I need more length!

B

biscuitthief

Suspended / Banned
Messages
122
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
:D
As the title says really. Currently dabbling in birds and wildlife and finding my 70-300L a little lacking in reach. I have looked around the web and came up with a short list within my budget.

Canon 300 f4 L is plus 1.4 teleconverter
Canon 400 5.6L
And the good old Canon 100-400

I like the idea of having a 300 with a teleconverter as I get IS out of it, but don't really know wether the quality will suffer too much.
What have you guys got/had and what did you like?
 
I would need a monster of a lens on full frame :)
Maybe I just need to be a bit more quiet, so I can get closer lol
 
I have the 300 f4 IS and with the 1.4x attached it slows remarkably. Not so much that you can't use it, but just be aware.
I never use it now for birds in flight because it can never track quick enough. (imo)
 
Last edited:
squizza, what are you using for birds in flight now then? (fingers crossed its not a monster £5000 lens :D)
 
I've got a Sigma 150-500 OS and a 120-400 OS, both of which get regular use on my 5D3 and 60D. I normally use the 150-500 for BIF, wildlife and aircraft on the 5D3 and I get some tremendous results considering it cost just over £600 delivered from www.panamoz.com
 
There is so much choice, it gets confusing! :D
I've never really looked at Sigma to be honest, but maybe I should. What's the image and build quality like?
 
I have the same combination, 7D+70-300L, and I'm finding I can get away with significant cropping if the picture is sharp enough in the first place. I couldn't get away with it with the non-L! I had also considered the 300 f/4 + TC but read the same about the slowness so ruled it out, I've also ruled out the 400 f/5.6 since IS is an absolute must for this old git's shaky hands!

Now, if only they made a reasonably priced 400 f/4L IS rather than the hugely expensive 400 f/4 DO! Or a new 400mm f5.6 IS ?
 
I'm 29 and shaky as hell already. It's not technique that's the problem, I've always had unsteady hands, and some of my photography friends have a good giggle at me as I line up a macro shot, and then shake in and out of focus :D
 
The image and build quality is excellent. Here is an example of a 25% crop at 500mm.

IMG_1163.jpg by grblades, on Flickr
The image stabilisation is very good aswell. If you look at my sets in Flickr you will see some test shots showing the difference with OS turned on and off.
 
That is really good, and shot at 1600 iso too!
Looks like there is another lens on the list :) I'm going to have to go try some of these lenses at some point for myself.
 
Last edited:
With the 150-500 I use a different technique. I leave the camera in P mode and the ISO set to auto but limit the max ISO to 800 or 1600. The 600D camera then tries to keep the shutter speed around 1/500 which works well and you get the benefit that if the focal length is shorter or the light is very good it will lower the ISO it's using.
I do forget sometimes when I use my 28-135 and end up taking wildlife photos at a too short shutter speed though. Must put a sticker on the lens cap to remind me to switch to shutter priority :P
 
biscuitthief said:
squizza, what are you using for birds in flight now then? (fingers crossed its not a monster £5000 lens :D)
Click to expand...

Oh no, sorry I meant I'm not using the 1.4x attached. Just using 300 on its own, and stepping forward towards the subject now :D I use the 1.4 for birds who are on the ground/fence etc..

Monster lens...if only! :D
 
I just googled and saw the Sigma 200-500 2.8 :eek:
It's like a more rounded wheelie bin! :D
 
Depends what you budget is. I own both versions of the 300mm. The f4 a great lens, even with a 1.4x TC added, it still captures some cracking images including 600mph aircraft and 200mph motorbikes, cars etc, yes the autofocus is hit, but technique does get around this. 300mm f2.8 the nirvana and I've taken some great shots with a 2x TC and a few with the 2x & 1.4x TC stacked, of course, light conditions play a significant part.

