500mm canon or sigma for Birding??

Your other thread asks the question which one would you buy, canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm or sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm :shrug: Personaly I would stick with Canon. Care to post some bird shots up taken with the 400mm?
 
If you try and take a 500mm out birding, you won't do much birding. Depends on what your style is. For birding and not having photography compromise that, then you already have (imo) the perfect lens - the 400 f5.6. If you take a 500mm out with you, at that point you're taking photographs. It will be difficult to do any normal birding. You will need a tripod or monopod, you won't be able to move about from spot to spot as easily, you will need to set up, rather than point and shoot, and carry on birding.
Jonathan
 
Johnathan
The 400 is ok but doesnt have the reach and needs good light as it's only f5.6 where as the 500's are f4. I also wouldn't be walking around with it around my neck, it would be on mono or tripod.
 
Rich
I stand corrected my memory isnt that good, but it was 2 yrs ago. I did buy the canon f4 then and its an excellent lens. Only that its a lot bigger difference in price with the 500mm?
kimo
 
Jonathan is right, almost everything would be different with a 500 vs the 400. The 400 is easily used handheld or on a monopod. The Canon 500 is three times the weight of the 400 - so you're not going to be doing much handholding at all and a monopod isn't really enough support.

You are going to end up having to use a decent tripod with a gimbal head. That adds yet more mass to lug around. That makes it very difficult to do anything apart from hike to a hide, setup gear, shoot and hike back. Strolling around, unexpectedly stumbling on something interesting, whipping the camera up and shooting it will be a thing of the past.
 
I would stick to your Canon 400mm for birding, i have just been out with a lad who had the 500 f4 , man is it heavy to lug about all day
 
kimo said:
I'm thinking of getting a 500mm for birding. A the moment i'm using a Canon 400mm f5.6. not sure of which one to go for Canon or Sigma??
kimo
Click to expand...

Might be worth having a look at the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 Telemacro HSM. It won't work on anything other than f/5.6 but it's pretty sharp wide open anyway. You can pick them up for about £120 these days. People say it isn't far of L quality, I wouldn't know though!
 
Well I've had the Sigma 500 f4.5 and now have the Canon 500 f4 and would definitely recommend going for the Canon if you can afford it. The Canon is faster focusing, the AF is more accurate and reliable and the lens is amazingly sharp. I agree that you will need a decent tripod (and gimbal head) to get the best out of it (it is too heavy to handhold for long periods). So it is a big lump to take out with you, but I don't think it needs to stop you birding. I take mine everywhere with me and will happily carry it for a full days birding, the results more than make up for the effort.
 
mmm, well i disagree with several of the replies on here to a certain extent.Yes the 500mm is much longer and heavier then the 400 f5.6 and agree that its great on a tripod or monopod however i had the 500 f4 Nikon and the majority of my shots taken with it were handheld and my style quite often was going walkabout. I carried it for hours at a time but admit it is tiring after a while. I got shots with it which are some of my favourites all from going walkabout.

If buying and using then be resourceful, you may find a nearby tree stump or branch, you may have a beanbag to help steady the lens in lower light conditions but its well worth buying.

I wouldnt buy if i was going to be using it in wooded area where my style was wandering about as it can be dark and you may also have the oppertunity to stalk closer to your intended target so the 500mm may not be required.
 
The Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is ok, but it underperforms in every aspect from the Canon. Focusing, sharpness, colour rendition, bokeh, contrast... The really big downside is that the Sigma doesn't have IS (I would avoid a Canon 500mm f/4.5 - the non IS version - as spares are very hard to come by).

The Sigma, on the plus side, is nice and dark coloured. And also much cheaper.
 
glad I searched the threads before posting my question , it was exactly the same.
Looks like canon is the way to go , need to keep saving !
 
I thought about the 500/4 when upgrading from my 400/5.6 but at the end of the day it was just too heavy for my style of shooting (I do not shoot from hides or managed reserves but go walkabouts for my shots). My solution was to buy the Canon 600/5.6 IS (e.g. 300/2.8) - I have never regretted it for one moment, the lens is stunning at 300mm and you lose very little at 420mm but the biggest surprise to me was just how good it is at 600mm. Even stacking a 1.4tc and 2x tc (840mm f8) can give good results but you do need good light and a staple tripod/head. All of the combos will AF on a non 1 series Camera and it is light enough to walk around with (even for a weakling OAP like me!!!).
For samples with 2x tc and with stacked converters see the link below in my signature.
 
