New member help... zoom lens connundrum

M

Martali

Messages
3
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm new to TP but having found the site, I've been really impressed with the level of knowledge and advice provided by members, so hope you can help me...

I've recently moved up from an EOS 350D to the 50D and am like a child in a sweet shop... works so well with the 70-200 and nifty fifty, but I think it does expose some of the limitations of the Siggy 17-70.

However, I'm after some extra reach for wildlife/bird photography and although excellent the 70-200 is just too short. So I think I've got a number of options and am sure there'll be others here who have wrestled with the challenge. Short summary would be:

1.4 TC on 70-200
Canon 100-400
Sigma 120-400
Sigma 150-500

Must admit I'm drawn to the 100-400, but reviews suggesting variable build quality and old OS do raise some questions. By contrast the slower speeds and weight of the Sigama options (assuming I'll largely be using handheld) need some consideration

The image quality on the 70-200 F4 is fab, hence the lure L glass...

I'd appreciate and thoughts/reflections as I've been procrastinating for too long :bang:
 
If you go for the 1.4TC option I suggest you get a Canon model.

I had a Sigma 120 - 400 mm. Fine lens, but I found it a brute to handle.

Sometimes see on here remarks suggesting quality control with some Sigma lenses which is offputing.
 
I was looking at longer lenses last year and after a bit of research and advice, finally went for the Canon 100-400 and have been over the moon with it.
Very rarely hear anyone say anything bad about the lens and I would be lost without it now!

Haven't used any of the sigma lenses so can't comment on them but I don't think that you will be disappointed with the 100-400 :)
 
Welcome to the forum.

I've had the 100-400 for 2.5 years. It is my most commonly used lens and has served me well for wildlife and birds, including BIF. I find the "old" IS to be pretty good, if I play my part in trying to keep the camera still. Here's a shot with a Kenko 1.4X teleconverter attached, making 560mm in all, and shot hand held at 1/80. I'm happy with the sharpness....

20090808_105220_0149_LR.jpg


100% crop -
20090808_105220_0149_LR.jpg


I uploaded a few samples to an online album to help someone else out, but you may find them interesting too. All but the dog and swan were shot with the 100-400 and everything from the dog to the duck was shot with my 50D. You can see the EXIF over on the right by clicking "more info" when viewing each photo individually. Here's the album....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/Gary?authkey=Gv1sRgCJ6J0pji39eTnQE#

There's also a recent thread I've posted to about this lens over on POTN.

Hope that helps.
 
Guys,

Thanks for the speedy responses and POTN link... really helpful.

Looks like it's the 100-400 and that the extra cost seems worth it.

Cheers,

Martin
 
Is the 100-400 weather sealed, I see from reading that this lens earned the nickname "dust pump" is dust really a problem with these, was it an issue from a certain manufacturing date?
 
If you have a 70-200 why not go for the Canon 400 5.6 L prime.

Pete
 
It is not weather sealed but I have no problems with dust as far as my 2.5 year old copy is concerned. What's more, out of six DSLRs I have owned and used with that lens I have only once performed a wet sensor clean on one of the bodies, my oldest, and that was over two years ago. Indeed I cannot even remember the last blast with a Rocket blower on any of them. It was many, many months ago - maybe six, maybe nine, perhaps more. Certainly dust is a non issue in my experience.

I suppose I should add that mine is used at 400mm for 99% of my shooting, so the "trombone" action is somewhat moot as far as dust is concerned. I can see problems arising if you pump the thing like a loon in dusty conditions, but I don't.
 
Tim

All your sample shots appear to be at 400mm. Is this simply to demonstrate the lens at maximum length, or is it that the lens gets used primarily at 400mm?

Nick
 
nickwatson said:
Tim

All your sample shots appear to be at 400mm. Is this simply to demonstrate the lens at maximum length, or is it that the lens gets used primarily at 400mm?

Nick
Click to expand...

When you are shooting wildlife you usually never have enough length, so the lens is often maxed out. However, there are times when I do shoot at shorter focal lengths, but it is rare. Also, the lens has a reputation for softness at 400mm, so if one is happy with the IQ at 400mm it is a fair bet that everything else will be golden.

There might be an argument that I would be better off with the 400mm prime, especially as I also have a 70-200/2.8IS, but it is hard to ignore the appeal of IS on a 400mm lens and the zoom range means I only need to lug one lens and one body about. The 70-200 gets wheeled out for weddings and shots where I have more control over the shooting distance.

Here are some shots at shorter focal lengths....

