Which Lens?

[Freako]

I am using my EF 70-300 is lens at present, with my 20D trying to capture wild bird images, but I am finding it a little limited. I am thinking of maybe the 100-400 zoom or the EF 400 5.6 usm any advise would be very much apprietiated. Mick.

[Keith Reeder]

There's a huge number of 100-400mm vs 400mm prime threads on here, Mick - all you get is zoom fans saying "get the zoom", and prime users saying "get the prime"!

;)

I'm a 100-400mm user myself.

I'm happy to put my pics up against pretty much anybody's for sharpness, and - personally - I zoom the lens a hell of a lot (some folk reckon that you'll be at 400mm all the time "so why bother with a zoom?", but just today I was down to under 200mm a few times).

The prime is faster focusing, but the zoom has a much shorter minimum focusing distance.

The prime is a lot lighter than the zoom of course, but the zoom has IS.

Bottom line for me is that if I thought it was a good idea I could easily sell my 100-400 and get enough for it to buy the prime.

Ain't going to happen..!

;) ;) ;)

Are these sharp enough for you?

[Freako]

Thank you keith for your reply, i have looked at some of the archive threads, very interesting, I have a lot to learn and read.

[nsclayton]

Both the above lenses are very capable from what I have seen but there is another option Mick. I use the Canon 300mm f4 prime lens which has IS with a Canon 1.4 converter and this combination is a popular choice amongst wildlife photographers. Just thought I would throw in another option.

Thanks
Nick

[a.dancy]

Both the above lenses are very capable from what I have seen but there is another option Mick. I use the Canon 300mm f4 prime lens which has IS with a Canon 1.4 converter and this combination is a popular choice amongst wildlife photographers. Just thought I would throw in another option.

Thanks
Nick

A valid option

[JohnZ]

Thought I had better balance things up a bit. Obviously not as sharp as Keiths shots. Taken with the Canon 400mm f5.6.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi John,

in the interests of fairness and clarity, both of mine were "easy" shots - not like wrens! - but I think they demonstrate the truth of what I always say about the zoom: that ownership doesn't automatically mean soft images, despite all the naysaying about it.

Mick,

just a thought. Sigma have recently released a 120-400mm lens with OS (their image stabilisation) and HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic auto focus motor): initial online examples from the lens were pretty unimpressive, but I've recently started to see some encouraging stuff from it.

The point being, it's cheaper than either of the Canons (a lot cheaper than the 100-400mm), but will hopefully deliver good IQ and all of the other benefits of the Canons for silly money.

I own a Nikon-fit Sigma 80-400mm OS and can vouch for its image quality, and expect the new Sigma to be on a par.

[a.dancy]

Hi John,

in the interests of fairness and clarity, both of mine were "easy" shots .

Nothing fair or unfair about it Keith. The camera or the lens does not know if they are easy shots.:t:

[postcardcv]

The prime is faster focusing, but the zoom has a much shorter minimum focusing distance.

The prime is a lot lighter than the zoom of course, but the zoom has IS.

I'd agree with Keith that these are the main differences between these lenses. You can read as many opinions as you like but it really does come down to which features are more important to you. I've owned both and personally prefer the prime, to my eyes it has an edge in IQ.

here's a couple of my shots with the prime... http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/188899/ppuser/3294
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/189232/ppuser/3294

[Roy C]

One of the main complaints about the 400mm f5.6 prime is that it does not have IS so I thought I would weigh-in with a couple of hand held shot from the lens just to show how easy it is to get sharpish shots with this lens. I use mine hand held just about all the time.
I have read umpteen threads and post on these lenses and it would appear that the 100-400 could have sample variations, there are those who claim it is soft at the long end while others clearly have superb copies of the lens. The 400mm f5.6 prime is of a much simpler design so does not appear to suffer from sample variations as much. I am sure you would be happy with whichever one you choose to go with.
EDIT: As Keith says, it could pay to wait a while longer to see how the new Sigma's turnout.

[postcardcv]

Given the relatively low price of the new Sigma lenses I very much doubt that they will be of the same quality as these Canon's. I've owned a number of Sigma lenses, while they have all been good none have been up to the standard to the Canon's I've owned.

[Freako]

Thanks guy's for helping me to make the right choice, realy apprietiate your time.

[Mike Rudkin]

I have just traded my Canon 400 in for a Sigma 150-500. I've always found 400 just that touch short for me.
I'll post when I work out how to do it lol,but the very first shot on the Sigma without OS impressed me.

