Wildlife Lens vs. Travel

*I have posted an idential thread in the Wildlife Section. I am looking for advice from both spectrums of the board, and I apologize if I have broken the rules.

Hey,

I have some cash saved for a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L telephoto lens. I've got almost enough and I look at my savings and think, "Christ, what a lot of money." It has taken me a very long time to save this money and now that I am near my goal, I am reluctant to part with it all for just one lens.

I believe that it's the photographer, not the gear, that takes a great picture. Currently, I shoot with a 5 year old Rebel XT and a 70-300 USM IS 4.5-5.6. About 90% of my images are taken with my 70-300. There are many examples of images taken with this gear on my website, so check it out, if you discern the 70-300 + Rebel XT to be an inferior setup. However, if a new lens is going to help me to evolve into a more experienced photographer, I look at the price tag as an investment into my skill level as an artist.

No, my gear is not the greatest. But - my 300 has almost as much reach as the 400, and the same maximum aperture range. Is that 400 really going to improve my work? And to what extent? Will it really assist in furthering my skill and experience in photography?

I am thinking that a better investment would be a quick trip based around wildlife photography. With all this money, I could get out and shoot some great wildlife pictures to add to my portfolio!! Alaska for grizzlies, salmon and eagles, or the Great Bear Rainforest for Kermodes, whale watching trips up the coast...the possibilites go on.

So basically it all boils down to: What is the richer experience? A photography trip with my Rebel and 70-300, or a 100-400 telephoto lens?

Jeez, I could really use a vacation...

How about a Sigma 120-400 OS instead? It's about $650 less expensive (BH Photo prices) and all the reviews I've seen seem to show it goes toe to toe with the 100-400 pretty well. There is also the Sigma 150-500 OS for just a little more. I don't know how it stands up optically.

You could probably recoup some from selling your 70-300, combine that with the savings and still be able to fund a modest trip with your new lens.

Nice photos

Have you considered a cheaper alternative? The 70-300 should go for $350-$400 2nd hand, and a Sigma 150-500 OS can be had for < $1000. Or you could hang onto the 70-300 and complement it with a 400 F/5.6.

It's difficult to give advice without knowing the way you shoot. Do you normally use a tripod? Are your shots normally framed from-camera or some heavily cropped?

I've done similar to you before - finally got the money together and then started questioning my decision. I think it's a good thing, it ensures that you're certain about your purchase.

i'd get the sigma 150-500OS...it'll give you much more reach...cost is the same as the 120-400OS so you'll gain more on the long end there...and with the money saved over the 100-400L you can go on a trip and use it...

i went from a 70-300IS to the sigma, i still have the 70-300IS, but don't use it as much...i found the sigma to be slightly better i.q. wise, and to focus a little better as well...and the reach is crazy compared to the 300mm...

Going to follow this thread.

I am planing to go for one of the 70-300s. Can some one give an idea, with example, to how much is the difference in FOV between 300mm & 400mm ( & 500mm)

ssmanak wrote in post #12152939
Going to follow this thread.

I am planing to go for one of the 70-300s. Can some one give an idea, with example, to how much is the difference in FOV between 300mm & 400mm ( & 500mm)

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …al_length_compa​risons.htm

there's also a calculator at the bottom to show what a longer focal length would do to an image

The Sigma 150-500 is fine optically, probably hard to beat for value for money

tanner07 wrote in post #12152753
Hey,

I have some cash saved for a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L telephoto lens. I've got almost enough and I look at my savings and think, "Christ, what a lot of money." It has taken me a very long time to save this money and now that I am near my goal, I am reluctant to part with it all for just one lens.

I believe that it's the photographer, not the gear, that takes a great picture. Currently, I shoot with a 5 year old Rebel XT and a 70-300 USM IS 4.5-5.6. About 90% of my images are taken with my 70-300. There are many examples of images taken with this gear on my website, so check it out, if you discern the 70-300 + Rebel XT to be an inferior setup. However, if a new lens is going to help me to evolve into a more experienced photographer, I look at the price tag as an investment into my skill level as an artist.

No, my gear is not the greatest. But - my 300 has almost as much reach as the 400, and the same maximum aperture range. Is that 400 really going to improve my work? And to what extent? Will it really assist in furthering my skill and experience in photography?

