More lens advice.

[DaveTaylor]

OK, I'm in the market for a replacement lens, my Sigma 50-500mm (bigma) being stolen. I can't afford the canon IS 500mm or 600mm lenses, so my question is, what would be third choice. The zoom was handy on the sigma, but I'm after quality, and reach. So I'm considering the Sigma 500mm F4.5 lens or even the 800mm f5.6 lens, both of which are prime lenses and I am told will work on my 40D. My thinking is this - most of my bird pictures that never came out were either a little soft or blurred. The softness I think was down to the quality of the lens, being a zoom quality is usually a compromise and I'm guessing the quality would be better from a prime lens. Also shutter speed - the 50-500mm, being an F6.3, I was often shooting at 1/100th second, hence any slight movement in either me holding the equipment or the bird itself would result in a blurred picture. So I'm also thinking that a faster lens would allow for a higher shutter speed and hopefully more keepers than deleters. This is my reasoning as to how I think my choice will be a sigma 500mm, but I am interested to hear what others have found. Also is the sigma 800mm f5.6 an option, or is it just too big, heavy and not much faster than the Bigma? I think I've ruled out a 100-400 IS lens as I never hear people say "that birds too close" so a 500mm or bigger would seem logical.

So I would really like to hear what others think. I know there have been lots of discussions on these issues on Birdforum, and I have read many of them which has helped me arrive at this point so far. But before spending lots of money I'd really value all the advice I can get. I do have the chance when I'm ready to try both the 500mm and 800mm lenses out.

[Keith Reeder]

I think I've ruled out a 100-400 IS lens as I never hear people say "that birds too close"
Well I dunno about that, Dave - I'm forever using less than 400mm with my 100-400mm, and I've got an awful lot of shots as a result that I would not have been able to get with a fixed 400mm.

[DaveTaylor]

Yeah, but don't you have to resort to the 1.4x Kenko converter for "many" of your shots? I tried a converter once, but the drop in quality (on the Sigma 50-500mm) was so drastic I sold it on ebay.

[Dave Hutton]

OK, I'm in the market for a replacement lens, my Sigma 50-500mm (bigma) being stolen. I can't afford the canon IS 500mm or 600mm lenses, so my question is, what would be third choice. The zoom was handy on the sigma, but I'm after quality, and reach. So I'm considering the Sigma 500mm F4.5 lens or even the 800mm f5.6 lens, both of which are prime lenses and I am told will work on my 40D. My thinking is this - most of my bird pictures that never came out were either a little soft or blurred. The softness I think was down to the quality of the lens, being a zoom quality is usually a compromise and I'm guessing the quality would be better from a prime lens. Also shutter speed - the 50-500mm, being an F6.3, I was often shooting at 1/100th second, hence any slight movement in either me holding the equipment or the bird itself would result in a blurred picture. So I'm also thinking that a faster lens would allow for a higher shutter speed and hopefully more keepers than deleters. This is my reasoning as to how I think my choice will be a sigma 500mm, but I am interested to hear what others have found. Also is the sigma 800mm f5.6 an option, or is it just too big, heavy and not much faster than the Bigma? I think I've ruled out a 100-400 IS lens as I never hear people say "that birds too close" so a 500mm or bigger would seem logical.

So I would really like to hear what others think. I know there have been lots of discussions on these issues on Birdforum, and I have read many of them which has helped me arrive at this point so far. But before spending lots of money I'd really value all the advice I can get. I do have the chance when I'm ready to try both the 500mm and 800mm lenses out.

Dave you mention not being able to afford the Canon 500F4 yet mention the Sigma 800 F5.6 which is around about the same price range????
I use both the Canon 500F4 & the Sigma 300-800 & i know (Steve Seal) is very happy with his Sigma 500F4.5 & getting some superb results & as with the 100-400 theres a lot of fantastic photos out there taken by this lens (Just look at Keith Reeders shots)

[DaveTaylor]

I've had a look at Keith's shots and they are very good. I just wonder if a 400mm is enough reach or will I have to resort to a converter. The 100-400mm is already a F5.6 at 400mm so with a converter on I will lose even more light and then shutter speeds will drop. I do recognise the 100-400mm is a cracking lens - I do own a 70-200mm F2.8 L series lens and it is amazing.

