Bird lens upgrade

[riu]

I currently own a 400mm L 5.6, and i am really pleased with the performance of the lens, and 95% of the time is great for my needs. However recently i have missed a little extra reach or struggled with poor light at distances the camera can easily handle. As a result i am looking to upgrade to something that will possibly give me the few extra %.

Budget wise a 500mm F4 is out of the question :shake:, but would be able to throw about 2.5 -3K into it.

any advice would be greatly received.

regards
Steve

 

[realspeed]

Not a Canon owner but maybe a Tele Converter is the way to go for that extra reach without costing a fortune. even a 1.4 TC will give you 560mm with little light loss. Thats if the lens will take a TC of course

Realspeed

 

[riu]

Not a Canon owner but maybe a Tele Converter is the way to go for that extra reach without costing a fortune. even a 1.4 TC will give you 560mm with little light loss. Thats if the lens will take a TC of course

Realspeed

Bazza, it will take a t/c but lose autofocus, so i really wanted to retain AF.

Steve

 

[Neil B]

I currently own a 400mm L 5.6, and i am really pleased with the performance of the lens, and 95% of the time is great for my needs. However recently i have missed a little extra reach or struggled with poor light at distances the camera can easily handle. As a result i am looking to upgrade to something that will possibly give me the few extra %.

Budget wise a 500mm F4 is out of the question :shake:, but would be able to throw about 2.5 -3K into it.

any advice would be greatly received.

regards
Steve

I would just save that little bit more and wait for a 500 f4 Steve, you should be able to get one for £4k and I've never regretted it.
That's the problem with a birding lens, big gap in price if you need the quality of a long prime.

 

[srhmoto]

You could look for a used Sigma 500mm EX DG lens. I used to use one regularly up until I moved over to m4/3 and found it to be a superb performer. You should be able to find one within your budget.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Canon Bob]

I think the only way to get longer and faster within your budget will be a used 400/2.8 and a 1.4x Extender. Bear in mind that you'll need to be factoring in the cost of a decent tripod and gimbal going down this route.
Length without speed and there are Sigma zooms to consider.

Bob

 

[artyman]

I changed from a Sigma 150-500 to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which I use with 1.4 and 2X TC's so you would gain a stop at 400mm and have a 600mm f5.6 with the 2X attached. This is a moderate crop from a shot with the 2X. Fast and long is always going to be expensive, this was a 'reasonable' cost solution, and you have 300mm f2.8 as well

 

[riu]

I changed from a Sigma 150-500 to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which I use with 1.4 and 2X TC's so you would gain a stop at 400mm and have a 600mm f5.6 with the 2X attached. This is a moderate crop from a shot with the 2X. Fast and long is always going to be expensive, this was a 'reasonable' cost solution, and you have 300mm f2.8 as well


Thanks Ken, i had wondered about the sigma. Do you use Sigma convertors?

regards
Steve

 

[artyman]

Yes I have both the 1.4 and 2X, I also have the Canon 2X III, though to be honest there is very little difference in it and certainly not enough to justify the extra cost of the Canon version. Since I have it, I keep it for extra long

 

[realspeed]

Oh well it was just a thought.

Realspeed

 

[riu]

Oh well it was just a thought.

Realspeed

As soon as i put the 1.4 convertor on the camera reports Manual focus and F8.

Not sure if by taping pins up on the convertor then this would AF

Regards

Steve

 

[riu]

Not sure if by taping pins up on the convertor then this would AF

Regards

Steve[/QUOTE]

Just tried the tape trick, will autofocus but very hit and miss. Upgrade coming !!!

 

[postcardcv]

For your budget a used 300 f2.8 IS would be a good option, it takes TCs well giving you 420 f4 and 600 f5.6 you can even stack tcs to give 840 f8 which will still AF as the camera can only see one tc. The 300 is noticeably smaller and lighter than the 500 f4 making it much easier to use without a tripod. For me the 500 is the ultimate birding lens but it will set you back at least £1k more than a 300 and you'll need to budget another ~£750-1000 for a decent tripod and gimbal head.

