Long Lens Dilema

Jelster

Jelster

Messages
10,034
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd been thinking of getting myself a 2nd body, but have decided to invest in a new long lens for wildlife work.

My current set up is a 70-200 f2.8 Mk1 on a 7D. I like shooting any wildlife I can, generally that tends to be birds, but can also include large insects, small mammals and things like Deer. My frustration is that for most subjects, I can't get close enough and have to crop drastically in PP.

So, with a budget up to around £1200, my list of possibilities is:

Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM - approx £1050
Canon EF 300mm f4 L IS USM - approx £1150
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM - approx £1250
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM - approx £1200
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM - approx £750
Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM Lens - Approx £650​

That's a lot of lenses ! :thinking:

I "think" I want a minimum of 400mm, and I like the flexibility of a zoom, but a prime lens also appeals due to its performance.

I have a thing about Sigma. I want to want one, but after the issues I had with the last one I had, I do worry about the quality control. That said, the 150-500 offers excellent value for money. But it is heavy, and only offers f6.3 at the long end. I know very little of the 120-400.

The Canon 100-400 is a bit long in the tooth, and from what I read, the quality isn't £500 better than the Sigma.

The Canon 400 f5.6 gets great reviews, as does the 400 f4, the latter is also quiet light compared to the other offerings.

The 150-500 will allow me the cash to buy a very good head for my tripod, which is a compelling thought.

So, I'm looking for suggestions from you, the experienced folk of TP. All advice greatly received :):)

Steve
 
Tbh Steve there are far to many variables, there are a few similar threads on this subject already. One thing I will say though, if those are the first prices you have pulled off the web, I would think about doing a bit of homework, a couple of them are ott.
 
Well to be honest, the prices were from Wex, who are normally "average".

If I had to narrow things down I would say that my main subject would be birds, and I'm not adverse to lugging a bit of weight around if I have to. I am a member of the WWT, and Barnes isn't that far from me so that tends to be my usual haunt.

I fancy the Sigma, but I do worry about the quality. Other than that, the 400 is my 2nd option, but I think I need help in deciding which way to swing, so to speak...
 
I picked up my 100-400mm second hand and even after having to get it re-calibrated, it was still sub £900 so not too bad.

Failing that, there are rumours of an update to the 100-400mm Canon lens next year some time
 
Have you considered a 2 times and 1.4 times converter for the 70/200 2.8.

I've just changed from a 100-400 to a 70/200 2.8 is ii and plan on doing this. If you want a comparison of quality, google it.
 
FWIW;-
From decades of experience I'm sorry I also cant recommend Sigma.
Nobody ever complained about the quality of the Mk 1 until the Mk2 came out!
Canon lenses are dearer to buy, but sell for a higher price.
A Mk2 1.4x, is almost un-noticeable for loss of quality with a 70-200 AND a 400mm.
Second hand, especially from a dealer is well worth considering for Len's.
 
Phal said:
Failing that, there are rumours of an update to the 100-400mm Canon lens next year some time
Click to expand...
There are *always* rumours of an update to the 100-400 "some time next year" . I think many have their roots in wishful thinking. Sooner or later there presumably will be an update, and then one of the rumours will *seem* in retrospect to have been correct, but that doesn't mean it was any less wishful at the time it originated...
 
I have the 100-400 and love it, will never get rid of it. but there are many good pics on here with people that have the 150-500 and sometimes I still wish I had the extra 100mm.
 
The 400mm F4 produces some wonderful images and is excellent value for money. However, if you wobble or shake then you have to be happy using this on a tripod with an appropriate head.
The MFD is not brilliant but for BIF this is excellent.

The 300mm F4 is a superb lens for larger insects like butterflies, has the advantage of IS and takes a 1.4x teleconverter quite well. For BIF turning off the IS makes this a good choice.
I sold this lens when I bought the 2.8 and I regret it, the short MFD is very useful.

I wouldn't use another 100-400.
I've had no experience of the long Sigma zooms but people produce images with which they are happy.
 
Very little point in asking for recommendations on camera gear IMHO, i've seen people with the best of everything still turn out carp photographs ;)
People tend to defend their set up and you will always how someone had a bad copy and would never have another.
I personally found that my 100/400L never worked well with my 7D but that doesn't mean that combo wouldn't work for you.
 
Neil B said:
Very little point in asking for recommendations on camera gear IMHO, i've seen people with the best of everything still turn out carp photographs ;)
People tend to defend their set up and you will always how someone had a bad copy and would never have another.
I personally found that my 100/400L never worked well with my 7D but that doesn't mean that combo wouldn't work for you.
Click to expand...

But Neil, that's the sort of insight I was looking for. I have to say that I do find the "trombone" design of the 100-400 cumbesome, having borrowed a friends a couple of time.

I did wonder about a 300 f4 plus the 1.4x, but that does push the price up and I was hoping to stay in budget.

If I look at DigitalRev, I may be able to get close to my budget for the 300 & 1.4.

