Replacing 70-300 IS USM for birds and wildlife

I am finding myself being restricted by the 300mm top end of my 70-300 IS USM (non L) lens. Getting some higher quality glass would be great as well.

I am thinking about the 100-400 of course, but I was wondering if I would be limited by the 400mm top end for birds. Should I also consider the 150-500 BigmOS? I have read all the threads on the bigmOS vs. 100-400 and I would really like to get the L glass but am wondering if 400 is sufficient for birds. I have also read the threads extolling the virtues of primes, but at this stage I would rather retain the flexibility of a zoom lens.

I have also read into adding a 1.4X to the 100-400 and the tape trick, but living in cloudy Oregon, I am a bit wary of both this and the bigmOS due to the reported lack of low light performance.

Thanks for any inputs!

there are times when 500mm isn't enough...i went from a 70-300IS to a 150-500OS...i remember the first time i put the lens on the camera just being amazed at how much more reach 500mm is compared to 300mm...i'd say the IQ on the 150-500OS is better than the 70-300IS...both the 100-400L and 150-500OS require a lot of light to work...the fact that the OS is better on the sigma could make it better in low light actually...everyone says you need a fast shutter for wildlife to stop their motion, but that's not always true

either one will be a step up, for me it all came down to budget, when i bought my lens the 100-400L was nearly double the price, and i couldn't justify it...that gap has gotten closer recently though, especially if you consider buying the 100-400L used

Canon is running Rebates now too.

Canon 400 f5.6

I was in a similar spot and was deciding between the Canon 100-400 and the Bigma 50-500 OS. In the end, I got a great deal on a 100-400 and it was ridiculously hard to find a new Bigma in stock at a good price, let alone used.

The 150-500 is simply not in the IQ range as the two lenses above.

vsg28 wrote in post #15080631
I was in a similar spot and was deciding between the Canon 100-400 and the Bigma 50-500 OS. In the end, I got a great deal on a 100-400 and it was ridiculously hard to find a new Bigma in stock at a good price, let alone used.

The 150-500 is simply not in the IQ range as the two lenses above.

Agreed, I've had all three and the 50-500 OS and the 100-400 are the only two id consider

Your mileage may vary but personally I preferred the handling of the 50-500, The black color is also better for birds because it allowed me to get physically closer to my subjects than with the 100-400's bright white finish

I would have gone with the Bigma if I could find one at a good price! I got a mint 100-400L for $1200 so no complaints though. It should be here next week

CanonCameraFan wrote in post #15080593
Canon is running Rebates now too.

It is? Link?

Or are you referring to the refurbished "sale" where everything is out of stock?

it's an instant rebate, and is shown on all the websites like B&H, puts the price at $1529 instead of $1699

http://www.canonrumors​.com …2012/09/rebateo​ct2012.jpg

DreDaze wrote in post #15080764
it's an instant rebate, and is shown on all the websites like B&H, puts the price at $1529 instead of $1699

http://www.canonrumors​.com …2012/09/rebateo​ct2012.jpg

400 f/5.6 + 1.4X II + 2X III.

TSchrief wrote in post #15080874
400 f/5.6 + 1.4X II + 2X III.

he said he wants to stick with a zoom...

Yeah, when I go back and look at all my photos, I have enough instances of taking shots at 200 or 300mm that I think a zoom is the best option for me.

DreDaze wrote in post #15080880
he said he wants to stick with a zoom...

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15081193
Yeah, when I go back and look at all my photos, I have enough instances of taking shots at 200 or 300mm that I think a zoom is the best option for me.

Yes, I saw that. The only problem with that is that Canon does not make a zoom longer than the 100-400L. I own one; it is a fine zoom. It is also not near long enough for wild birds or wildlife. Since the lens the OP wants does not exist, I offered a reasonable alternative. I started with the 400 f/5.6 because it is sharper and focuses faster than the 100-400L.

400 f/5.6 $1350
1.4X TC $ 500
400 + 1.4X = $1800 vs a 500 f/4 for $10,000

2X TC $500
400 + 2X = $1800 vs 800 f/5.6 for $13,500

400 + 1.4X + 2X = $2350
So, if my math is correct, the OP can get a useful variety of focal lengths for his stated purpose for about $2350. He is also free to only select the parts of that kit that suit his needs. Or, since the lens he wants does not exist he can go with straight primes.
400 + 500 + 800 = $1350 + 10,000 + 13,500 = $24,850.
I did not see any suggestion in the original post that the OP was willing to spend that kind of money. So I offered the only reasonable alternate. I know that Sigma makes some XX(X)-500 lenses. The IQ and focus speed at 500mm does not match the kit I suggested, or any of the suggested Canon combinations.
I offered a reasonable alternative to an impossible to fill request. There is no Canon zoom longer than 400mm. Telling me that the OP wants something that does not exist does not seem to help the situation.

i'm not sure how useful they'd be, being MF only...the sigma's would do better AF speed wise than the 400mm with a 1.4TC on it...and with a 2X TC i doubt you'd get any AF at all, so you'd be stuck MF'ing wildlife, which to me sounds like a 2% keeper rate...

There's pretty much never enough reach when talking birds; but, IMO, the 100-400 is the best, general birding lens without stepping up to the big guns. The 400 f/5.6 is great for in-flight shots, but the flexibility of the zoom, IS and closer minimum focus distance (@6ft vs @12ft) just beats it out, for me, as it can be used for wildlife and other applications where the subject is/can be inside of the prime's MFD.