Zoom for wildlife

C

Craniumhead

Messages
23
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I have a Canon EOS550d with 18-55mm Kit lens and EF-S 55-250mm lens. I really want to shoot wildlife and need the reach. I don't want to spend a fortune so I think the 100-400L is probably out of my price range.

I've seen the Sigma 50-500mm second-hand at £550 or the 150-500mm at £650. These Sigmas appear to be good lenses but are they good at these prices or could I get a 100-400L second-hand for not much more (and where?). ANy other options I should consider.

I am relatively new to photography so a little explanation really helps as you guys know a lot more than me. Thanks if you can help.

Richard
 
well from what i have seen of the 100-400mm its a great lens but the image quality i found to be no better than the sigma 150-500mm, and my 50-500mm os knocks the pants of my mates 100-400mm.
one thing to think of is os,is in the lens, the 100-400mm is from what i have seen and used not very good, the simas are awsome and by far the best i have used, better than my nikon vr,
another thing is will you use the 50mm if not buy the 150-500mm(i use the 50mm for my kids)
the 150-500mm os is great at 500mm but to get the best shapness i found needs stopping down to f8, the 50-500mm is as sharp at 500mm wide open f6.3 and is even sharper stopped down to f8.
af speed is about the same or all 3 imo.
if you want any sample pics please say.
 
futureal33 said:
The 50-500 is supposed to be better than the 150-500 (Sigma's)

But I think the 100-400L would be better than both.

And with the Sigmas you dont get OS/IS for that price...which I think on a lens with that much zoom is a must..
Click to expand...
the 150-500mm has os.
the 50-500mm does not unless its the new os version but that £1300
 
The 150-500mm has os.
I'm sure the second hand 50-500mm does not have os. I originally thought it did. I'm assuming this makes a big difference? I wondered why the price was lower.

Is stopping down to f8 a problem at 500mm when shooting wildlife? How does the 100-400L compare? And is £650 a good price?

Sorry to ask so many questions but I don't want to make too many mistakes this early on.

CHeers.
 
stopping down just means you need lots of light to keep the shutter speed up and the iso down, is there any where you can try them, the 100-400mm i believe gives one stop is, where as the sigma claims 4 stops, and i have hand held shots a 500mm(750mm in 35mm terms) at 1/80th with no probs, and the min shutter speed should be 750th sec so i proves how good the os is on the sigmas.
 
Why not save up for the L glass?

I made the error of buying cheaper lenses only to sell them on and buy the bigger price tag versions from Canon L.
 
Last edited:
John Doran said:
Why not save up for the L glass?
Click to expand...


Well I was asking you! Is the L glass so much better than the sigmas for the price? But I also haven't seen a secondhand 100-400mm L for sale and the Siggy is £650. Its nearly double for the Canon L. Is the Canon really worth that for a noobie?
 
easy answer Craniumhead is it possible for you to try be4 you buy then you can make up your own mind.
I never had a problem with my 100-400 also used a 2x convertor even a 1.4 you loose a stop or 2
but you can up the iso as your camera can hadle the added noise
( someone posted stopping down just means you need lots of light to keep the shutter speed up and the iso down,why lower the iso...?
i used mine on a 40d it was awsome old camera. I use it now on a full frame still awsome.
the 150 -500 taking in the crop makes it even larger than the 100-400 in real life BUT NO IS my friend had maby a blurry shot
also as another poster said save and buy decent stuff
dont expect mirricles from cheap glass
 
Last edited:
heres some pics from a 150-500mm.
DSC_3315.jpg


DSC_5342.jpg


DSC_3285.jpg


DSC_3167.jpg


DSC_3169.jpg




peregrinefalcon80.jpg
 
I had the EXACT same dilemma.......decided to pay that bit extra for a second hand canon 100-400 and have never looked back. Fantastic lens for the price I paid.
 
My take on this is:

Canon charge what they do as the glass is superb. As for the additional purchase, you buy it, you'll love it. If you don't, you will be able to sell it for pretty much what you pay for it....

