Telephoto help

Yes, the 400L is an upgrade in IQ and speed. For most people, I think it is an either or thing. Some keep both! Only you can decide if keeping both (I think that is what you mean about a $1000 upgrade) is for you.

I think for a majority of people the zoom would be a better lens, as the zoom is more "versatile" than the 400L prime. You need to decide for yourself, what is best for you. Though looking at your gear list, I'd say you like the zooms.

Stick with what you have, if you can borrow a 1.4X from someone and see if the IQ is still good enough for you. If it is see how well you work with manual focus, as you will lose AF. A monopod might help while MFing. If you like it, buy one. If you don't like the IQ and/or don't like the MF, then use the zoom without the TC.

Unless you are made of money or this is how you made your living (and you'd already have what you needed then), I don't see a real need to buy more than the 100-400L.

As Snydremark pointed out, renting may also be an option.

tomj wrote in post #14854652
When I got my 400/5.6 one of the first things I did was a test between it and my Sigma 150-500. I printed out a lens test chart from the internet, shot it with both lenses from the same distance, and made 8x10 prints of a very small part of the frame from each shot. The shots from the Canon had to be cropped tighter and blown up further for the prints from each lens to have the same image at the same size. The shots taken with the Canon lens were significantly sharper, even though cropped tighter and blown up more. In other words, at least with my versions of these lenses, I'm getting sharper images with the shorter lens cropping tighter.

And the focusing speed and accuracy of the Canon lens is far superior.

I think in your situation your best bet is to stick with the 100-400, and learn to use it within its reach limitations. I don't think you'll find anything better (and likely, not as good) in the budget you've talked about. The next real step up is probably a Canon 500mm or 600mm, serious money.

A lot of people are really happy with the Sigma 150-500, and it really opened the door to bird photography for me when I got mine, but I've since met quite a few people who have, like me, moved from it to the Canon 400/5.6 or the 100-400.

This is a shot from last fall at Conowingo dam:
http://www.flickr.com …s/sets/72157629​221454285/

Love the 400f5.6L shots from you and Laramie and thanks for your comparison and report. I've considered the 400L myself but I really hate the idea of losing the flexibility of the zoom. I do mostly wildlife and nature and the occasional bird shot so I think I'd really miss the lower end of the zoom range. Sure, I have shorter 270 and 300mm zooms but they aren't of really high quality and I hate the idea of changing lenses all the time to "get the shot". (By the way, I know the Conowingo Dam area well. I once had to hack and feed a baby bald eagle on the PA side after it was deserted by its mother).

Now, if someone can give the same sort of side by side comparison of the Bigmos versus the 100-400L, that would certainly help me (and probably the original poster as well).

" I guess my question is do you think that going from the 100-400 to the 400 prime is a 1000 dollar upgrade?"

The 400/5.6 probably is probably a little sharper and faster focusing than the 100-400, but I suspect it's a marginal difference. The downside of the prime is it's not a zoom, and it doesn't have IS, not a problem with something like birds where you need all the reach you can get, and you're using high shutter speeds and don't need IS.

1000 dollar upgrade? The prime sells for a few hundred less than the zoom.

If I already had the zoom, I doubt I'd switch.

BTW, I've been using a 50d for a couple of years, just got a 7d last week, and after shooting with it Sunday I'm blown away by it's focusing performance. I think the gear you already have is about as good combination as you can get without getting in to the really big dollars.

Lichter21c, have you considered purchasing a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter?

DreDaze wrote in post #14854539
i love my sigma 150-500OS...but for you i wouldn't bother with it...it's not going to help you get a shot that you couldn't do already with a bit of cropping...the only thing i would possibly do if i were in your shoes, is swap out the 100-400L, and 70-200f2.8 for a sigma 120-300f2.8 OS...and get some TC's

I like the idea, personally, of the 120-300 plus TC's. Is there any other good 2.8's out there that would be be nice for that extra length?

Lichter21c wrote in post #14854185
You make very good points. It really is a difficult decision. I also have to think after this trip what I can use this lens for. I don't want to buy a lens only for birds I do once a year. That is just a huge waste of money.

You can always use it for neighborhood surveillance !

there is never such as a thing as having too much focal length. Whatever your longest lens is, it's usually not enough.

Naturalist wrote in post #14856203
Lichter21c, have you considered purchasing a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter?

