L Lens, advice needed please.

Gonetae

Gonetae

Messages
1,601
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks, I'm looking for some advice please. I may be in the fortunate position of being able to spend around a thousand quid on a new lens in the next month or two. This may well be the only opportunity I get to own a really nice piece of L glass so I'm trying to be really sure I'm going for the right thing for me. The lens will be used mainly for shooting birds and the ones I've been considering are as follows (in the order of preference with my limited knowledge).

1) Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM
This would have all the reach I'm looking for but I have heard stories that some of the 100-400's can be a bit dodgy for image quality, if anyone can elaborate on that or put the myth to bed that would be great.

2) Canon EF 300mm f4 L IS USM
a wee bit less reach but with the advantage of being a wee bit faster than the 100-400and with better image quality (so I have heard). Could anyone who has used it with a 1.4 teleconverter let me know if I would get a better or comparable IQ compared to the 100-400 when doing so.

3) Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM
I don't know very much about this lens to be honest so anyone with hands on experience that could compare it with the othres feel free to chip in, the reason this is lower on my list is the lack of any IS on it.

4) Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
Last on my list because of the relatively poor image quality compared to the others but with advantage of extra reach.

As I have said I have no experience of any of these lenses at all so folks who have used a couple of them and could compare like for like would be much appreciated.

Cheers
Tommy.
 
If its just for birding I reakon the 400 5.6L is the job - a truely stunning lens.

For a bit more flexibility though I'd go for the 300F/4 and possibly a 1.4tc
I used to have the 300 F/4 and shot for shot it would beat the 100-400 every time :thumbs:
 
Cheers for the reply Robert, aye the lens is pretty much just for birding. Did you use a 1.4tc on your 300mm when you had it and did the image quality still beat the 100-400?

Tommy.
 
I'd go for the 100-400 don't get too spooked with bad talk about the lens, I've lost count of sureb images I've seen taken using it, a lot of it comes down to having to learn how to handle a a big zoom lens. I'm sure the primes will be sharper, but then you trade that with being stuck at the prime length. I guess it all depends on how far away they are, if you are allways going to shoot at the 400 end, then maybe that would justify the prime as I've heard people saying the 100-400 can get a bit softer towards full zoon. The sigma is still a good lens, athough it tends to lots of light to get the best from the lens.
 
My vote is for 100-400mm.....or what about the 120-300mm f2.8 Sigma??
 
From experience: The 400mm 5.6 for flight shots or hand held in good light. The 100-400mm as a general walkabout lens, the IS is an asset for the S Wales weather!
 
Hawker said:
I'd go for the 100-400 don't get too spooked with bad talk about the lens, I've lost count of sureb images I've seen taken using it, a lot of it comes down to having to learn how to handle a a big zoom lens. I'm sure the primes will be sharper, but then you trade that with being stuck at the prime length. I guess it all depends on how far away they are, if you are allways going to shoot at the 400 end, then maybe that would justify the prime as I've heard people saying the 100-400 can get a bit softer towards full zoon. The sigma is still a good lens, athough it tends to lots of light to get the best from the lens.
Click to expand...

Cheers Hawker, I think I would be shooting towards the 400 side of things mainly but still a bit unsure of the 400mm prime as it has no IS, I've never used a lens with IS but it is one of the things I would like the lens to have I think since it may be the only really nice bit of kit I can afford for a long time.
 
I think it's the very fact that the 400/5.6 doesn't have IS that puts it above the rest....that extra lens group inevitably subtracts just a tad from any lens (300/2.8 excepted)

Take at look at this thread showing young Jo's attempts within 30 minutes of unpacking the 400/5.6....what better citation could this lens have?
I'm going to go slightly against this in your case though. Up there in Scotland I think the light will be a frustration on many occasions and the 300/4 IS + T/C will be a more usable option on a 400D....later bodies can compensate for the f/5.6 by upping the Iso a bit. I have both options, much prefer the 400/5.6 but found the 300/4 + T/C got me by better in dull weather. The 400's coming into its own now that better Iso performance on the newer bodies can offset the need to use slower shutter speeds in the on the grimy days.

Food for thought?