There is a used 800mm Sigma prime lens for sale at £1,500 and I'm considering this, not the 300-800mm zoom

[paul goode]

Dave,

If the Canon 500mm f4 is out of the question then I'd say look for a s/h 500mm Sigma. A damn good lens for about £1000-£1200, it'll work well with a taped TC to give you 700mm and far more maneagable size wise than the 800mm.
I sense that you've discounted the 100-400 and therefore the 400mm f5.6 as to short, so a 500mm is the way to go :t:

You're more than welcome to try my 100-400 and 500mm f4 but I would only put the 500mm on your camera if you're prepared to sell your soul afterwards to get one ;)

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, but don't you have to resort to the 1.4x Kenko converter for "many" of your shots? I tried a converter once, but the drop in quality (on the Sigma 50-500mm) was so drastic I sold it on ebay.
Naaah, never use a TC now - it doesn't play nice with the 40D - and I'm fine with "just" 400mm (or less).

That said, yes I'd use a TC too if it worked the 40D and 100-400mm.

I mentioned the zoom thing because despite what some folk say, lots of opportunities for < 400mm bird shots present themselves, and it's not always possible to use "foot zooming".

Indeed, this mandarin was taken with a TC (on the 30D) and 200mm on the lens...

It's just nice to have options, I feel.

[paul goode]

Naaah, never use a TC now - it doesn't play nice with the 40D - and I'm fine with "just" 400mm (or less).

That said, yes I'd use a TC too if it worked the 40D and 100-400mm.

I mentioned the zoom thing because despite what some folk say, lots of opportunities for < 400mm bird shots present themselves, and it's not always possible to use "foot zooming".

Indeed, this mandarin was taken with a TC (on the 30D) and 200mm on the lens...

It's just nice to have options, I feel.

Maybe thats where Dave's 70-200 will come in handy ;)

[Keith Reeder]

Well yeah, but then you're into swapping lenses around.

Still, to each their own..!

;)

[DaveTaylor]

I realise that everyone has their own preferences, and by choosing something different there is always a risk of offending people for seemingly snubbing their choice. But generally people say if you want quality stick with a prime lens. I also need something that's possible to carry about and with as fast a shutter speed as I can afford. Budget is around £1500 so my thinking was a used Sigma 500mm F4.5 lens. There are 300mm F2.8 lenses about so this may be an option with a 2x converter. I have seen some good results using a converter, but I was hoping to avoid using one if possible.

[Roy C]

. Budget is around £1500 so my thinking was a used Sigma 500mm F4.5 lens. There are 300mm F2.8 lenses about so this may be an option with a 2x converter.
Never seen or heard a bad word about the Siggy 500 f4.5.
I was also thinking about a 300 f2.8 with a 2x tc but after a lot of research have concluded that using it with a 2x most of the time will not yield consistent good results.

[Keith Reeder]

I realise that everyone has their own preferences, and by choosing something different there is always a risk of offending people for seemingly snubbing their choice. You can rest easy there, Dave - no offence taken here, because what other folk choose to spend their money on doesn't hurt my pictures at all..!

;)

[paul goode]

I have seen some good results using a converter, but I was hoping to avoid using one if possible.

I think your experiences with the 50-500 and a TC has jaundiced your opinion a bit. I had the same setup and only managed garbage as well.
However the primes and tc's are a different world.
I used my Sigma 500mm f4.5 with a Kenko pro300dg 1.4x and was very pleased with the results. And I can't remember the last time I took the Canon 1.4x off my 500mm f4, its that good!
As I've said before its not how good the 500mms are, its how good they are as 700mms :t:

[Roy C]

Well yeah, but then you're into swapping lenses around.

Still, to each their own..!

;)
No need to swap lenses if you have two bodies, I very often take along my 30D with 70-200 attached just in case I can get mega close to a bird - think I have used it a couple of times for flock shots.

[Roy C]

I mentioned the zoom thing because despite what some folk say, lots of opportunities for < 400mm bird shots present themselves,the lens...

I think the birds around your local patch must be tame Keith or maybe you have found a way of calling them in to you ;););)

[paul goode]

I think the birds around your local patch must be tame Keith or maybe you have found a way of calling them in to you ;););)

You beat me to it Roy!