 

[postcardcv]

Just a thought, I know it's a fair old drive but if you fancy popping over to Norfolk you'd be welcome to come and have a play and see what you think. Opinions are all well and good but nothing beats actually trying gear for yourself. I know people who have gone from 400 f5.6/100-400 to big white primes and regretted it as they prefer the portability of the smaller lenses.

 

[riu]

Just a thought, I know it's a fair old drive but if you fancy popping over to Norfolk you'd be welcome to come and have a play and see what you think. Opinions are all well and good but nothing beats actually trying gear for yourself. I know people who have gone from 400 f5.6/100-400 to big white primes and regretted it as they prefer the portability of the smaller lenses.

Thanks. Did nt factor cost of tripod etc. Also was not aware you could stack t/c. In an ideal world the 500 is definatley the way to go for birds. But dont know if i could justify a single use lens plus extra cost of head etc. Might look more into the 300 f2.8 route, as it will offer some subject flexibility. Possibly down Norfolk way at the end of month so may give you a shout.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks. Did nt factor cost of tripod etc. Also was not aware you could stack t/c. In an ideal world the 500 is definatley the way to go for birds. But dont know if i could justify a single use lens plus extra cost of head etc. Might look more into the 300 f2.8 route, as it will offer some subject flexibility. Possibly down Norfolk way at the end of month so may give you a shout.

Used 300L 2.8 plus 2x telecon is probably favourite for your budget.

All a telecon does is magnify the image presented by the mother lens, so performance is largely down to that rather than the extender, and stacking them obviously doesn't help.

AF performance also takes a hit, which is where the new Canon Mk3 extenders are said to be most improved. And on the taping pins trick, if it works at all (sometimes does, sometimes doesn't - depending on lens/camera) AF performance will be hit hard.

Take a look at the lens reviews on TheDigitalPicture.com. All the Canons are on there (check and compare the ISO12233 crops) and also the Sigma 120-300 OS, with extenders. Here's that Sigma compared to Canon 300 Mk2 plus 2x M3 extender http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

 

[Zen56]

I have a Canon 300mm 2.8 is lens and was thinking of the two times converter. had the opportunity to take a few shots with the new MK 3 and was very impressed. Calumet hire them for £19 for the weekend so I am going to get one from them to do a more thorough test.

 

[riu]

I have a Canon 300mm 2.8 is lens and was thinking of the two times converter. had the opportunity to take a few shots with the new MK 3 and was very impressed. Calumet hire them for £19 for the weekend so I am going to get one from them to do a more thorough test.

Be very interested to know how you get on with it Gary.

regards

Steve

 

[postcardcv]

I have a Canon 300mm 2.8 is lens and was thinking of the two times converter. had the opportunity to take a few shots with the new MK 3 and was very impressed. Calumet hire them for £19 for the weekend so I am going to get one from them to do a more thorough test.

I tested the mkII and mkIII 2x tcs on a mkI 300 f2.8 IS and could not tell the difference in focus speed or image quality. A friend has the mkII 300 and he reckons the mkIII tc is better on it. With the newest lenses the mkIII tcs make sense, with the older lenses they seem to be a bit of a waste. Save yourself a bit of cash a buy a mkII 2x instead.

 

[riu]

I have a Canon 300mm 2.8 is lens and was thinking of the two times converter. had the opportunity to take a few shots with the new MK 3 and was very impressed. Calumet hire them for £19 for the weekend so I am going to get one from them to do a more thorough test.

Be very interested to know how you get on with it Gary.

regards

Steve

 

[postcardcv]

Take a look at the lens reviews on TheDigitalPicture.com. All the Canons are on there (check and compare the ISO12233 crops) and also the Sigma 120-300 OS, with extenders. Here's that Sigma compared to Canon 300 Mk2 plus 2x M3 extender http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

That does show what a difference there is between the Canon and the Sigma (there should be given the price difference). I also had a look at the Sigma compared to the mkI 300 (which should just be in the ops budget) and it also looked very good. All this talk about lenses makes me want to get out and take some bird photos!