Here's one of a (slowly) moving subject with my 7D at 150mm and f/5.6. This has had minimal adjustment (just WB, exposure and black level, as I shot ETTR) and sharpening has been left at Lightroom defaults...

20100103_112917_1345_LR.jpg


100% crop. (consider how demanding a 100% crop from a 7D is)...
20100103_112917_1345_LR-2.jpg


Here's one with my 50D at 100mm, f/8, sharpening at defaults....
20091018_112654_5628_LR.jpg


1D3 at 210mm, f/5.6, sharpening at defaults....
20090905_130800_2545_LR.jpg


1D3 at 100mm, f/7.1, sharpening at defaults....
20090905_104500_2283_LR.jpg


Same again, slightly cropped....
20090808_155333_0829_LR.jpg
 
It is pretty sharp, but choosing suitable camera/lens settings, handling the lens well, choosing good light and processing properly all contribute to the end result. The AF needs to be calibrated accurately too. Here's one more, this time with my 40D at 100mm and f/8....

20080125_155353_2555_DPP.JPG


Knowing that the lens has the IQ to turn in good results, when I do get duffers (and I certainly do) I can usually pin the problem on my own failings rather than the lens. The biggest problem is poor long lens technique. You can't afford to be sloppy when handling a 400mm lens, especially on a crop body.
 
I only ask since I'm thinking about either the 100-400, 400 F5.6 or 300 F4 plus extender. I thought that the either of the primes were the way forwards (since like the OP I have a 70-200), but these are impressive.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but assume that these are the lens considerations for the OP too!
 
Thanks for the info here guys as I might be buying a 100-400 tomorrow :)

Would you recommend getting an extender straight away? If so, what size?
FYI I've only really used wide angle stuff in the 8 months or so that I've been clicking.
 
I'm also looking for something similar so thanks from me for those images
 
The zoom gives you flexibility and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is one of canon's best selling lenses. It does have its quality control issues, there are bad copies out there but in the main its a good lens.

On the other side of the park are the primes, as birds and wildlife tend to be at a distance, most pluck for a prime lens, ok there are the very expensive ones at the top end like the 500mm f4 etc, but the ones that offer excellent optics, fast focusing and affordability are the 300mm f4 IS (with / without 1.4x TC) or the 400mm f5.6 (loved by the bird fraternity) because you will probably be at the 300 - 400mm range most of the time for bird/wildlife.

Another sigma to consider is the bigma 50-500mm, its heavy, no IS, and should mainly be used with a tripod, but its also another option to consider, then there's the sigma 100-300mm f4, which will take a 1.4x TC and another option.

In terms of the image quality, the primes lead the pack, but the budget rules at the end of the day.
 
I have a 100-400 and am considering moving it on now that I have got a 300 F4. With the prime I will use a 1.4 TC effectively getting 420mm. Don't get me wrong, the 100-400 has been fab, but I am constantly using it at 400mm, I think the prime will serve me better. I stand to be proved wrong of course!!
 
@ Comfy - An extender will stop the AF working on the 40D and any body other than a 1 series, because it causes the aperture to become stopped down. With a 1.4X teleconverter you will lose 1 stop of light, turning your f/5.6 lens into an f/8 lens. If you were to use a 2X teleconverter you would lose 2 stops of light, making your f/5.6 lens become f/11.

There is a trick you can use to fool the camera into not knowing the extender is there, simply by taping over three of the pins on the teleconverter, but the AF performance will be poor and may not function at all. You will probably find the outer points will work better than the centre one, but I think you could kiss goodbye to satisfactory AI Servo tracking.

I'd say wait a bit and see how you get on with the lens, and if you do want a teleconverter then don't go above 1.4X. I have the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4X, which works well in terms of IQ (not AF), at under half the price of Canon's teleconverters - http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=kenko+pro+300+1.4x&oe=utf-8&hl=en&scoring=p. I don't use mine often, but when I do it is with a tripod and Live View to focus, unless I'm using my 1D3.

Here's a shot and 100% crop from my 50D + 100-400 + converter at 560mm, f/8 (wide open), 1/400, 100 ISO, mounted on a tripod and focused using Live AF....

20090823_110912_2481_DPP.JPG
20090823_110912_2481_DPP_100.JPG
 
Tim, your a star.
Pete, I'll go with the flexibility.
Many thanks to both of you :)
 
All,

A final thank you for the time and trouble answering this post.

As I suspected it seems there are a good many others in a similar position.

I expect to use the 100-400 at its longer end, so the idea of a prime sounds an interesting possibility, so think a trip to a local store is in order.

ATB

Martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top