Any less than what you paid is what I would call a cheap rental. ;0)

For what it's worth, my camera bag doesn't have anything but canon glass.
 
Last edited:
Aaaaaargh!

I knew you guys would be polarised.

Some great shots with the Sigma there , thanks Scott.

I think at the price I will go for the Sigma 150-500mm OS. I know the Canon is probably the better lens but I can't justify the price yet. And they seem much harder to get secondhand at a good price (which presumably also means they ARE a better lens). But if I can get pictures like Scott I would be well happy anyway and I'm not a professional yet!

I could try beforehand but that means waiting until I can get hold of both lens to compare and I'm not sure that'll be so easy at the moment. I would have to travel and then compare at a shop where I wouldn't be buying - I presume they won't like that.
 
Craniumhead said:
Aaaaaargh!

I knew you guys would be polarised.

Some great shots with the Sigma there , thanks Scott.

I think at the price I will go for the Sigma 150-500mm OS. I know the Canon is probably the better lens but I can't justify the price yet. And they seem much harder to get secondhand at a good price (which presumably also means they ARE a better lens). But if I can get pictures like Scott I would be well happy anyway and I'm not a professional yet!

I could try beforehand but that means waiting until I can get hold of both lens to compare and I'm not sure that'll be so easy at the moment. I would have to travel and then compare at a shop where I wouldn't be buying - I presume they won't like that.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... Mega. Nothing like throwing a spanner in the works. :0)

Whichever lens you buy, you are almost guaranteed to get near what you pay for it if it's looked after and boxed.

I had eyes for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 years ago and swore it would be the lens in my bag.... Nope.... Ended up with the Canon 2.8 IS version.
 
Last edited:
Great as always folks :clap:

Think I'm going to get the Sigma 150-500mm OS at £650.

Its a lot of money for me but it looks like I'll get photographs worthy of it. My ideal is obviously to buy L lens but not just yet. I have a lot of learning to do so I'll guess the expensive lens will just have to wait. It seems like I'll be going the way most of you went anyway.

Many thanks to all who helped (y)

Richard
 
Just to throw one more spanner in to the works........being able to drop down to 100mm is worth the extra money ;-) you will be surprised at how often you will need/want to!!
 
Hi,
I too bought the Canon 550D last year, with the 18-55mm kit lens and 70-300mm package deal.
I also got the Sigma 150-500 at the same time, and have to say it works brilliant on this camera.
The cost was the key factor, as the 'L' lens was nearly double the price.

Here are some sample pictures. (not as exiting as Scottthehat's)
Taken through double glazed windows and with a UV filter on the lens (150-500)

#1 18-55mm kit lens

Test base (kit lens) by drewpy46, on Flickr

#2 @150mm

Sigma150-500 @ 150mm by drewpy46, on Flickr

#3 @500mm

Sigma150-500 @ 500mm by drewpy46, on Flickr

I have now got a bird table in the garden and am awaiting a chance to capture some wild life... (y)

The real reason I wanted this lens...

James Rose by drewpy46, on Flickr

Taken from way back of a spectator area.

Make sure you get the OS version. (y)
 
Last edited:
CATALOGUEKID said:
Just to throw one more spanner in to the works........being able to drop down to 100mm is worth the extra money ;-) you will be surprised at how often you will need/want to!!
Click to expand...

I know that we all use our kit differently, but for wildlife I've never zoomed out more than into the 300's.

Drewpyfz6 - make sure you open the windows when the wildlife turn up at your birdtable! :D
 
i would take those reviews with a bi pinch of salt, there is no way in this wold the canons 100-400mm is is a patch on the siggys.
tom says that you will need the 100mm and that its worth it well if thats the case buy the 50-50mm os, and have 50mm extra to use low down and 100mm high up.

go for the 150-500mm and enjoy it as seen in the other pics wide open at 500mm through glass it still produces sharp crisp results.
some more pics.


