Long lens for wildlife

Richee

Richee

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Richee
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I'm looking into which long lens to choose for my Canon 7D. I've borrowed a Canon f/4 70-200 and loved it. I'm considering the f/2.8 version but I know I need more reach. Would the long end be enough with a 1.4x tele-converter or would I need a 2x? Or should I go for a longer lens? Trouble is, I've had a look round and the prices just get silly for lenses that are longer and fast.

My budget will be around £1200 and I'll go for a second hand or consider a Sigma if the image equality is good enough. I like sharpness and creamy backgrounds.

I guess I'm looking for a list of lenses / lenses tele-converter combinations to
consider.

TIA

Rich
 
Your Canon options are:-

100- 400 L 4.5-f5.6 (a little old now but good performance and your welcome to try mine) (about 1200)

70-200 with 1.4x and 2x obviously makes it 400 F5.6 and actually quite front heavy and I think personally that this is less sharp than the 100-400 (about 1800 + 300) which is why i went the 100-400 route having tried the 70-200 with 2x myself

The 400 Prime F5.6 (no IS) which is light and excellent quality (about 1100 odd)

Your other option is to explore Sigma

70-200 F2.8 is about 700
50-500 F4.5-F6.3 is about 1150

Never tried the Sigma but I am sure others will comment.

Cheers
 
Used a Sigma 150-500 for three years, a great lens comparable to the Canon 100-400 but with a much better IS system and an extra 100mm, the Sigma 50-500 OS is reputed to be a tad better and is near your budget.
 
Or, for your budget you could get both:

Sigma 150-500mm OS
Canon 70-200mm f4L non-IS

(will give you the option of using the canon when you don't need so much reach, as its lighter, and also has constant apature)
 
I Would recommend the 100-400L it's maybe starting to show it's age with regards to the IS but optically its sharp and typical canon build quality (if you are going to Africa to shoot wildlife you will appreciate the build quality).
 
Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3, its the better lens of the 2 sigma 500mm's and comes in around top end of your budget, or a canon 300mm f4 (+ 1.4x TC) or 400mm f5.6

But it depends whether you want a zoom or prime
 
I've recently changed from a Sigma 150-500 to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with 1.4 and 2X TC's setup. Downside is that it's heavy and only the non stabilzed version would be within the budget mentioned. I'd recommend the Sigma 50-500 OS in this situation.
 
It would be helpful to know what wildlife and where it's being shot. 50-500 is a huge range and image sharpness suffers as a consequence. 150-500 might be a bit long at the wide end. If you want good bokeh another option is the old sigma 120-300 non OS not sure how sharp it is, but nothing else will give you the same degree of background blur at 300mm. It is a lot heavier though which is to be expected due to the large aperture.
 
The sigma is a great lens. You can see some of the photos I took with it in the British wildlife centre thread in the feedback section. I find the sigma produces a warmer looking picture and the canon 28-135 that I also have can look very harsh in bright sunlight. Easily enough corrected though.
 
artyman said:
I've recently changed from a Sigma 150-500 to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS with 1.4 and 2X TC's setup. Downside is that it's heavy and only the non stabilzed version would be within the budget mentioned. I'd recommend the Sigma 50-500 OS in this situation.
Click to expand...

I'm considering upgrading from the 150-500 and I think your setup is the option I'm looking for.

Could you tell me what the image quality is like in comparison to the 150-500. Also does the OS only work with the 1.4 T/C, i also take it at 600mm (with the 2x TC, it becomes an F4 doesn't?)
 
another option is the 70-300L
Great IS and very sharp to my eyes.
In your budget too :)
 
Don't rule out the Canon 300m F4 if you like the idea of a prime, it will take a 1.4x extender as well giving you a 400mm F5.6 and its pretty sharp.
 
ozbuoy said:
I'm considering upgrading from the 150-500 and I think your setup is the option I'm looking for.