[Roy C]

I have just traded my Canon 400 in for a Sigma 150-500. I've always found 400 just that touch short for me.
I'll post when I work out how to do it lol,but the very first shot on the Sigma without OS impressed me.
We are all looking forward to seeing the shots Mike. A relatively light weight 500mm is something a lot of us are interested in I am sure.

[Roy C]

Given the relatively low price of the new Sigma lenses I very much doubt that they will be of the same quality as these Canon's. I've owned a number of Sigma lenses, while they have all been good none have been up to the standard to the Canon's I've owned.
I am sure you are right Peter but you never know they might just come up with a gem.

[postcardcv]

I am sure you are right Peter but you never know they might just come up with a gem.

Indeed they might and I certainly hope they do, a (relatively) lightweight 500mm stabalised zoom would be great. If it's up to the quality of these two Canon 400mm lenses I'll certainly buy one.

[paul goode]

Hi Mick,
I think a valid question is whether you are keeping the 70-300is. If you are then going for the prime makes sense to me. Its light, fast focussing and will compliment the 70-300. If you only want one lens then the 100-400 makes sense. I don't think there is much point discussing sharpness. I own the 100-400 but reckon, out of the camera, the prime is a bit sharper. But for 90% of the time a bit of photoshopping will lose that difference.
I certainly happily sell images taken with the 100-400.
The primes certainly appear to be more consistent in build quality. Keith has got a cracking 100-400, mine front focusses a bit. If you go for the zoom be prepared to test the focussing and if needs be send it and the 20d off to Canon. What comes back should be a spot on setup!
With the new sigma's it is a waiting game. Unless the new sigma's IQ is better than the 50-500 I can't see them being a threat to the 100-400, indeed I was told that the 150-500 isn't an EX lens and an OS version of the 50-500 is on the way. Plus if you hit a snag (as i seem to regularly!) its easier dealing with one company than two.

[Roy C]

I was told that the 150-500 isn't an EX lens
It has been reported that from now on Sigma are only designating EX on lenses with a constant aperture, how true this is I do not know. I have even seen some post where people have received the new 120-400 in a box which has EX marked on the outside but not on the lens.

[paul goode]

It has been reported that from now on Sigma are only designating EX on lenses with a constant aperture, how true this is I do not know. I have even seen some post where people have received the new 120-400 in a box which has EX marked on the outside but not on the lens.

It does seem to be a grey area Roy. What interested me was that the comment about EX designation and the OS version of the 50-500 were made in the same sentence.....

[Keith Reeder]

It has been reported that from now on Sigma are only designating EX on lenses with a constant aperture
That's my understanding too, Roy.

Just for a bit of (hopefully encouraging) perspective about the new Sigmas, the 80-400mm OS (which is an "EX") has three "SLD" (Special Low Dispersion) lens elements - the "good" glass.

Well, so do the 120-400mm and 150-500mm.

On top of that, build quality seems pretty much identical in the new lenses compared to the 80-400mm (bombproof build quality being one of the things that impressed me about the 80-400mm, as I touch on in my review (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php?product=142) of it).

I still have high hopes for these new Sigmas, even though I won't be buying one myself.

I should also mention that the only difference between the old non-EX 80-400mm and mine was the external finish (the EX lenses saw the introduction of that rough, matt finish - but these new lenses have that), and some new coatings on internal surfaces to reduce lens flare.

"EX" was just a bit of marketing thing, really.

[Gary Jenkins]

Hi Freako.
I started off with a Canon 20D and a 100-400 zoom combo and found that the camera was fine, but the lens you had to be virtually on top of. I upgraded to a 500mm f4.0 IS and it is superb, ive never looked back. The advantage also that autofocus can be achieved with a converter unlike the zoom. Disadvantage is the cost, but save some money and import from B&H in New York.
Another good lens option is the 400mm DO. Well worth considering

[Keith Reeder]

Disadvantage is the cost

And the weight, and the grand you need to spend on a Gitzo tripod and Wimberley head!

;)

And yes, it's my dream lens too..!

[a.dancy]

Given the relatively low price of the new Sigma lenses I very much doubt that they will be of the same quality as these Canon's. I've owned a number of Sigma lenses, while they have all been good none have been up to the standard to the Canon's I've owned.

I have the Sigma f2.8 300 and it most certainly would, if it were a canon, achieve an 'L series designation' IMHO. 8-P

[Keith Reeder]

I have the Sigma f2.8 300 and it most certainly would, if it were a canon, achieve an 'L series designation' IMHO. 8-P
Yep, I'd say so...

