Need a long lens...

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
It will be on a 7D, budget of around a thousand. Ive pretty much decided on the 100-400 L series, but are there any alternatives? Ive not really explored any other brands with this, as I do love the performance of the Canon, I just wish it wasn't a push pull zoom :(

Anything from sigma, tamron etc.... That I should look at? Id like something over 300mm at the long end. Thanks
 
If its a long zoom you want its Canon or Sigma.

Problem with most of the long Sigmas is that that they are going to be f6.3 at the long end and thats not particularly good for your 7D.

Your only other option is to ask yourself if you need a zoom... if you are playing only at the long end, consider the Canon 300 f4 or the 400 f5.6 - both being primes are better than the 100-400 but being primes, they aren't zooms.
 
Well its mostly for wildlife photography, I shoot a lot of birds. I considered the primes, but I'd really prefer the flexibility I think....
 
For birds the other option to seriously consider is the 400mm f5.6, certainly if birds in flight are going to a major target for you. The only downside for me is its 400mm full stop. Which is why I've got the 100-400, I like the zoom bit :)

I had a 50-500mm sigma a while back and if you've got the budget for a Canon lens I'd go with a Canon lens...
 
You need to ask yourself, are you ever so close to birds that 300/400mm is too long? I doubt it unless you are shooting ducks while small children feed them.
 
desantnik said:
You need to ask yourself, are you ever so close to birds that 300/400mm is too long? I doubt it unless you are shooting ducks while small children feed them.
Click to expand...


Sometimes 300/400mm is too long.

Ideally you want your subject (bird) at least 1/4 of the frame. Since a large bird (Crow for instance) is more than 4x the size of a Wren using the same vantage point with a prime will produce a cropped Crow and a very small Wren.

That being said, I still prefer my 300mm + 1.4TC.

Mostly you can never have enough reach though.
 
I reckon that if all you want the lens for is birding then the 400 f5.6 is an excellent option but if you want to use it for other stuff too the 100-400 will win out. I have owned both and while the prime is a touch sharper in tests, in real world use I've not seen anything it in (though the AF of the prime is faster than the zoom).
 
I've been looking at getting a Sigma 300/2.8 myself, already own a Canon 1.4x TC.. any problems expected with that combo? On my 7D it would give a 300 * 1.4 * 1.6 = 672mm f/4 which should work

Canon 300/2.8L IS would be phenomenal of course, but a touch pricy :O
 
I'm not sure if the Canon TC will work with the Sigma, you'd probably need to check that.

Also the Sigma 300 2.8 might seem like on paper its the equal of the Canon 300 2.8, but its definitely not.

In terms of actual image quality, you'd probably get the same from the Canon 300 f4 with the Canon 1.4x on it - albeit at f5.6 and probably needed to be stopped down to f8 to keep it sharp.

BTW, you focal length will always be 420mm, just that a crop sensor will narrow the field of view to the 672mm equivalent that you mentioned (but loose you bokeh effect at the same time). Thought I'd try and tell you this politely before someone rips your head off :D
 
Thanks for the pre-emptive headripstopper ;) Yes I knew how that works so maybe I should have said 'effective' or 'equivalent' somewhere.

I know the Sigma is not the same, but it certainly is cheaper too. My problem is usually the lack of light, i.e. too long exposure times on my 70-200/4L IS so I was thinking that a 300/2.8 might be a good addition. I've seen some great shots with the Sigma but of course the sports pages are filled with the Canon shots...

Just to be clear, are you saying that the Sigma is crap at <f/4 or that the Canon is just worth the extra outlay?

Sorry to hijack the thread..
 
If light (and shutter speeds) are your problem and not length, try trading your 70-200 f4 for the 70-200 f2.8.

I don't know what sport you are shooting mind you...
 
The 100-400L is in a niche of it's own really for flexibility. For something like a zoo visit where your subjects are going to be at varying distances it's ideal and the only lens you really need.

But... I primarily shoot birds, and I'm not sure I ever used it at less than 400mm for that. You've just never got too much reach for small birds however long your lens, and mostly you'll still end up cropping anyway. I really rated the 100-400L, but I sold it eventually because I mostly use the 500mm f4L or the 300mm 2.8L - the latter with either converter. I may well yet regret getting rid of it, but probably not for bird toggin' - more for other uses as I said earlier.

I think you should seriously consider the 400mm 5.6L as being the more 'specialist' bird lens because being a prime it's a tad sharper, cheaper, lighter in comparison to the 100-400L, and a known stunning performer, but it comes down to whether you want the flexibilty for other stuff. You certainly wouldn't go wrong whichever you chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top