DSC_3322.jpg



DSC_8788.jpg


DSC_8881.jpg


DSC_8304.jpg


redtailedhawk.jpg


peregrinefalcon4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for those comparisons Drewpyfz6. Just what I needed (y)

And great picture of the motorbike!
 
Craniumhead said:
Thanks for those comparisons Drewpyfz6. Just what I needed (y)

And great picture of the motorbike!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment.

I got mine new last year around September, it was £749 (Jessops interest free).
And believe they are £849 now.

So if you could stretch the budget +200, get a new one.

86mm UV filter from Amazon are £15 for a cheapy, lens protector. :p

Image stabilisation at work panning

Jon Kirkham flying by drewpy46, on Flickr

Taken from the middle of the infield.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
go for the 150-500mm and enjoy it as seen in the other pics wide open at 500mm through glass it still produces sharp crisp results.
some more pics.
Click to expand...

With respect, I think this statement is misleading.

I think it's only fair for the OP to realise that he will need to stop the lens down, preferably to f8, to acheive decent sharpness. Checking your pic's exif details, I see that's what you did.

Richard - I believe the 150-500 is a great choice & one you will be very happy with, as long as you accept it's limitations. The OS is remarkably good & can extend your shooting time, when the UK weather does what it does best:annoyed: However, there will be times when the light level is just too low & your target is moving & you'll have to accept that you're not going to get the shot.

Given the price I think it's a more than a fair trade-off & you soon learn which days wont suit you, you can always try again on a brighter day(y)
 
I'm looking to pick up a good (used) 150-500mm. I realise its limitations, but for the price I'm happy to acccept these as a compromise.

I used to own a 400 f/5.6 when I shot Canon and then changed that for a 100-400mm. They were both great lenses, but again, they were both a compromise.

Bang for buck, at the moment, it looks as though the 150-500mm is hard to beat.
 
How come there are no examples of wildlife in this thread?

Here are a couple of galleries of real WILDlife - LINK LINK - mainly taken with the 100-400.
 
Comfortably Numb said:
With respect, I think this statement is misleading.

I think it's only fair for the OP to realise that he will need to stop the lens down, preferably to f8, to acheive decent sharpness. Checking your pic's exif details, I see that's what you did.

Richard - I believe the 150-500 is a great choice & one you will be very happy with, as long as you accept it's limitations. The OS is remarkably good & can extend your shooting time, when the UK weather does what it does best:annoyed: However, there will be times when the light level is just too low & your target is moving & you'll have to accept that you're not going to get the shot.

Given the price I think it's a more than a fair trade-off & you soon learn which days wont suit you, you can always try again on a brighter day(y)
Click to expand...
read my first reply, i siad it needs stopping down to f8 to get the best sharpness(which it does) i then went on to say that you can still get top results wide open as seen in the other pics by Drewpyfz6.
every lens has its limitations even canon and nikon top glass.

and i at no point said my shots were wide open just pics taken with 2 of my 150-500mm i have had and on those day i was lucky enough to be able to stop it down,
 
Last edited:
There is a good comparison of the 150-500 v 100-400 (or any other lens for that matter) HERE.
This is in-line with just about every user comments/review I have seen of these two lenses. The sigma 150-500 is good value for money but a long way off of a good copy 100-400, of course this is what you would expect from the price difference.Personally I would not think twice about picking a used 100-400 in preference to the Siggy
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
There is a good comparison of the 150-500 v 100-400 (or any other lens for that matter) HERE.
This is in-line with just about every user comments/review I have seen of these two lenses. The sigma 150-500 is good value for money but a long way off of a good copy 100-400, of course this is what you would expect from the price difference.Personally I would not think twice about picking a used 100-400 in preference to the Siggy
Click to expand...
that site is naff, really come on the 50-500mm on there looks pants and there is no chance in this world the canon is that much better than any of the sigmas, even the other reviews ome closer, also how good is the is on the canon because i find it terrible.
my 50-500mm os wipes the floor with my mates 100-400mm on his 7d for iq.
 