The 400mm f5.6 is probably top in terms of speed and sharpness for birds, if you can get a good copy, the 100-400mm versatile, and for wildlife the 2 sigma lenses 150-500mm and 50-500mm are good value v performance, but for action photography, juries out, still haven't seen what I would class as a good shot, they tend to be a tad soft for the faster moving subjects (aircraft/motorbikes), but as a wildlife lens, seen some impressive shots.
 
Budget is up to £1500. I wish it could stretch for a 300 2.8 but with my other hobby being guitars (just as expensive as photography) I'm limited :)
 
biscuitthief said:
Budget is up to £1500. I wish it could stretch for a 300 2.8 but with my other hobby being guitars (just as expensive as photography) I'm limited :)
Click to expand...

Even the 300mm f2.8 non IS would push that, but the sigma 50-500mm in that price range if you want a zoom, as is the 300mm f4 (+ 1.4x TC) or 400mm f4

You do have the sigma 300mm f2.8 or older versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 lenses, and if you got decent copies, they could be an alternative options (used), but they do have there issues with back focusing, focus tracking in poor light and build quality, but are within you price bracket.
 
gblades said:
The image and build quality is excellent. Here is an example of a 25% crop at 500mm.

IMG_1163.jpg by grblades, on Flickr
The image stabilisation is very good aswell. If you look at my sets in Flickr you will see some test shots showing the difference with OS turned on and off.
Click to expand...

Come'on this is tad oversharpened ;). Looking at 1500px no agency would accept this, nor it would print to A4 well.

My recommendation is the good old 400mm f/5.6 if buying under budget. That glass is seriously sharp as a razor, and v. fast focusing. 100-400 is terrible at the long end in comparison (not even a true 400mm), and the sigmas are another step down.

You are probably better off keeping 7D, as full frame will leave you wanting 600mm, so I have kissed any wildlife goodbye now.
 
biscuitthief said:
Budget is up to £1500. I wish it could stretch for a 300 2.8 but with my other hobby being guitars (just as expensive as photography) I'm limited :)
Click to expand...

What's the thing about male photographers and guitars btw??? It's like 50% of us are playing with 6-string beauties as well :P
 
pete.rush said:
You do have the sigma 300mm f2.8 or older versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 lenses, and if you got decent copies, they could be an alternative options (used), but they do have there issues with back focusing, focus tracking in poor light and build quality, but are within you price bracket.
Click to expand...

that may be worth trying out (before you part with cash that is). A 2x will slow down AF a fair bit though.
 
I would go for the 400L 5.6 if not having IS isn't an issue for you, its very sharp and very fast as well as being relatively light (around 1200grams).

And yes another life long guitar player (47 yrs)
 
I would take the 400/5.6 over the cheaper Sigma zooms every time myself even though it does not have IS, after owning a Canon 300/2.8 IS (one of Canons sharpest lens) I can say that the 400/5.6 is right up there with the super teles in terms of IQ if you get it right.
HERE is a link to compare various lenses inc 150-500 OS v Canon 400/5.6 - judge for yourself!

Attached are a few shots taken recently(ish) with the 400/5.6 as examples (all taken on the 7D) All these have been cropped to some extent.

pigeon2_900.jpg


snow1.jpg


piedwag1.jpg


goldfinch1c.jpg


stonechat6.jpg


spoon3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Those pictures are great! :)
I think I'm going to have to find a camera shop that will actually let me test some of these lenses out ( I also have to stop looking up the canon 300 2.8 as it is becoming unhealthy :D)
 
biscuitthief said:
Those pictures are great! :)
I think I'm going to have to find a camera shop that will actually let me test some of these lenses out ( I also have to stop looking up the canon 300 2.8 as it is becoming unhealthy :D)
Click to expand...
Chris, did you have a look at the link I gave you in post #28 ? you can compare any lenses at various focal lengths and apertures.
 
