Lens advice needed

:confused:

OK, I know this sort of thing gets hashed out again and again, but input is needed.

I'm about ready to buy a longer lens to go with my 7D to shoot birds.

There is no way I can dream of buying the lens I really want, the Canon 500mm f/4.

That said, I was on the verge of buying the Canon 400/5.6 when Sigma announced the new Bigma with OS (50-500mm). I can probably stretch a bit to afford the Bigma. My longest lens now is the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 which works well by itself, but gets soft when I put on the 1.4X and unuseably soft with a 2X. It also lacks IS.

So ....

My choice now is the Canon 400 prime vs. the New Bigma OS ... How much will I miss the 100mm and OS if I go for what is probably the sharper lens (the 400)?

:confused: Ian

Get the canon 400 !! You will be very happy with that...

In particular for bird in fly this is one of the best....

I wound't buy the sigma for the slow autofocus... I didn't try the 50-500 OS but i'm quite sure will be much slower than the canon 400mm 5.6

Thank you, Marco. Rumor has it that the AF on the new 50-500 is very quick, but there are so few out there at the moment. Maybe I should wait a few months and see how it pans out -- I'm impatient :)

I could certainly save some money by buying the 400 vs. the Sigma.

Have you tried renting the Sigma?

Bill

No, Bill, and that's certainly a possibility. There is no place locally that even has them for sale yet to mount on my camera and look. I'd have to rent on-line.

I have not used the Sigma myself, but that is such a huge range of focal lengths, I'm sure it is no comparison in image quality to a Canon prime.

I have the 400 and it has not let me down, it's extremely sharp and the AF is fast and accurate. Not to mention the lens itself is not a beast like the 500 f4 and is easily hand holdable and portable. The only downside with the lens is putting the extender on you will lose auto-focus.

Peter, what's the IQ like on the 400 with an extender (1.4 or 2 X)? I used MF for so many years, that loss of it doesn't bother me too much (although it sure would be nice).

The 400 5.6 prime is tack sharp and a good investment. Even w/o IS is delivers quality shots. Might I suggest looking in the Avian & ETL forums and see what combination are in use - these are some of the finest bird photographers in the world and they know what works.

I read a report on the new Bigma 50-500 being compared to Canon's 100-400L and it was not up to par. In the useful links section under resources there is a link to a lens rental company that rents most of these lens.

From personal experience, I started on the 400MM and have never regretted it.

50-500 Bigma link:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=62740

Lens Rental https://www.lensrentals.com/for-all

Thanks, Jeff. I read Juza's review when it first came out, but I'm not convinced he had a good copy (judging by other things I've seen). On the other hand, I have NEVER read a bad review of the 400/5.6 and I'm leaning that way (especially since they are available used for considerably less than the Bigma). I just wish, with the trend towards bodies that perform well at high ISO, that Canon would make a 500/5.6 for those of us who can't afford the big guns. Have you used your 400 with a TC and, if so, how did it perform (realizing that there would be no AF)?

Ian

Try this site for comparisons....

<http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API= 1&LensComp=683&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =4&APIComp=0>

http://is.gd/cppl5

Bill

Thanks, Bill. I know that site, but they don't have the new Bigma up yet.

Ian, another vote for 400 f5.6. That is the only long lens I have. You can check the shots I get with it on my website. with 40D.

Pluses are weight, balance, AF speed, sharpness, colors, contrast, wide-open performance. last but not the least...price. And since 7D offers much more cropability, it would be a nice combo.

It has its limitations of course. No IS. AF with TC( even with taped pins or cheapo non-reporting tamron) not reliable. With Canon 1.4xTC, at f/9, the IQ is good...but you need lot of light. Or a tripod&still-bird situation. Using it hand-held with the TC does not work out in most situations. Reach is not enough for small birds( unless you get them close to you using audio and/or feeders). MFD not good enough for macro stuff. And of course no zoom if that it is important to you. It almost seems like I am steering you away from it :-) no...not in any way. I love this lens a lot....within its limitations, its one of the best IMO.

Lots of folks like the 100-400 a lot too. Tons of great shots in the Avian forum with that lens. Folks also like 300 f/4IS and 1.4x combo( but dont go for it if you want to do flight photography seriously). So if versatility and IS are important to you, then you should give these two options also a serious thought. Canon gives many options to get to 400mm. and then there are third party lenses also to make you scratch your head :-)

Thanks, Kaustubh. Your comments are most appreciated. I had thought about the 300/4 with TC but, by all reports I have read, the 400 has better IQ. IS is not the primary thing on my list (I've never used it before, so wouldn't know what I'm missing), but it sure seems attractive. I don't really need a zoom (I have my 100-300mm f/4) and I have also heard that IQ on the prime is superior to the 100-400. The piece that is giving me cause to stop is the maximum FL. That 500mm on the Bigma sure is attractive. I've been using 420mm for a while (I do use my 1.4 on my 100-300) and have not been very good at getting smaller birds or birds out in the middle of the water on the pond. I really want excellent IQ, though, and that keeps sending me back towards the 400. If it works well with the TC, I might still go that way as my 7D does well at high ISO. This is a very difficult choice for me.