[Gary Jenkins]

And the weight, and the grand you need to spend on a Gitzo tripod and Wimberley head!

;)

And yes, it's my dream lens too..!

Fair point Keith, admittedly but superb none the less:t:

[Keith Reeder]

Actually the way I see it, none of these are "disadvantages" of the 500mm f/4 - simply the price (in its loosest sense) of entry into the club, which you take on knowingly when you go down that route.

I must admit that of the more up-market of the Canon lenses, I'm warming more and more to the 400mm DO: it's in a similar position to the 100-400mm by dint of apparent sample variation but if anyone saw this (http://www.birdsasart.com/nmay9.htm) Art Morris bulletin, you'll have seen what it can do, like this brown pelican, which is the 400mm DO + 1.4 TC, handheld.

http://www.birdsasart.com/248/Brown-Pelican-preening-40D-400-DO-+-1.4TC--handheld-IMG_9425--Sebastian-Inlet--FL.jpg

Looks amazing to my eyes..!

[Roy C]

Disadvantage is the cost, but save some money and import from B&H in New York.

The weight is the big disadvantage for my style of shooting.
Interesting you should say about importing from B&H, I did the calculations on the 500 f4 a few weeks ago and by the time you paid the shipping cost, Vat @ 17.5% plus 8% import duty on Lenses there was not a lot in it.

[Gary Jenkins]

The weight is the big disadvantage for my style of shooting.
Interesting you should say about importing from B&H, I did the calculations on the 500 f4 a few weeks ago and by the time you paid the shipping cost, Vat @ 17.5% plus 8% import duty on Lenses there was not a lot in it.

My dealings with B&H have been excellant, and timing it right with £s against $ does have its advantages. I bought my 500mm IS lens, Gitzo tripod, Wimberley head and plate, and Lowepro Pro Trekker AW II rucksack all for less than the 5 grand it would have been just for the lens in the UK and that was including duties etc. Admittedly that was 3 years ago, but late last year I upgraded my camera to a 1D Mark IIn. £2,500 in the UK was the cheapeast.
B&H had them at £1600. There was the addition of £300 Duty so I still save £600.
Some you win................

[Roy C]

My dealings with B&H have been excellant, and timing it right with £s against $ does have its advantages. I bought my 500mm IS lens, Gitzo tripod, Wimberley head and plate, and Lowepro Pro Trekker AW II rucksack all for less than the 5 grand it would have been just for the lens in the UK and that was including duties etc. Admittedly that was 3 years ago, but late last year I upgraded my camera to a 1D Mark IIn. £2,500 in the UK was the cheapeast.
B&H had them at £1600. There was the addition of £300 Duty so I still save £600.
Some you win................
I was comparing the B&H price for the 500 f4 with the £3800 that it would cost in UK (Jessops are actually the cheapest at the moment but there are plenty of places below £4k)

[Freako]

Hi Mick,
I think a valid question is whether you are keeping the 70-300is. If you are then going for the prime makes sense to me. Its light, fast focussing and will compliment the 70-300. If you only want one lens then the 100-400 makes sense. I don't think there is much point discussing sharpness. I own the 100-400 but reckon, out of the camera, the prime is a bit sharper. But for 90% of the time a bit of photoshopping will lose that difference.
I certainly happily sell images taken with the 100-400.
The primes certainly appear to be more consistent in build quality. Keith has got a cracking 100-400, mine front focusses a bit. If you go for the zoom be prepared to test the focussing and if needs be send it and the 20d off to Canon. What comes back should be a spot on setup!
With the new sigma's it is a waiting game. Unless the new sigma's IQ is better than the 50-500 I can't see them being a threat to the 100-400, indeed I was told that the 150-500 isn't an EX lens and an OS version of the 50-500 is on the way. Plus if you hit a snag (as i seem to regularly!) its easier dealing with one company than two.

Hi Paul, I was going to keep the 70-300 IS yes, I use it for most of my work (Cage Birds & Aviary birds oops what have I said) but you have me thinking now, are you suggesting that my lens is fine upto the 300mm and the have the 400 just to give me that extra reach, and not a lot to gain having the 100-400. Another opthion I guess would be to sell my lens and the get the 100-400 this I think should give me both options, am I correct?

