A good choice to have, but!!

M

malc1

Messages
58
Name
Malcolm
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of which lens to get for bird photography. The two alternatives are, unless anyone can think of any others are, Canon 500mm f4 + 1.4 converter or Sigma 300-800 f5.6. I'm erring towards the Canon because of IS. Has anyone else pondered the two options?
 
Sort of. I pondered long and hard between a Nikon prime+tc`s and the big Sigma. Big Sigma won for me, purely for its amazing flexibility of the zoom range.Sure, the primes may well be a tad sharper, but that zoom range...........:)

I use it on FF and DX, results are impressive.
 
I considered the same lenses and went for the 500mm & 1.4x. Absolutely no regrets. The 1.4x barely affects the IQ and I used it like that for bird photography all the time and for airshows and some BIF shots I used to handhold the lens without the tc
 
if you wait a little while there should be a small flood of second hand 500/4 L's for sale when the people with big enough wallets upgrade to the mark II versions that are due for release sometime soon.
 
That's a result, 2-1 to Canon. If the cost of the new 500mm has risen at the same rate as the convertors the retail price will be £16000. The 300-800 is tempting but I have concerns about its manageability in hides taking account of bouncy floors and a desire not to have any thing protruding out of a hide,although most people don't seem to bother. The IS nearly compensates for 100mm less "reach".
 
What concerns do you have about its manageability Malc?

Bouncy floors are a problem for most long lenses in my experience,the Sigma is not that much bigger than a 600 F4, though I appreciate your point about the VR/IS,or lack thereof.........:D
 
I don't have a Wimberly type head on my tripod, I'm hoping to get away with a giottos ball that will hold the weight when a tripod is convenient and use a beanbag when it isn't.
I think a tripod will be necessary all the time with a sigma.
 
malc1 said:
I don't have a Wimberly type head on my tripod, I'm hoping to get away with a giottos ball that will hold the weight when a tripod is convenient and use a beanbag when it isn't.
I think a tripod will be necessary all the time with a sigma.
Click to expand...

Seriously, budget for a gimble head. If you are splashing out that much on a lens a few hundred to give it the best connection to the tripod should be done without a second thought. Keeping everything balances makes the whole process so much more enjoyable and the big lens feels like a relative lightweight - I wouldn't be happy with my 300mm F2.8 perched on top of a ball - let alone something even heavier!

A few people use the manfrotto 393 and rate it very highly - this is the cheapest option at £120. Next you can look at the Jobu heads which for that weight are coming in at £320+ depending on needs.
 
Last edited:
RichardtheSane said:
Seriously, budget for a gimble head. If you are splashing out that much on a lens a few hundred to give it the best connection to the tripod should be done without a second thought. Keeping everything balances makes the whole process so much more enjoyable and the big lens feels like a relative lightweight - I wouldn't be happy with my 300mm F2.8 perched on top of a ball - let alone something even heavier!

A few people use the manfrotto 393 and rate it very highly - this is the cheapest option at £120. Next you can look at the Jobu heads which for that weight are coming in at £320+ depending on needs.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Agree with Richard all the way about the gimbal head,you will need one no matter which you opt for.The lenses mentioned can be handheld, but not for any serious amount of time. CT tried a ballhead that was supposed to be ok, I think he sold it fairly soon after buying it.
 
if you have to have a ball head, go for a really right stuff BH-55.

But i've once tried a 600mm at a show (on a gimbal), and personally I wouldn't want to use it on anything else but a gimbal after trying that! There's a reason everyone recommends gimbals for massive lenses
 
Looks like I'll need a gimbal anyway. The biggest lens I've yet used is a sigma 120-300 with 2xTC. Will the 500 function OK on a sigma convertor? If I'm going to use a tripod for the majority of the time it brings the Sigmonster back into play.
 
What exactly is wrong with your sigma 120-300mm + 1.4x and / or 2x? That should give a nice 600mm f/5.6.

Presumably there is something wrong (?) Canon 300mm 2.8 IS can take extenders really well, giving sharp 420 f/4 and 600 f5.6 or even 840 f8. Then there is 400mm f/2.8 or a little less flexible 500mm f4.

Did you ever think what happens if Canon disable Sigma lenses AGAIN on their new bodies? 6k is a lot to blow in one go.
 
squishy said:
if you have to have a ball head, go for a really right stuff BH-55.

But i've once tried a 600mm at a show (on a gimbal), and personally I wouldn't want to use it on anything else but a gimbal after trying that! There's a reason everyone recommends gimbals for massive lenses
Click to expand...
My BH55 works well with my 500L but my King Cobra works better.
 
I do use the sigma 120-300 and 2x converter and have found nothing wrong except reach. I've tried the 2x converter on my 150-500 sigma and have found manual focusing difficult at f11 all through the zoom range I think you have hit on the "elephant in the room"( I've been wanting to use that for ages) that part of my indecision is whether or not I need another lens such as the 500 or 300-500 and whether to keep the 120-300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top