Ian, I think what you should find out is how the 400 f5.6 AF performs with canon 1.4x( with taped pins) on 7D. Each camera is different. On 40D, it does not perform very well. AF hunts a lot. I have read that on 30D, it used to be better. Dont know about 7D. The cheapo non-reporting tamron 1.4x does slightly better than canon but still not without hunting. IQ is not as good as canon tc. Bigger problem is shooting at f/9 (quality at f/8 is not very good..but again...I am very picky) without IS or tripod.....getting those high shutter speeds.

If you are a tripod guy( I am not), then this should not be that big an issue. But then even AF will not be that big an issue as doing MF on tripod-mounted lenses is much easier than hand-held. You can use live-view as well.

I use only AF and do not put the 1.4 on my 400 5.6, leveraging the 500 to go that route.

I realize that you are trying to balance both a budget and long-lens capabilities. My advise is to take your time and go with the best lens you can afford, I shot only Canon glass (that's me).

Like you said, nobody says anything negative about the 400 prime and for that price point - great lens.

Thanks all for your wisdom. I'm tilting heavily towards that 400 -- I'll use a 1.4x if needed, but I have little choice there. So, for you Canon 500 owners, how important is your IS to you? I know that it would be eons before I could dream of owning the 500/4, but maybe someday I can find an affordable used 500/4.5 L USM that doesn't have IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian Cassell

Peter, what's the IQ like on the 400 with an extender (1.4 or 2 X)? I used MF for so many years, that loss of it doesn't bother me too much (although it sure would be nice).

---

From what I have seen with the canon extender is very little to no IQ loss. I'm most likely going to be buying one for my 400 even though I'll lose AF. It's a nice thing to know how to manual focus quickly and accurately as well, but I'm not sure if I would use the extender for BIF shots as AF is most critical then.

And that is just with the 1.4x extender, I don't hear a lot of great things about the 2x

Rachel Katz has started marketing split-screens for the 7D now. I almost bought one for my 30D before I upgraded. I may consider one if I find myself doing a lot of work with the extender.

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Ca...cat_canon.html

And then, of course, every time I think that the 400 is the right move, I see one of Alfred's outstanding images taken with the 100-400 :(

Have to vote for the 400 5.6 It will even do very well with the converter so you will be manually focusing With your 1.6 crop factor body and the 1.4X you will have some serious magnification !! Do need a tripod ... used without and you can do great birds in flight. Can complement the set up with a 70-200 f4.0 and you have a great outfit !!!

Thanks, Alfred. I'm pretty happy with my 100-300 f/4 (just not with a TC), so I doubt I'll get the 70-200 for the moment. The tripod is in-hand with a good ball head. I just need to cover the longer range and I think it's going to be the 400.

The 400/5.6 is an almost perfect lens- light to hand-hold but built like a tank for durability, with super IQ wide open and below. I thought I would miss the IS but you adapt to this and use higher SS. This limits your opportunities in low light and agree with Al that a tripod is a good thing. I think Canon would do well to upgrade this lens to their latest generation of IS and modern coatings while leaving the essence of this lens as is.

Here is another vote for the 400mm F5.6. You may also want to consider the 100-400mm lens from Canon. I had both the 100-400 and the 400 and I decided to sell the 400mm. The 100-400mm I have is just as sharp and fast as the 400mm plus it has the flexibility of the zoom. It is the first lens I purchased and I still have it. I have never had a problem with it including no dust problems.

Another vote for the 100-400. Also my first Canon lens and it's not going away anytime soon. Most of my bird photography is with a 500 F4 but the 100-400 is always there too on another body.

Again, folks, thank you. I'm curious -- how well does the 100-400 perform with a 1.4x in terms of IQ (I know it won't AF)?

Hello Ian and others,

I bought the Sigma 50-500 OS when it became available about a month ago and have used it extensively with my 7D and some with my 5DMKII.

My experience with the lens is that it is quick to AF, has very good IQ and is very versatile with it's minimum focus distance of 19.7 inches.

The only downside I can see is the weight if you were carrying the lens all day. I use the lens mainly as my backyard birding lens and don't carry it much.