Last edited:
When I decided I was interested in wildlife photography I bought a s/h sigma 50-500, very soon afterwards I decided to add 'IS', a monopod, works perfectly.
 
scottthehat said:
that site is naff, really come on the 50-500mm on there looks pants and there is no chance in this world the canon is that much better than any of the sigmas, even the other reviews ome closer, also how good is the is on the canon because i find it terrible.
my 50-500mm os wipes the floor with my mates 100-400mm on his 7d for iq.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that if your mates 100-400 is no better than the samples seen on this thread there is either something drastically wrong with the lens or it is a case of poor technique!
The trouble with all this IQ stuff is that people have different opinions and expectations and of course it is a natural for anyone to talk up there own purchases. What may be acceptable for one Person would not be good enough for someone else. Without going into detail or critique I would just say that there is not a single shot posted on this thread that would make me even think about buying the Sigma, for me most of the shots posted here would hit 'dusty bin' without batting an eye lid. On the other hand if you or anyone else is satisfied with this IQ then that is great there will be no need to ever buy a more expensive lens which can only be a good thing

At the moment I am without a birding lens having sold my previous lens because of the weight. I am in the market for a lighter weight lens and have looked carefully at several lenses including the Sigma 150-500 and 50-500 OS but for me they just do not come up to the mark which is a shame because they are both significantly lighter (and cheaper) than the lens I have just sold.
I have seen the odd great shot from one of these lenses but in the main the images look soft, are lacking contrast and the colours look pale to me.

The bottom line is that if you or anyone else is satisfied with the performance/ IQ of the 150-500 then that is great – get out there and start snapping, at the end of the day it does not matter a jot what others think!
 
Craniumhead iam all so in the same spot as you, Its either the 50-500 sigma or the 100-400 L ,
Both great lenses but with diffrent pros and cons,

Sigma -
Cheaper (ebay completed listings £450-550)
That extra 100mm
F4/6.3
Yes slightly higher f stop but is it worth paying more for it?

Canon -
Pay more (ebay completed listings £770 and upwards)
100mm shorter
F4.5/5.6
Lower f stop fully zoomed out

Personly im going for the sigma,
Yes the canon probs has better sharpness but i want that extra 100mm and
Would rather save the extra 300pounds and put it towards somthing else.

Best of luck
 
Roy C said:
I would suggest that if your mates 100-400 is no better than the samples seen on this thread there is either something drastically wrong with the lens or it is a case of poor technique!
The trouble with all this IQ stuff is that people have different opinions and expectations and of course it is a natural for anyone to talk up there own purchases. What may be acceptable for one Person would not be good enough for someone else. Without going into detail or critique I would just say that there is not a single shot posted on this thread that would make me even think about buying the Sigma, for me most of the shots posted here would hit 'dusty bin' without batting an eye lid. On the other hand if you or anyone else is satisfied with this IQ then that is great there will be no need to ever buy a more expensive lens which can only be a good thing

At the moment I am without a birding lens having sold my previous lens because of the weight. I am in the market for a lighter weight lens and have looked carefully at several lenses including the Sigma 150-500 and 50-500 OS but for me they just do not come up to the mark which is a shame because they are both significantly lighter (and cheaper) than the lens I have just sold.
I have seen the odd great shot from one of these lenses but in the main the images look soft, are lacking contrast and the colours look pale to me.

The bottom line is that if you or anyone else is satisfied with the performance/ IQ of the 150-500 then that is great – get out there and start snapping, at the end of the day it does not matter a jot what others think!
Click to expand...
each to there own, i see pics from people on here with prime lenses 500-f4 600f4 that are terrible but people seem to still say wow brilliant when in fact there rubbish, i have used the 7d with the 100-400mm and my d300 and 50-500mm os on the same subject and the sigma was better and my mates 7d and 100-400mm have both been to canon to make sure everything was fine and canon give it a fit bill of health.
canon owners will always say a canon lens is better like a nikon owner will always say a nikon lens is best and if nikon bring out the 100-500mm i expect that will be the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top