Thanks Neil, more pondering !! :thinking:
 
I have the 400mm 5.6 and its tack sharp really like it! But at 5.6 you can't use a TC and still have AF. Also, there are many good used ones around in the £500 range.
 
300 f4 is a sharp lens. Takes a 1.4 well and if you plan on keeping a crop camera I think would work well for you. Got a decent close focusing distance also. But the IS is only two stop and its slightly slow focusing, which can be got around quite easily.

I was recently going to change my 300 for the 400 f5.6 but decided against it at the moment. The 400 is a great lens and given that it was introduced in 1993 holds its own even today. Quick AF but close focusing is longer than the 300.
 
whats wrong with a Sigma 300mm F2.8 (2nd hand) ? That would also work perfectly with a tele..
 
I am fortunate enough to have used the first three Canons and both the Sigmas. Personally I would discount the 70-300 as 300 is often too short for birds and it won't AF with a 1.4x tc. The other three Canons are all excellent choices, in real world situations they all deliver excellent results. Which one is best purely depends on what you want it to do, the 400 prime has the fastest AF of the three and is a superb BIF lens. The 300 f4 works wonderfully with a 1.4x and the close focus makes it a great choice for photographing butterflies and dragonflies too. The 100-400 is the most versatile of the three, it is a great birding lens (probably the most popular birding lens in the UK) but is also good on family days out. Work out which suits your needs best and go for that one.

As for the Sigmas I have shot with both of them and in my opinion they do not come up to the standard of the Canons. The AF is slower and I find that the IQ in poor conditions tends to suffer. The OS system is very effective but I found it sometimes seemed to take a while to settle down which meant missed shots. As for the Sigma 300 f2.8 that has been suggested if you can find a good copy then it is a good lens, but the two that I tested with a view to buying were both too soft wide open. One Sigma I would recommend looking at if your budget allows is the 120-300 f2.8 OS, it is a very good lens and when used with out tcs is on a par for sharpness with the Canon 300 f2.8 IS mkI. The IQ does drop of slightly with tcs in place but it is still very good even with a 2x. You should be able to pick up a used 120-300 OS just within budget, just don't get tempted by the cheaper non-OS version as it is nowhere near as good.
 
Last edited:
I've had a Canon 100-400 L IS and I've got a Sigma 150-500 OS and can always use the wifes Sigma 120-400 OSas well. I've used a Canon 70-300 L IS as well. While the 70-300 is a great lens I seriously don't think it's long enough for birds and wildlife.

After a 'LOT' of testing and comparing between the Canon 100-400 IS and Sigma 150-500OS and I ended up keeping the Sigma. The IQ was very similar but the Sigma was a bit sharper wide open on the Sigma. The Sigma also came out on top regarding the IS/OS system, I've managed to get a hand held waterfall shot down to 1/10sec. I've got lots of shots taken with the Sigma 150-500 on my Flickr page if you are interested in some examples.
 
I managed to get an almost new EF 300 f4 IS this weekend, so just need to organise an extender and the problem will be solved.

Thanks for all of the input. When spending the best part of £1,000 it's good to have some real world experience available.

Steve
 
Nice lens you've got yourself. I'm sure with a good 1.4x extender you'll get some great shots with it. I'd like to get a 300 f4 myself as I've got a nice Canon 2x extender and a 5D3 that AF's up to f8 which would give me a great length for wildlife. I'll just have to put up with my nice sharp Sigma 150-500 instead.

Will look forward to seeing some shots taken with your lovely 300.
 
James J said:
The sigma 300m F2.8 can fall into your budget second hand if you look around. Takes the TC's very well and a very nice performer.
Click to expand...

I'm very happy with the Canon 300 f4. I have used the Canon 300 f2.8's but that's well out side of my budget. I have a trust issue with Sigma after being let down with them before, otherwise I would have gone for the 150-500.
 
Last edited:
If your looking for a good tripod head try the Lensmaster gimbal heads, they're a fantastic bit of kit and cheap for what they are.

To show how good they are.. I've been using one inverted on the hanging pole of my bed (severely disabled) without any issue at all, it remains as smooth as butter no matter what I put on it, including an 80mm refractor telescope + camera !
 
From owning them I would go for a f/4 lens on your 7D - high ISO not being it's forté, as you'd start getting annoyed if you were limited to f/5.6 constantly using high ISO
 
buckas said:
From owning them I would go for a f/4 lens on your 7D - high ISO not being it's forté, as you'd start getting annoyed if you were limited to f/5.6 constantly using high ISO
Click to expand...

f4 obviously allows you to keep the ISO lower than f5.6 however I often find f4 or f5.6 too shallow in terms of required dof and end up shooting f8 anyway.

As lenses focus 'wide open' f4 has an advantage in terms focussing regardless of which aperture you use for your dof.
 
Well it will be f5.6 by the time the EX1.4 goes on it (which it will for most birding stuff) and I'm happy using the 7D at 800 & 1600 ISO, it's just a case of making sure you ETTR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top