I also own the Canon 100-400 and the Canon 400 f/5.6, both of which I've used with a T.C. Both are super lenses.

My main reason for trying and eventually buying the Sigma is the ability to AF at 500mm without a T.C. I didn't think that the Sigma could compete with my Canon lenses but for the most part, it certainly has.

Even though I do make a very small amount of $$$ with my hobby, I don't consider myself a professsional photographer. I consider myself more an advanced amature with my main love being birding.

My goal initially was to buy the Canon 500 f/4.0 but since I'm semi-retired I just couldn't justify the expense at this point though I believe the Canon 500mm to be an outstanding lens.

That said, I'm very happy with the Sigma 50-500 OS. If you have the opportunity to check out the lens, I certainly would do that.

Take care all.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian Cassell

Again, folks, thank you. I'm curious -- how well does the 100-400 perform with a 1.4x in terms of IQ (I know it won't AF)?

---

It's good with the 1.4x, but not good with the 2x. It will AF with the 1.4x if it's on a pro body.

Thanks, all! I've made a decision (for better or worse). I'm going to get the 400/5.6.

I figure that the resale value on the lens is good, so I can sell it if I find I made the wrong choice. Frankly, I think it will do fine until some day in the distant future when I can afford a 500. It's lighter than my 100-300 f/4 and I usually use that lens all the way out at 300 or with a TC anyway (and it really softens with the TC).

Thanks for your help!

Ian

good call. Considering the interest rates on fixed deposits and growing prices of lenses, a L lens is definitely the right place to put the money :-)

Ian, you will be thrilled with the 400 5.6 ! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian Cassell

Thanks, all! I've made a decision (for better or worse). I'm going to get the 400/5.6.

I figure that the resale value on the lens is good, so I can sell it if I find I made the wrong choice. Frankly, I think it will do fine until some day in the distant future when I can afford a 500. It's lighter than my 100-300 f/4 and I usually use that lens all the way out at 300 or with a TC anyway (and it really softens with the TC).

Thanks for your help!

Ian

---

Definitely a super lens....especially for BIF.

Even though I'll be selling my 400mm 5.6L very soon (I haven't touched it since the 500mm f/4L IS arrived) I'd suggest that you consider the Sigma 50-500mm very hard. When I look at the better images taken with it and post to Flickr ( see http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigm...ags&ss=2&s=int ) I'm very impressed. Of course the EF 400mm f/5.6 L also has many stunning images to its credit, but the lack of IS will demand use of a tripod most of the time. Also, IME, the 400mm f/5.6 is too slow to AF with the 1.4x TC, even with the pins taped. Unless you replace the focus screen, it's not practical to MF with anything moving much at all.

Thanks again, all. David, I have seriously considered the Sigma. I am not averse to Sigma lenses (I have the 100-300 f/4, the 50-150 f/2.8, and the 10-20 f/4-5.6 as well as both of their TC's). The more I shoot birds, the less happy I am with the Sigma IQ when combined with my 7D which seems to be a lot more critical than my 30D ever was. I don't currently own any "L" glass (I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the older iteration) and want to see how that works out. As I said, it should hold some resale value so I can sell it if I decide to go longer.

I may actually get a Katz screen for the 7D. I like shooting macro and, although I use Live View now, I prefer looking through a viewfinder.

Ok Ian. I was pretty impressed with the best Sigma images at Flickr, but I know you'll be happy with the 400mm f/5.6L's IQ. When you do everything right it's stunning.

Congrats -- enjoy the new lens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian Cassell

Thanks again, all. David, I have seriously considered the Sigma. I am not averse to Sigma lenses (I have the 100-300 f/4, the 50-150 f/2.8, and the 10-20 f/4-5.6 as well as both of their TC's). The more I shoot birds, the less happy I am with the Sigma IQ when combined with my 7D which seems to be a lot more critical than my 30D ever was. I don't currently own any "L" glass (I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the older iteration) and want to see how that works out. As I said, it should hold some resale value so I can sell it if I decide to go longer.

I may actually get a Katz screen for the 7D. I like shooting macro and, although I use Live View now, I prefer looking through a viewfinder.

---

Hello Ian,

Tonight I sat in front of a series of feeders in my backyard.

The first part of the evening I had the 50-500 OS on my 7D. At a point, I thought, I should double check and put on my 100-400...got great images.

When the light was fading, my 50-500 OS Sigma was back on my 7D and away I shot.

I'm not sure why but there is something about my 50-500 OS that I have confidence in....

Guess I'll be using the 50-500 OS for a while.

Best of luck in your choice.

:)