I did thanks :)
Quite a difference there! I've also been on another well known forum in their lens sample archive and had a look at the 400 5.6.
The lack of IS was bothering me at first but after looking at the shutter speeds people are using, it becomes obselete anyway :)
 
biscuitthief said:
I did thanks :)
Quite a difference there! I've also been on another well known forum in their lens sample archive and had a look at the 400 5.6.
The lack of IS was bothering me at first but after looking at the shutter speeds people are using, it becomes obselete anyway :)
Click to expand...
Of the six shots I posted above with the 400/5.6 five were hand held and just one on a tripod. I use mine hand held most of the time, it is all about using the right shutter speed. My theory is if I cannot get the shutter speed I need to hand hold then the light is probably not good enough for decent bird image anyway (you may be able to get sharp shot in crap light but that does not necessarily make a good image IMHO).
Like I say I have come from the 300/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 and do not miss the IS at all (I do sometimes miss the 600mm option though and the new 300/2.8 IS MkII with its 4 stop IS probably helps to hand hold with a 2x tc better).
 
Last edited:
I use the Sigma 150-500 OS primarily, but the wife uses the 120-400 OS and the IQ is as good as the Canon 100-400 L on both of them IMO. The 150-500 can be had for around £600 and the 120-400 a bit cheaper, or you could just about get both for the price of the 100-400 L. I'm sure the 400 f5.6 prime has better IQ, but would you really want to limit yourself to just one focal length.
The comparison on the digital picture website doesn't do the Sigma justice IMO as I've got better, sharper photos handheld.

I got this with a Canon 5DMkIII and Sigma 150-500 OS taken at 1/800, ISO 1000 wide open at f6.3 @ 500mm. It's a Jpeg SOOC and just cropped.
7132819465_b1cfa8db91_c.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Taken with my 5D3 and the wifes Sigma 120-400 OS at 1/800sec, ISO 160, f6.3 at 400mm. This is a Jpeg SOOC with no PP other than a crop.

C01c1439 by modchild, on Flickr
 
modchild said:
but would you really want to limit yourself to just one focal length.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, in bird photography IQ is every thing and that's where the primes excel IMHO - I do my zooming with my feet. Besides you do not hear to many bird photographers with the likes of the 500/4 600/4 or 800/5.6 being unduly worried about a fixed focal length!. Mind you I would not mind your 5D3 though, it looks a brilliant Camera!

Another thing with a lens like the 400/5.6 is it crop ability, even on a humble camera like the 7D! Here are some samples of the full frame and very heavy crops which are not to shabby for web images IMO. Again this is where a good prime will usually out shine a zoom lens.

wren_org.jpg


wren3.jpg


zonefullframe.jpg


zonecrop.jpg


bw3.jpg


bw2.jpg
 
Last edited:
bit of a thread bump I know, but thought I would pop back in and say that I have decided to go for the 400 5.6 :)
I already own a 70 -300l, so getting another zoom seems a bit wasted to me. Thankyou all for your input. I'll let you know how I get on with it
Chris :)
 
Just had a look at the link Roy posted of the lens comparison charts thanks for that very useful:)
The results do tie in with what I see on my own 100-400 and 70-200F4:)
 
biscuitthief said:
bit of a thread bump I know, but thought I would pop back in and say that I have decided to go for the 400 5.6 :)
I already own a 70 -300l, so getting another zoom seems a bit wasted to me. Thankyou all for your input. I'll let you know how I get on with it
Chris :)
Click to expand...

Good choice, should be a good lens for your purpose.

If I had got here a little earlier though I would have recommended you save a bit longer a/o sell the 70-300L and get the Sigma 120-300 OS. It is really the only birding lens available (new) in the ~£1300-£6000 range. For some reason Canon refuses to make a 500 or 600 f/5.6 or a 400 f/4 (non-DO) to fill that price gap. Fortunately the Sigma is a fantastic lens....

But the option you are going for is definitely more portable, as is the 70-300 for when you don't need the 400, so you should be well served by your decision.
 
My 400 5.6 arrived yesterday :D
Very very pleased with it so far. It's sharp wide open and not too heavy. Just waiting on some time off and a nice day ( I can wish eh? :p ) to really try this lens out.
Massive thankyou to everybody that posted examples, opinions etc..
Chris :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top