Bob
 
Another vote for the Canon 100-400mm here, if only for the flexibility that a zoom allows. I'm very happy with mine in all respects I'm not saying that there are not bad examples out there but I don't think they'd be as popular as they are if it were the norm!
 
Canon Bob said:
I think it's the very fact that the 400/5.6 doesn't have IS that puts it above the rest....that extra lens group inevitably subtracts just a tad from any lens (300/2.8 excepted)

Take at look at this thread showing young Jo's attempts within 30 minutes of unpacking the 400/5.6....what better citation could this lens have?
I'm going to go slightly against this in your case though. Up there in Scotland I think the light will be a frustration on many occasions and the 300/4 IS + T/C will be a more usable option on a 400D....later bodies can compensate for the f/5.6 by upping the Iso a bit. I have both options, much prefer the 400/5.6 but found the 300/4 + T/C got me by better in dull weather. The 400's coming into its own now that better Iso performance on the newer bodies can offset the need to use slower shutter speeds in the on the grimy days.

Food for thought?

Bob
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Bob, you have certainly nailed one of the main problems I am having atm with your comments about the light up here. I find myself having to up my ISO to 800 on my 400D the other day to get a useable shutter speed on my sigma70-300 with it's aperture wide open, wasn't even a particularly gloomy day so much frustration on my part as I decided to go with the fast shutter and hope I could lighten up my pics a bit in PP later instead of dropping the shutter speed to get more light. Big mistake as it turned out as I ended up with a card full of very dark pics that I could do very little with. Having used most (if not all) of the lenses I mentioned Bob how would you compare the image quality of the 300mm/4 +1.4tc to the 100-400mm?, I assume it would be lower quality than the 400mm prime though?
 
Might be worth hiring one or both first - For telephoto stuff I'm completely in love with primes these days.
 
Gonetae said:
Cheers for that Bob, you have certainly nailed one of the main problems I am having atm with your comments about the light up here. I find myself having to up my ISO to 800 on my 400D the other day to get a useable shutter speed on my sigma70-300 with it's aperture wide open, wasn't even a particularly gloomy day so much frustration on my part as I decided to go with the fast shutter and hope I could lighten up my pics a bit in PP later instead of dropping the shutter speed to get more light. Big mistake as it turned out as I ended up with a card full of very dark pics that I could do very little with. Having used most (if not all) of the lenses I mentioned Bob how would you compare the image quality of the 300mm/4 +1.4tc to the 100-400mm?, I assume it would be lower quality than the 400mm prime though?
Click to expand...

I'll confess to never having had the dubious pleasure of using the zoom so I can only really speak for the primes. If you had a 50D or 1D3 on the horizon then I'd go for the 400/5.6....if you're sticking with the 400D for a while then the 300/4 IS would be my choice. I've never been disappointed with the 300 + T/C when the conditions demanded it...but it's not going to match the 400 on a good day.

Bob
 
Thanks Bob for your reply and to all others on the thread, it has certainly answered some of the questions that were niggling at me about the lenses. I think if events go as I hope and I get the cash to buy a lens I will most likely go for the 400mm prime as it would seem the most 'futureproof' especially if I upgrade to a body with better ISO handling. :thumbs:

Regards
Tommy.
 
On a related note, if I may, what would people recommend as a good (L?) short zoom lens to replace the standard 18-55 kit lens?
 
If it is for a crop body, dont worry about the 'L' status, get the 17-55 f2.8, it has got IS and USM and most people agree that this is the best walkabout lens on a crop body!
 
Posted a thread and got linked to this one - Canon 400 f5.6 or the sigma 120-300 f2.8?
 
i have recently got into birding and shooting with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC.
I will be looking at a new lens with longer reach, I dont want to get rid of the 70-200 as its a good focal length for other stuff i do. However the 280mm was too short for what i was doing and i dont think an extra 20mm would help that much.

the 120-300 seems a good bit of kit and also gives me versatility and from what i have heard doesnt lose too much IQ at all with a 1.4 TC making the lens 168-420 f/4 which would follow on from the 70-200 quite nicely.
 
SEPkent said:
Posted a thread and got linked to this one - Canon 400 f5.6 or the sigma 120-300 f2.8?
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Do you want a lens that's hand-holdable or one that isn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top