 

[riu]

I tested the mkII and mkIII 2x tcs on a mkI 300 f2.8 IS and could not tell the difference in focus speed or image quality. A friend has the mkII 300 and he reckons the mkIII tc is better on it. With the newest lenses the mkIII tcs make sense, with the older lenses they seem to be a bit of a waste. Save yourself a bit of cash a buy a mkII 2x instead.

cheers Peter.

 

[Rebel t3i]

the kenco tele converters fit more lens makes and the AF tends to work on more of them
and they are cheaper

 

[awhyu]

Hmmm, although I am new to birding ( mainly a landscape and portrait photographer ) I find the 300mm f2.8 L IS with teleconvertors is pretty damn good

This shot is with the 1.4 MKIII Teleconvertor (shot with the 5D MKIII):




and this one with the 2x MKIII Teleconvertor (shot with the 7D)

 

[postcardcv]

the kenco tele converters fit more lens makes and the AF tends to work on more of them
and they are cheaper

They are indeed and are optically very good but can throw up some oddities. I have a Kenko 1.4x and have used it on a number of lenses with great success however it has not worked well with IS lenses that I have tried it with. The combination seems to send the IS silly which in turn affects the AF.

 

[riu]

From all the comments and the major stumbling block of cash, i have decided to go down the 300MM 2.8 route +convertors. I now face the decision on the new sigma 120 - 300 OS version or a Second hand Canon Prime.

 

[Rebel t3i]

not experienced any issue my self I also have the sigma 1.4 and 2x
not had any issues with the sigma on the 70-200 2.8L IS I have, but can't recall whether I have used the kenco's on this lens or not
I will give the kencos a bit of a test and check it out more thoroughly

 

[seriousrikk]

I was in the same situation you were.


Had a 400mm F5.6 but wanted more reach. Initially I bought the Kenko pro 300 DGX converter which by a strange trick reports it's presence in the focal length but not in aperture - thus allowing autofocus.

But AF performance was dire on the 400mm F5.6 - could only lock on in live view and this was under good light!

I now use a 300mm F2.8 IS mk1 and 2x converter - never looked back. Superb combo!

 

[footman]

Cracking shots Andrew.
It's true that the Canon 500mm is pretty much a one use lens but it's actually lighter than the 400mm F2.8.
The good thing about the Canon 300mm is that you get a little more flexibilty in terms of focal length, weight and MFD.
I'm sure that the addition of a 1.4x TC to the 300mm will be almost unnoticeable in terms of IQ but the x2 TC may be more problematical, at least that's how it seems to work on my 300mm F4.
It depends how fussy the individual is and as always YMMV.

I don't think that the 300 at 600mm is going to compare well with the 500 at 700mm. This is an eternal conundrum for someone wanting to try for a longer lens to make a real difference, I bit a very hard bullet and went for the 500mm, there are a few for sale ATM on various forums.

 

[Rebel t3i]

quick test of my kenco'pro 300's on my ef 70-200 2.8 L IS shows no issues with af or IS
however fitting them both does cause a few af issues and the odd IS jump or 2
hardly surprising though really with both fitted lol

 

[Surrey Sam]

I was in a similar position and decided on a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS prime. It really is a cracking lens and I happily use it with the 2x mk3 extender.

Here are two examples, first one was the bare lens and the second with 2x extender, both were hand held and cropped accordingly to give comparable output image:

Bare 300mm lens
F/2.8
1/320 sec
ISO 100

300mm lens with 2x mk3 extender
F/5.6
1/320 sec
ISO 640

 

[mjb123]

I was in a similar position and decided on a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS prime. It really is a cracking lens and I happily use it with the 2x mk3 extender.

Here are two examples, first one was the bare lens and the second with 2x extender, both were hand held and cropped accordingly to give comparable output image:

Bare 300mm lens
F/2.8
1/320 sec
ISO 100

300mm lens with 2x mk3 extender
F/5.6
1/320 sec
ISO 640

Nice shots, what body were these taken on?!!