To address the original question, the other issue with the Sigma is that it is f/4.5, which means it can't take a converter and officially retain AF on a non 1-series body (and centre spot only on 1-series). On that basis, I would further back away from the Sigma.

I have the Canon and have had for a number of years. It gets as much use asa 700/5.6 as it does as a 500/4. Roy obviously has a very good copy of the 300/2.8 and 2x as I wasn't that impressed with my versions of that combination when I had them.
 
philgale said:
isnt a 400mm f2.8 about the same price as the 500mm. wouldnt f2.8 be better than the extra reach which you can just get a TC to achieve? i realise the F number will just up a little with a TC
Click to expand...

The 400mm is both more expensive and much heavier, although very sharp

The Sigma 500mm auto focuses just fine with a non-reporting TC on any Canon body

Had them both so I did test them thoroughly
 
Last edited:
Had them all and I would disagree. The extra weight is not worth it and you will have to use it with the 2xd TC most of the times, making AF quite slow. The 500mm you can use with the 1.4x TC at 700mm and have better IQ and AF speed.
Also the 400mm is MUCH heavier. The 600mm is a better choice if you do not mind the extra weight over the 500mm (and the 600mm is still a few grams lighter than the 400mm)
 
grumpybadger said:
Roy obviously has a very good copy of the 300/2.8 and 2x as I wasn't that impressed with my versions of that combination when I had them.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure about that Paul, I know of lots of birds photographers who are more than happy with the 300/2.8 + 2x tc - it could be that your 300/2.8 or the 2x tc was a sub standard copy rather than mine being a good copy (BTW both my 300/2.8 and the 2x tc were second hand when I bought them).
Just recently I heard of one very good bird photographer who has raved about his 500/4 for years but bought a 300/2.8 recently as a relatively light weight option and has been using it with a 2x tc handheld, he is so pleased with the performance at 600/5.6 that he is seriously thinking about selling the 500/4 as being surplus to requirements. He is not saying that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc is better than the 500/4 but the reduction in weight + the more than acceptable performance with a 2x tc makes it a lot more suitable to his style.
 
grumpybadger said:
Roy obviously has a very good copy of the 300/2.8 and 2x as I wasn't that impressed with my versions of that combination when I had them.
Click to expand...

I'm another one who loves the 300 just for its portability. Here's a shot that I'd have never been able to get with a tripod - because the bird was flitting about too much. Trying to get it with no interfering branches meant I had to be very mobile.

chiffchaff.jpg
 
Roy C said:
I am not so sure about that Paul, I know of lots of birds photographers who are more than happy with the 300/2.8 + 2x tc - it could be that your 300/2.8 or the 2x tc was a sub standard copy rather than mine being a good copy (BTW both my 300/2.8 and the 2x tc were second hand when I bought them).
Just recently I heard of one very good bird photographer who has raved about his 500/4 for years but bought a 300/2.8 recently as a relatively light weight option and has been using it with a 2x tc handheld, he is so pleased with the performance at 600/5.6 that he is seriously thinking about selling the 500/4 as being surplus to requirements. He is not saying that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc is better than the 500/4 but the reduction in weight + the more than acceptable performance with a 2x tc makes it a lot more suitable to his style.
Click to expand...

Roy

I really wish my combination had delivered the results and, as you say, I may well have been unlucky. I now use a 400 f/4DO (sometimes with 1.4x TC) as my light option with a 7D and leave the 500 for tripod/beanbag only.
 
Thanks for all your replys
I think i will leave the 400 2.8 because of the weight the 500
wil be heavy enough. I will think about the 300 2.8 as well.
It looks like canon out favours the sigma.
kim
 
Or you could wait for the forthcoming Canon 200-400mm F4 with built in optional 1.4x convertor :naughty: The new 600mm F4 is also going to be significantly lighter than the current offering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top