Could you tell me what the image quality is like in comparison to the 150-500. Also does the OS only work with the 1.4 T/C, i also take it at 600mm (with the 2x TC, it becomes an F4 doesn't?)
Click to expand...

Image quality on the Sigma 120-300 OS is a tad better than my old 150-500, works well with 1.4 and 2X TC's and the OS system works with all setups. with a 2X you are working @f5.6. This is a crop from a 2X shot.

IMG_7117.jpg
 
I would sugest the 50-500 OS, I have one and have yet to find an issue with sharpness at any point in the range (check the lens section on my flickr)

Now I had mine calibrated by Sigma but that was the best £38 I have spent in a while, but even that is free if you buy from one of their recomended sellers

Here's one I made earlier :-)



Robin by magsnorton, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Sure, although it was okay I didn't think it was as good as it could be so I sent it off. Now don't get me wrong it was a pain but in the long run worth it
 
Nespresco said:
It would be helpful to know what wildlife and where it's being shot. 50-500 is a huge range and image sharpness suffers as a consequence. 150-500 might be a bit long at the wide end. If you want good bokeh another option is the old sigma 120-300 non OS not sure how sharp it is, but nothing else will give you the same degree of background blur at 300mm. It is a lot heavier though which is to be expected due to the large aperture.
Click to expand...
have you actually use a 50-500mm.
 
scottthehat said:
I Would look at the 50-500mm os.
d300 and 50-500mm os

I H ave many more if needed.
Click to expand...

No, no, no - the 50-500 isn't sharp, so you cannot have taken these pictures ;)

(On a serious note, great pictures, and I'd say the sharpness is easily comparable to my Canon 100-400)
 
I had a Canon 100-400 L and a Sigma 150-500 OS and after much testing I decided to sell the Canon and keep the Sigma. There's not much between them in IQ, the Sigma has a better OS/IS system and I found the Sigma coped better with dwindling light.

I got this with a Canon 5DMkIII and Sigma 150-500 OS at 1/800, ISO 1000 wide open at f6.3 @ 500mm. It's a Jpeg SOOC and just resized.
7202108132_6ff8069289_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This is a crop from the above to show the full bird.
7132819465_b1cfa8db91_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

And this is a crop from the crop to show the details. No PP apart from cropping and the photo was taken from 30+ feet away.
6986734786_63db744d29_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
EdR said:
No, no, no - the 50-500 isn't sharp, so you cannot have taken these pictures ;)

(On a serious note, great pictures, and I'd say the sharpness is easily comparable to my Canon 100-400)
Click to expand...
:D
alot of people say the 50-500mm os is sharper than the 100-400mm(me to)
and it gives the extra on both sides.;)
taken with the 50-500mm os
SJB_7333.jpg

SJB_5284.jpg
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
have you actually use a 50-500mm.
Click to expand...

Actually no, it was a lens I considered before ultimately purchasing the canon 100-400. The general consensus was that the canon was sharper and the samples I saw backed that up. I also heard that the canon was faster to AF. That said if those images are representative of the general performance of that lens and not just good PP then clearly I was mistaken and retract the statement on sharpness.
 
Nespresco said:
Actually no, it was a lens I considered before ultimately purchasing the canon 100-400. The general consensus was that the canon was sharper and the samples I saw backed that up. I also heard that the canon was faster to AF. That said if those images are representative of the general performance of that lens and not just good PP then clearly I was mistaken and retract the statement on sharpness.
Click to expand...
alot of people on here have gone from the 100-400 to the 50-500mm os and have all said the 50-500mm was a tad sharper and af speed was the same f not faster and the os knocks the spots of the is, even my friend sold his 100-400mm after using my 50-500mm and seeing the results.


SJB_7520.jpg


SJB_7591.jpg


wide open 500mm
SB1_1637.jpg


SB1_1645-1.jpg
 
I'd give another shout to the 300mm F4 IS L, a great lens & I'm considering getting a TC for it to get some extra reach. I've had no experience with Sigmas and to be honest I've disregarded them in the past, but looking at the images in this thread I'd have to think carefully if I was spending that amount again.

