Telephoto for novice bird photography

I'm a novice, been using a Tamron 18-270 DI-II VC (the older version) on my Canon T1i for almost two years, would like to get a telephoto mostly to shoot photos of birds. The Tamron has been fun for me to use, but has problems with chromatic aberration, and distortion (although I notice that mostly at the wide end). I would also like to blame some of my soft photos on the lens, although I'm sure most are operator error.

So, keeping in mind that I want better IQ than the Tamron 18-270 (which isn't asking for much), I'm still learning, my budget is sub $1000, and I'm most likely to buy used, do I get:

1. Something marginally better than what I have, like the Canon 55-250 with the idea that I would practice with this and sell it later.
2. Something better than what I have, but not significantly longer like the Canon (or Tamron) 70-300.
3. Something a lot longer like the Sigma 150-500 (or Tamron 200-500).
4. Something completely different because I'm on the wrong track here.

Thanks for your help.

With bird photography, focal length is critical. The more, the merrier.

How much of the frame do the birds take up when you are at 270mm? If they are small, then a 250 or 300mm lens won't give you much.

The Sigma 150-500 is the cheapest way of getting hand-held 500mm (anything cheaper doesn't have stabilization). It's also an excellent lens (of course there are better, more expensive ones).

So I'd say option #3 is the best, although you have to consider how much you're budgeting for your hobby

There's also a birding specific forum, why not ask again there?

Buy used Canon 100 - 400L and sell your 10 - 270.

I'd say Option #3. Try to find a good condition used one if possible ($800-$900?). That'll get you into the long tele lens land and gives you a chance to experience it and practice with it. Then you can go from there to better, more expensive lenses or not if you think that's perfect for you.

Canon 400mm f/5.6. There is at least one for sale on this forum. Check the sample archives but I think you will find it one of the sharpest lenses in that price range.

Another vote for the Bigmos. Recently got a very, very slightly used one for $800. Thing was mint and it is quite sharp.

bigVinnie wrote in post #15024532
Canon 400mm f/5.6. There is at least one for sale on this forum. Check the sample archives but I think you will find it one of the sharpest lenses in that price range.

This is what you need.

Definitely get as long a lens as possible.... Small subjects such as birds demand it. No matter how long a lens you get, there will be plenty of times you'll wish you had something longer.

IS (or Sigma's OS) is important. It makes the lens so much more hand-holdable. Though these are bigger lenses and you still might want a monopod or tripod at some point.

Canon 100-400 is fine, but basically outside your price range, even used.... plus something longer than 400mm would be desirable.

So, for that reason, I'd recommend the Sigma 150-500 OS, too. New it sells for just over $1000, (which is some $600-700 less than the Canon 100-400). You can probably find one used for a bit less... I'd hold out for an OS version, though. There was an earlier, non-OS, too.

This is a big lens. It's nickname is the "Bigmos" for a reason! Might want to budget for at lease a monopod!

The Canon 400/5.6L is a fine lens, but only gives you the one focal length and doesn't have IS. You might find it used in your price range, but normally it sells new for a bit more.

I use the 300/4L IS a lot handheld, with and without a Canon EF 1.4X II teleconvter. That gives me IS and two focal lengths (300mm and 420mm). I bought it used, but the lens alone was around $900 if memory serves. A good teleconverter costs at least $250... That's about what the min. I'd consider is the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4X sells for new. The Canon 1.4X II used might run about that much too. The newer Canon 1.4X III is over $400 new. So the package of lens and teleconverter is probably going to be more than your budget, even if bought used.

Teleconverters work fine with prime lenses that have f4 or larger apertures, but generally aren't so great with lenses f5.6 and smaller, and often don't play very well with zooms (there are some exceptions).

repete7 wrote in post #15023863
I'm a novice, been using a Tamron 18-270 DI-II VC (the older version) on my Canon T1i for almost two years, would like to get a telephoto mostly to shoot photos of birds. The Tamron has been fun for me to use, but has problems with chromatic aberration, and distortion (although I notice that mostly at the wide end). I would also like to blame some of my soft photos on the lens, although I'm sure most are operator error.

So, keeping in mind that I want better IQ than the Tamron 18-270 (which isn't asking for much), I'm still learning, my budget is sub $1000, and I'm most likely to buy used, do I get:

1. Something marginally better than what I have, like the Canon 55-250 with the idea that I would practice with this and sell it later.
2. Something better than what I have, but not significantly longer like the Canon (or Tamron) 70-300.
3. Something a lot longer like the Sigma 150-500 (or Tamron 200-500).
4. Something completely different because I'm on the wrong track here.

Thanks for your help.

For birds my vote would be the Canon 400mm 5.6 prime - you would have to get it used, Adorama sells them refurbished for 1,169
(which includes warranty and free shipping)

Thanks for all the advice. New question, what's the learning curve on these lenses? Between the Sigma 150-500 and the Canon 400 f/5.6, which would be easier for a novice to use? No point getting an expensive long lens if it's over my head to use it.

I do have a tripod and a monopole and I will be getting a new ball head rated for the extra weight depending on what lens I buy.

Last point, Santa can probably swing the Sigma used, but I'm not ready to go over $1000 for the prime. I'm not against waiting a year or more to buy it, but would it be worth wait?

No learning curve with a prime, just point and shoot.

I don't think I've ever heard a bird shooter say "Gee, I wish I had a shorter lens".

if you're used to a zoom, i'd think there'd be a learning curve going to just a prime...the sigma weight may take some getting used to...some say there's a learning curve, i didn't see it

i'd go for the 150-500OS...if you do buy used i'd try and see about getting the receipt of purchase, as if the lens is bought from an authorized dealer it will come with a 4 year warranty

bigVinnie wrote in post #15025178
No learning curve with a prime, just point and shoot.

I don't think I've ever heard a bird shooter say "Gee, I wish I had a shorter lens".

Not that simple, specially with birding. With a such a long prime you will have a lot of difficulty when changing from your own eye perspective to suddenly looking through the viewfinder and feeling completely lost trying to pinpoint where the bird just went! LOL! With a zoom you can back away a little find your subject and zoom in.

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #15025418
Not that simple, specially with birding. With a such a long prime you will have a lot of difficulty when changing from your own eye perspective to suddenly looking through the viewfinder and feeling completely lost trying to pinpoint where the bird just went! LOL! With a zoom you can back away a little find your subject and zoom in.

Very good advice and is 100% correct. I do recommend a zoom as bird shooting has to be quick and sometimes by the time you find the bird with the prime, its gone!

I'd be in the camp of the 150-500 or Canon 100-400 (my, personal favorite), if you're going for 'all-around' birding. The 400 f/5.6 is a great lens, but the lack of image stabilization makes it a bit less versatile for shooting those little critters in the shade, toward dusk, etc. The 400 is terrific if you're going for BiF, in good light, and can certainly be used for the more stationary birds, but it's still less flexible than either of the zooms.

Plus, the zooms can do just that, and give you bit wider field of view if you find a particularly accommodating subject