I am thinking that a better investment would be a quick trip based around wildlife photography. With all this money, I could get out and shoot some great wildlife pictures to add to my portfolio!! Alaska for grizzlies, salmon and eagles, or the Great Bear Rainforest for Kermodes, whale watching trips up the coast...the possibilites go on.

So basically it all boils down to: What is the richer experience? A photography trip with my Rebel and 70-300, or a 100-400 telephoto lens?

Jeez, I could really use a vacation...

A lens replacement like this won't further your skill and experience, but a good photographer such as yourself having a better lens is rewarding. If it's the right lens for you, you will enjoy your end-result images more than you would otherwise.

It would depend how long it would be until I could afford the leftover option that I didn't take. If you're in the mindset of, "Jeeze, now I have to wait another (whatever "a very long time" is) until I can have enough money to upgrade this lens," then yeah, I'd go ahead and get the new lens. On the other hand, replace "upgrade this lens" with "go on vacation."

I personally would much rather go on vacation with my "upgraded" lens if the vacation wasn't a one-time opportunity and I could go another time. Vacations are temporary whereas you're going to be using that lens for a lot longer.

It's hard to give an informed response since I haven't handled one of the Sigma lenses -- I myself stick to Canon.

In the wildlife field well, there is a price to pay.

I started out with my first DSLR, a 30D, and the 70-300 lens, and found I wasn't satisfied with the 70-300 for wildlife shooting -- way too soft wide open (f/5,6) which I often have to shoot in with the conditions that I face, so I did the upgrade.

And, I don't regret it! I consider my 100-400 to be my "general purpose walk-around wildlife lens". To get better, think about the 500 f/4...well, I seriously dobt that I can afford that!

If you really want to step up the IQ then the 70-300 and 100-400 won't cut it. Think about the 400 or 300 primes, similar price. Buy used to save a few quid. I love my 100-400 for its flexibility and sharpness but have the 300 2.8 and 500 f4 for serious stuff. 100-400 has pretty dreadful bokeh at times and the IQ od the primes is going to hep your portfolio more. Coupled with the 70-300 you have good range and flexibility.

Or you go on that trip. Can't help you there. I went to Africa in 2006 with my 70-300 IS. Enjoyed thoroughly but regretted not having better glass and reach.

I returned my Sigma 120-400 after one day. Just not sharp enough for me. Sigma 150-500 OS has many fans here.

One reviewer's interesting comparison of Canon 100-400 IS, Sigma 120-400 OS, 150-500 OS and 50-500 (aka "Bigma"?):

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …20-400_150-500_50-500.htm

It looks to be a pretty well done comparison, using a 1Ds Mark III, and with lots of 100% thumbnails to compare. The main differences the reviewer found between the four samples he used were that the Canon 100-400 was a wee bit sharper at focal lengths 300mm and below, wide open. Stopped down to f8 all four lenses were nearly identical... the Canon generally showed a little better contrast but that's easily adjusted in post processing. The reviewer appears to only compare images at the center, I don't see any Note that the 50-500 in the test is non-OS, while all the others are stabilized. A friend of mine is very happy with the 50-500, but he's using it on a Pentax with in-body stabilization.

Personally for anything longer than 200mm I prefer a prime and use several... For handheld shots and/or if there's a lot of hiking involved, it's most often with Canon 300mm f4 IS, sometimes with 1.4X (Canon, Mark II) and sometimes without. Now, much as I like my primes.... I might have to take a look at the new 200-400/4 "Extender 1.4X" when it comes out... I'm scared about what the price will be! I bet it'll be big and heavy, too.

I'm thrilled with the different viewpoints and advice here!

I am now doing a bit more homework, and looking into the 150-500 OS, and more seriously the 50-500 OS...thanks to everyone, and special thanks to amfoto for that comparison link.

Any more input?

tanner07 wrote in post #12163222
I'm thrilled with the different viewpoints and advice here!

I am now doing a bit more homework, and looking into the 150-500 OS, and more seriously the 50-500 OS...thanks to everyone, and special thanks to amfoto for that comparison link.

Any more input?

well the 50-500OS will be just as much as the 100-400L...so you'll be missing out on that trip

go travel.

I'd rather see pictures from p&s cameras of experiences rather than 50L, super bokeh shots of peoples cats in their living room.