 

[Pitvar]

I know I'm on the dark side but I know some pro wildlife Canon users and a lot of people have the 300mm f2.8 and 2.0 tc combination. I love the ability to have 600mm f5.6 and then a super sharp 300mm when I need it. I've ice climbed with that combination for Ptarmigan in the afternoon and then dropped back to the 300mm in the dark forests at the foot of the hill in the evening.

Two things I would add are that I did some back to back testing with 500mm f4, 300mm f2.8 and different TCs and if anything the 300mm and 2.0tc looked as sharp or sharper than the bare 500mm. Also I've tried 120-300 f2.8 Sigma lenses and owned one for a year but I was never happy with the drop in quality for the big zooms over the primes...

 

[footman]

Nice shots, what body were these taken on?!!

Exif says Canon 1D Mark IV

Two things I would add are that I did some back to back testing with 500mm f4, 300mm f2.8 and different TCs and if anything the 300mm and 2.0tc looked as sharp or sharper than the bare 500mm. Also I've tried 120-300 f2.8 Sigma lenses and owned one for a year but I was never happy with the drop in quality for the big zooms over the primes...

That's interesting, if I thought that I could get the same quality with a lighter, smaller and slightly cheaper combination I'd do it like a shot.
What about a 300mm with a 2x TC vs a 500mm which is then cropped. I'm talking on a sensor like a 1D Mark IV?

Edit: I think you answered that in your post but I find it difficult to accept that the 300 with a 2x TC can be sharper than the 500, I don't suppose you have any samples?

 

[riu]

Thanks for all the help and info. If money was not an issue it would be 500mm, however as this is only the beginning of a very infectious hobby and can i really justify a single use lens for 4K plus, and the tripod head factor, then i will be going down the 300MM f2.8 route with T/C's. Just debating on Sigma zoom (for versitility) or Second hand Canon prime.

regards
Steve

 

[Canon Bob]

You opening post mentioned struggling with poor light at f/5.6, Steve. A 300/2.8 + 2x isn't going to help you in that respect.....have you considered and dismissed this?

Bob

 

[riu]

You opening post mentioned struggling with poor light at f/5.6, Steve. A 300/2.8 + 2x isn't going to help you in that respect.....have you considered and dismissed this?

Bob

Bob, i have struggled at times with light at 5.6, but at distances a 300mm f2.8 with or without a 1.4t/c would easily cope with. So i have nt dismissed it altogether. I would imagine what ever lens you have there will be at times where the light is against you and bumping iso's up is not always the answer. (Still a novice so if this is wrong please excuse my ignorance)

Steve

 

[FourRingCircus]

I have the latest ISII 500mm F4 and although it's a beast, it's not a one trick pony and I believe it's significantly better (& lighter) than the older version.

I'd like to dispel the myth about the Canon TC's - you CAN'T stack them. This statement applies to the II & III versions as that's what I have in my bag. Besides, you wouldn't want to stack them as IQ would probably go down the pan!

I'm posting to say that my next purchase will be either the 300 or 400 2.8 ISII. However, if I already had the 300, I'd definitely be saving for the 500!

Given the budget being discussed, I think a MKI 300 IS with Canon TC's would be the best way to go. No need for the latest gen of TC's with that lens either - pick up the MKII converters for a lot less less.

Canon produce their lenses in specific sizes and apertures so that one is never enough. No need to worry that you can't decide which is the best way to go - the manufacturers have orchestrated it that way!!

 

[riu]

Thanks John.
Like i said earlier if money was no object it would be the 500 F4. But i feel as i am a relative new comer the 300mm F2.8 will give me a little more flexibilty. If things progress then who knows. Thanks for the advice on the T/C's.
will start trawling the classifieds to see whats available and price range i need to look at for well looked after MK1 300 IS . Already got a 1.4 canon and kenko t/c.

Regards
Steve

 

[postcardcv]

I'd like to dispel the myth about the Canon TC's - you CAN'T stack them. This statement applies to the II & III versions as that's what I have in my bag. Besides, you wouldn't want to stack them as IQ would probably go down the pan!

Sorry to argue this point but with mkII tcs you can stack them (no idea about mkIII tcs as I've not tried it). Obviously the AF and IQ are effected. It if you stop down a bit you can get very usable results.