at 5-7 feets its sometimes very hard to get good shoot with prime , so i'm choosing between 100-400 or 50-500 ( new one ).

I know 7D "pushed up" IQ for some lenses , maybe anyone here use 100-400 or 50-500 OS with it and can give me advice?

[TaggM]

I'm decided already for 300 F4 prime but i'm also need a zoom for my hideout shoots when i got birds or mamals at 5-7 feets its sometimes very hard to get good shoot with prime , so i'm choosing between 100-400 or 50-500 ( new one ).

I know 7D "pushed up" IQ for some lenses , maybe anyone here use 100-400 or 50-500 OS with it and can give me advice?

Image Stabilization, by any name from whichever lens manufacturer, is always a wonderful option. The faster composition and cleaner photographs are well worth it if you can afford the additional price.

While lenses with zoom factors greater than three are more convenient for travel and rapidly changing range requirements, I prefer to rent another camera body to switch between ranges, or miss some shots while changing out lenses.

Using the doubler (2x tele-extender) with the 70-200 f/2.8 pushes the range out to 400 at f/5.6, one stop slower from f/4. Dropping the doubler leaves me with a sufficiently fast 70-200. For the next telephoto range, I am leaning towards the 500, or something greater.

[Entu]

Sadly i got only 70-200 F4 IS not F2.8 version and getting second body its not an option for me , because sometimes i'm must be very moveable for many reasons... i know i can miss some shoots when changing lens but i cam miss even more with close objects and "only" 300mm prime.

[Immaculens]

Oooh! been waiting for something like this to come along!

New 70-300mm L

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082617canon70mm300mm.asp