(Also my flickr has plenty of recent shots on the 300mm F4 if you were considering it)
 
Last edited:
Jimwah said:
I'd give another shout to the 300mm F4 IS L, a great lens & I'm considering getting a TC for it to get some extra reach. I've had no experience with Sigmas and to be honest I've disregarded them in the past, but looking at the images in this thread I'd have to think carefully if I was spending that amount again.

(Also my flickr has plenty of recent shots on the 300mm F4 if you were considering it)
Click to expand...

I fully agree. I had a copy of a 100-400 that I simply could not get to give me an image I considered satisfactory no matter how much MA I gave it.
I sold it at a very special price and bought a 300f4 as we were going to the Galapagos .
It performed superbly and I've also used it with a TC with great results.

However, we went on birds of prey junket at Bodiam castle last weekend and the lack of zoom caused me a real headache.
Looking at some of the superb images produced using either of the Sigma zooms has given me pause for thought. I like to do a lot of airshows in the summer and the flexibility and sharpness of the Sigma zooms may well fit the bill, particularly the 150-500.
 
I know this is outside of the budget, but has anybody tried a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM - Canon AF with 1.4 and 2x converters?

That would give

168-420 F4 or 240-600 F5.6

Could be a decent solution at relatively reasonable price..... (ok £2.3K ish)
 
Last edited:
Hi

Just got back from Wroxham where I used my sigma 150-500 for the 1st time
pics look good and also not too heavy considering the size.
 
I would think about getting a 70-300L Its right on your price range and its light and compact, means you can fit more lens in your bag. Its half the size of the 70-200mm 2.8.

Its very very sharp and is great for hand held shots!
I was unsure about getting one at 1st because of mixed reviews,
but just got one and i'm loving it, so glad I got it.

More about it here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNbwKGpbBYQ
 
I very much like my 100-400L for wildlife. I've had excellent image quality from it. However, if you can get a 50-500OS for the same or cheaper price, that is probably a better option (when I was buying I got an exceptionally good price on the 100-400 and the 50-500 was a couple of hundred more and out of budget). But if you can get a good deal on the 100-400 I would recommend it, I like the lighter weight and more compact size, but I wouldn't spend more on it than a 50-500. I compared against a sigma 120-400 in the shop and a 150-500 on a friends pentax in the field and mine is visibly sharper than both (more contrasty). And if you don't want the flexibility of a zoom, the 300 f/4L IS and 400 f/5.6L both have excellent reputations.

Since there's so many sigma samples up all ready, I thought I'd post some of my images with the 100-400

5715938461_7e84ef3d38_b.jpg


5274322449_fb01c28f66_b.jpg


151207.jpg


5679777807_6054eb2ac9_b.jpg


151146.jpg

(should point out this last one is captive not wild)
 
Last edited:
Damn, thats a good copy - much better than the one I had - mind me asking the year of manufacture as I understand they got better in latter production
 
JohnN said:
Damn, thats a good copy - much better than the one I had - mind me asking the year of manufacture as I understand they got better in latter production
Click to expand...

The date code is UY09, so it's from November 2010. So it is one of the more recent copies.
 
Love that owl shot Squishy!

Have to say that I went with the 100-400 based on both professional reviews and also general consensus on this site.. I actually really like mine but am increasingly thinking that a 70-200 + 2x TC might be more suitable for my style of shooting... The only thing stopping me right now is the fact that on a crop I'm effectively getting 640mm, which I'll lose if I upgrade to FF sometime..

However, I'll also jump to 22+MP so I'll be able to crop instead ;)
 
Sigma 120-300 2.8!
Though I haven't used it, could the users tell me if the OS really makes a major difference?
There are some used non-OS for 999, while the new OS is for 1700 pounds...
Apart from OS, is the newer one sharper and better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top