Telephoto help

I am planning a trip this winter to try and photograph eagles. I am having A issue deciding what to do lens wise.

I have a 7D that I will be bringing

I have a 100-400L but I am not sold that it is going to be long enough.

here is my thought process:
I could get a 300MM F/4 NON IS for around 700 ish. then maybe get the 1.4 TC. how much is that going to degrade the IQ and how much slower is it going to focus? Also I don't know if the extra 32MM is really going to be worth it, although I am hoping to stick with canon before venturing off to other brands.

I also thought about the Sigma Bigmos 150-500. it has OS and does not require a TC and gives me 800MM with the 7D. I have heard bad things though. Such as its inconsistent.

I also gave the Tamron 200-500 a thought. I am not sure the IQ will be as good as the Canon or the Sigma.

I am hoping to keep it at or under 1000 dollars. of course I would love to pick up one of canons high end telephotos but it just is not affordable right now.

any advice or help anyone could give it would be greatly appreciated. I have time until I need to decide but I just like to get a head start and try and find a deal.

thank you very much in advance!

Why not rent one of the big tele's.

crn3371 wrote in post #14853300
Why not rent one of the big tele's.

I usually try and just purchase something. I have reservations about renting. mostly because I kind of see it as wasting money. I would be looking at 3-500 dollars depending on what I wanted. It just kind of seems like a waste.

in Florida, anything less than a 500 is not really worth your time. At least the eagles I have found.

Having used the Tamron, that is a really nice lens - lightweight (makes handholding easier), AF is pretty fast, colors are great. It does lack IS which could be a killer depending on your lighting. Not a fan of the Sigma (personal opinion having owned 2). I don't see the benefit of a 300 + 1.4 given that you already have a 100-400.

Rent a biggie or use the 100-400.

J.Litton wrote in post #14853325
in Florida, anything less than a 500 is not really worth your time. At least the eagles I have found.

That's good to know. It looks like the 300 is out of question.thank you!

huntersdad wrote in post #14853334
Having used the Tamron, that is a really nice lens - lightweight (makes handholding easier), AF is pretty fast, colors are great. It does lack IS which could be a killer depending on your lighting. Not a fan of the Sigma (personal opinion having owned 2). I don't see the benefit of a 300 + 1.4 given that you already have a 100-400.

Rent a biggie or use the 100-400.

See I have personally never owned a tamron or know anyone who has. Thank you for your input. You have brought my two choices to the sigma or tamron. And the only reason why I would be more inclined to the sigma is the IS

I'm not going to get into the debate over which lens but I'm curious on how far in feet or yards you think you are going to be from your targets (in this case Eagles)? With the 7D and 100-400 your actually 640mm which will shoot a long ways. To extend your reach a good distance beyond the 100-400 and still have clarity your looking at paying $10k USD + for a good lens. I haven't actually tried TC's but from what I seen on the super telephoto's it's not going to help you much.

snowblower wrote in post #14853392
I'm not going to get into the debate over which lens but I'm curious on how far in feet or yards you think you are going to be from your targets (in this case Eagles)? With the 7D and 100-400 your actually 640mm which will shoot a long ways. To extend your reach a good distance beyond the 100-400 and still have clarity your looking at paying $10k USD + for a good lens. I haven't actually tried TC's but from what I seen on the super telephoto's it's not going to help you much.

I really like the 100-400 but I feel it is limited for the birds I photograph around here. I can't imagine how much farther eagles will be

I'm not actually sure how far I will be. I have never been where I'm going ( the national eagle center in Minnesota) Im trying to set my self up for the worse case scenario. Also I understand I would need to spend some serious cash to get the best IQ possible.

In all seriousness I will not be getting paid for these. It will be for fun. Im not a professional and I'm looking for a "best possible budget" lens.

I just sold my Sigma 150-500mm, but it wasn't due to lack of performance on the part of the lens. I used it for a trip to Alaska (whale and eagle watching), and it was brilliant. Excellent optical quality on my 5dmkii, with a bit of vignetting until about f/8. The OS system performed very well. Best of all, I bought it for $775 used, and sold it for exactly the same amount a year later.

I photograph eagles at Conowingo Dam in Maryland, and have had good results with a Canon 400/5.6. Something longer would be nicer, but at this site there's plenty of good stuff for 400mm. I'd suggest doing some research on where you're planning to shoot and see if you can get advice from people with experience from there. In fact, try the Bird section of this forum. For your budget, with its high image quality and fast accurate focusing the 400/5.6 is your best bet (I had a Sigma 150-500, for birds the Canon 400 blows it away, in my experience.)

tomj wrote in post #14853582
I photograph eagles at Conowingo Dam in Maryland, and have had good results with a Canon 400/5.6. Something longer would be nicer, but at this site there's plenty of good stuff for 400mm. I'd suggest doing some research on where you're planning to shoot and see if you can get advice from people with experience from there. In fact, try the Bird section of this forum. For your budget, with its high image quality and fast accurate focusing the 400/5.6 is your best bet (I had a Sigma 150-500, for birds the Canon 400 blows it away, in my experience.)

Well technically I can punch out the 100-400 to 400 and have it at 5.6. I just have a feeling it won't be long enough. Granted the 400 prime will most likely have faster focusing and better IQ. I would be very incline in the 400 if any converter worked with it

I just returned from a trip to Alaska and did pretty well with a Sigma 150-500 OS. I actually spent very little time actually photographing eagles (as opposed to general photography, sightseeing and fishing) but I had lots of opportunities that were fine with the 500 and probably would have been OK with the 100-400 but a little more reach never hurts.

I'm actually selling my Bigmos now (it's on the for sale forum) to purchase a 100-400 because I find that I don't really need the added focal length around here and I'm anxious to try the L glass.

Want to trade?

Here's just one of the many photos that I took with the Bigmos.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14853794
I just returned from a trip to Alaska and did pretty well with a Sigma 150-500 OS. I actually spent very little time actually photographing eagles (as opposed to general photography, sightseeing and fishing) but I had lots of opportunities that were fine with the 500 and probably would have been OK with the 100-400 but a little more reach never hurts.

I'm actually selling my Bigmos now (it's on the for sale forum) to purchase a 100-400 because I find that I don't really need the added focal length around here and I'm anxious to try the L glass.

Want to trade?

Here's just one of the many photos that I took with the Bigmos.

Thats a fantastic shot! It is tempting! but I love the 100-400L also. Who knows. Maybe I will feel the same way after I go! I just don't want to take a risk if I don't have to

Thanks a lot. I'm really just getting my feet wet with more serious photography and I really feel like I'm just now starting to get the hang of the Sigma after owning it for a month or two. Like I said, I took lots of photos of eagles in Alaska, here's another one.