I have. The problem is if I put a 2X on the 70-200 it makes it a 400 5.6 which I have in the 100-400. But if I put one on the 100-400 than I lose AF capabilities and truthfully I don't think I'm good enough to try and MF these at 800. I would love if I was. But that's just not the case

You didn't mention where you are going. If you are planning to shoot at the various lock and dam on the mississippi you are going to need a 500 and probably with a 1.4 TC on it. If you are going to certain parts of Alaska you won't need anything that long. Irregardless of your attitude towards rental if this is a once in a lifetime trip and you want good photos I would rent the 500mm.

Larry Weinman wrote in post #14856535
You didn't mention where you are going. If you are planning to shoot at the various lock and dam on the mississippi you are going to need a 500 and probably with a 1.4 TC on it. If you are going to certain parts of Alaska you won't need anything that long. Irregardless of your attitude towards rental if this is a once in a lifetime trip and you want good photos I would rent the 500mm.

I did mention a few posts back. But it's only in minessota at a eagle sanctuary. It's only about 5 hours away. I mean if I was going to Alaska for this only reason I would invest in a 500. But unfourtinately (and luckily) for me I won't be going far

I love my 400 5.6, and if used soley for birding feel it is a better option than the 100-400. Although the 100-400 is a better, more flexible, all around telephoto lens.

In your situation if you have money burning a hole in your pocket I would just drop the coin into renting a 500 prime (assuming you have some sort of support system that would hold it? A beefy monopod at the least), a 1.4x TC, and call it a day. But then again I don't know how far from your subjects you will be there. In Florida we have Bald Eagles and you can usually never have enough reach for them, in some areas of Alaska I visted they were around like pigeons in the marina's and I probably could have gotten one's portrait with my cell phone camera.

I just don't think you will see a big enough difference between the 100-400 and any of the tamron/sigma options you mentioned to merit the switch.

Otherwise shoot with what you have now, and keep saving toward buying a big prime or 120-300 2.8 and TC's as mentioned earlier. As for Alaska and cruising, heck yes you can get some great photos cruising in Alaska, don't know who told you you cannot.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14855947
Now, if someone can give the same sort of side by side comparison of the Bigmos versus the 100-400L, that would certainly help me (and probably the original poster as well).

there's this comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=50

"Now, if someone can give the same sort of side by side comparison of the Bigmos versus the 100-400L, that would certainly help me (and probably the original poster as well"

and here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

DreDaze wrote in post #14857127
there's this comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=50

Very interesting, thank you. I guess I didn't expect the 150-500 to be quite that close to the 100-400L but I was absolutely right in thinking that the 100-400L is noticeably sharper wide open. All things considered, I think I'd rather have the Canon but as with most things, until I try it, I won't know.

tomj wrote in post #14857199
"Now, if someone can give the same sort of side by side comparison of the Bigmos versus the 100-400L, that would certainly help me (and probably the original poster as well"

and here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

Thanks for posting that one too. Unfortunately, either I don't know how to compare results on the "digital picture" test or I have a very poor eye. Care to interpret the results for me?

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14857546
Thanks for posting that one too. Unfortunately, either I don't know how to compare results on the "digital picture" test or I have a very poor eye. Care to interpret the results for me?

Mouse arrow off the image shows sections of an image taken from the lens described in the left column. You run your mouse pointer over the image and it shows image sections from the right column.

Using the digital-picture site. You can change some parameters like the lenses you want to compare, the aperture, camera models sometimes, and for zooms FLs, in this way you can compare two lenses.

I like to use this sit but there are things to keep in mind. It is one lens of each type . There are individual variations of lens types. One might be a good copy, one might be a bad copy - in general it should be a decent comparison most of the time.

That said, the site has been around. That comparison (linked to by tomj) has been there for a long time. I believe it is an older copy of the 150-500mm and not a good copy. Mine I think is much better than that. As I've said before, I'd still give the edge to the Canon - but not that much.

Unless you are going to start shooting birds more frequently, I also still think that you should just use your 100-400 (or rent). Yes you will want more length, but you almost always will when shooting birds.

I'm not sure how far back you will be at the sanctuary, but you should be fine with your lens and then cropping a little in computer (to reach an equivalent using a 500mm in view).

The 400L will be a little sharper and faster, but again for you it is more specialized than I think you would permanently want/need - compared to your zoom.

Lichter21c wrote in post #14856530
I have. The problem is if I put a 2X on the 70-200 it makes it a 400 5.6 which I have in the 100-400. But if I put one on the 100-400 than I lose AF capabilities and truthfully I don't think I'm good enough to try and MF these at 800. I would love if I was. But that's just not the case

Live View focusing will work with the TC. If you're shooting stationary subjects that should work. BIF would probably be out of the question.