[paul goode]

Hi Paul, I was going to keep the 70-300 IS yes, I use it for most of my work (Cage Birds & Aviary birds oops what have I said) but you have me thinking now, are you suggesting that my lens is fine upto the 300mm and the have the 400 just to give me that extra reach, and not a lot to gain having the 100-400. Another opthion I guess would be to sell my lens and the get the 100-400 this I think should give me both options, am I correct?

Hi Mick,

If you're happy with the IQ of the 70-300 then yes I would seriously consider buying the 400 f5.6 and saving some money. The 100-400 I guess will give a bit better IQ but its heavier, bulkier, quite expensive and white, which isn't always a good thing. A 70-200 could be added later if you get the prime and want a 'L' zoom to keep it company.

Both the 400 and 100-400 will work with a tc like the Kenko pro300dg with the pins taped. Indeed Keiths gallery shows the cracking results he gets with the zoom and tc!!

[Keith Reeder]

Indeed Keiths gallery shows the cracking results he gets with the zoom and tc!!
Only on the 30D, unfortunately.

I keep a page to hand to demonstrate the combo if anyone's interested: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/gallery/north-norfolk-september-2007

[paul goode]

Only on the 30D, unfortunately.

I keep a page to hand to demonstrate the combo if anyone's interested: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/gallery/north-norfolk-september-2007

Micks using a 20D so it should be Ok, unlike Canons latest creations ;)

[Keith Reeder]

Ah - so he is, Paul. I'd forgotten that fact.

[Freako]

Only on the 30D, unfortunately.

I keep a page to hand to demonstrate the combo if anyone's interested: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/gallery/north-norfolk-september-2007

Keith, some fantastic images, can I realy expect to get something anywhere near that? How much post processing do you do?

[Roy C]

For some reason the AF with the 400 prime + tc (taped) works reasonable well on the 40D providing the subject has a fair contrast. Not as good as on the 30D though.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi again, Mick.

I have an embarrassingly simple post processing "workflow" (it barely warrants the description!)

I convert images from RAW in either Capture One 4 (if I have a lot to convert and need batch processing) or Raw Therapee (which is free and excellent) during which I do no more than tweak the exposure and highlights/shadows if necessary, and add a little bit of "capture" sharpening (about 50 in Cap One, 200 in Raw Therapee - but they're about the same, and it's barely discernible - I probably don't even need to do it) and save as 100% quality jpeg.

Then - in Paint Shop Pro X - I crop and resize, fine-tune the exposure if necessary, and sharpen using the brilliant "Focus" sharpening tool in PSP X.

Maybe I'll add a tiny bit of saturation or play with the Colour Balance, and then I save and I'm pretty much done. I then decide whether I need to apply noise reduction, and to be truthful, I mainly use NR - Neat Image - as a way to blur the background a bit more and create the illusion of a shallow DOF and improve the bokeh.

But not a Layer or a Quick Mask in sight - as I say, it's a very basic workflow.

I'm afraid I subscribe to the "you can't polish a turd" school of post processing, and don't even try to improve images that aren't already "thereabouts" off the camera.

[postcardcv]

I have the Sigma f2.8 300 and it most certainly would, if it were a canon, achieve an 'L series designation' IMHO. 8-P

I'm not saying that some of the Sigma lenses are not excellent (I've never owned the 300 f2.8 so cannot comment on that one), my 500 f4.5 was excellent, but that doesn't change the fact that Canon's 500 f4 is noticeably better.

These new Sigma lenses that are on the way seem to often be quoted as being of a similar standard to the 135-400 and the 170-500, neither of which are world beating lenses. Both are fine lens and offer good value, but neither are of the same quality (IQ or AF) of the Canon lenses that the OP asked about.

[Roy C]

These new Sigma lenses that are on the way seem to often be quoted as being of a similar standard to the 135-400 and the 170-500, neither of which are world beating lenses. Both are fine lens and offer good value, but neither are of the same quality (IQ or AF) of the Canon lenses that the OP asked about.
Still early days yet but from what I am seeing they are certainly a cut above the 135-400 and 170-500. I have just been viewing some 150-500 sample images and they look pretty good to me. It is starting to look like it might be as good as the bigma but with a 4 stop OS which would make it excellent value for money. The 120-400 is also being compared with the 80-400 for IQ.
It should not be too long before we start to see 'real' reviews but until then the jury is still out.

[Keith Reeder]

My take is the same as Roy's - early days, but very promising.

[Freako]

Took a couple more today, this time f8 very dull day though, have proceessed these, comments very welcome, even bad ones.

Sorry guy's, meant to put these in the Critique forum.