Its often posted on here that you can use short lenses for bird photography but in my experience thats the exception rather than the norm, assuming we are talking wild birds ;)

The Siskin is an example. The lens needed an extension tube to focus so I was probably about 10'-12' from it, and yet it still needed a 1.4x on the 500mm to get the bird pretty well full frame.
I agree that shots of the birds showing more habitat could be achieved with a shorter lens but the Chaffinch wasn't far away but still needed 700mm to avoid much cropping

[postcardcv]

Personally I would recommend avoiding the 800 f5.6... it is a beast of a lens. The close focus on it is terrible on a number of occassions I've watched a local chap who has one having to back away from a bird just to be able to focus! I did use the 500 f4.5 for a couple of years and was always very happy with it, personally I think only the big Canon primes are better for bird photography. As Paul mentioned it plays very nicely with the Kenko 1.4x tc (with pins taped), though you need a decent tripod to get the best from it.

I've attached some shots taken with the Sigma 500 f4.5, most with, but one without the 1.4x tc.

[postcardcv]

I agree that shots of the birds showing more habitat could be achieved with a shorter lens but the Chaffinch wasn't far away but still needed 700mm to avoid much cropping

stunning shot Paul :t:

[paul goode]

I think your middle image presents a very good case for the Sigma 500mm Peter, taking into account what became of it ;););)

[Roy C]

Personally I would recommend avoiding the 800 f5.6... it is a beast of a lens. The close focus on it is terrible on a number of occassions I've watched a local chap who has one having to back away from a bird just to be able to focus! I did use the 500 f4.5 for a couple of years and was always very happy with it, personally I think only the big Canon primes are better for bird photography. As Paul mentioned it plays very nicely with the Kenko 1.4x tc (with pins taped), though you need a decent tripod to get the best from it.

I've attached some shots taken with the Sigma 500 f4.5, most with, but one without the 1.4x tc.
Wow, that middle image is a great capture Pete.

[Keith Reeder]

You beat me to it Roy!

Its often posted on here that you can use short lenses for bird photography but in my experience thats the exception rather than the norm, assuming we are talking wild birds ;)
Shrugs..!

;)

The Exif is in all my pics, and the number that are under 400mm is not insignificant.

Not for a second singling out your comments Paul: I completely get the "more reach" argument - I've said that I would use a TC if it would work with my 40D - I just bridle slightly at the implication that the ability to zoom is in essence an irrelevance to a birding lens decision: for some it certainly isn't irrelevant, or of no practical benefit.

I'm just providing my view for the purpose of balance in response to Dave's I never hear people say "that birds too close" - well I say it. I often find that birds can be close enough to warrant using the zoom function.

And I'll bet you've all chopped the wings off BIFs that have been too close to fit in the frame, for example.

If a given person doesn't want a zoom that's just fine and dandy, but it doesn't diminish the value of zooms for others, or make this altnerative view any less potentially useful for the next person that comes along...

And don't forget either, that the ability to zoom allows new composition options not always available to prime users.

[timp55]

Realising that this is 'BirdForum', does anyone not use the same lenses for photos other than birds? For me that was what sold me on the 100-400L. Yes, the vast majority of my pictures are of birds (haven't got easy access to whales!) but I certainly considered other uses when deciding what lens to start with. Now I'm thinking what to get next; 500? but would expect to still hang on to the 100-400L, if only for those other creatures out there.

[paul goode]

Keith,

I'm not against zooms at all, I own 3 and use them a lot. indeed I've always been a supporter of the 100-400. But I simply find that in the bird photography I do I find 700mm far more use than < 400mm.
Maybe I need to brush up on my fieldcraft ;)

[Roy C]

I also have 2 zoom lenses as well as a macro lens. I guess using a zoom lens like the 100-400 for birding is a reasonable option if you do not have other lenses. I have even heard people say that they use the 100-400 as a macro lens but It can never be as good as a dedicated macro lens IMO.
As a final though if you are constantly able to get bird shots at less than 400mm then maybe you are too near to the birds for their welfare and should think about backing off a little anyway ;););)

[tjsimonsen]

Realising that this is 'BirdForum', does anyone not use the same lenses for photos other than birds?

I use mine for several other things, well, mainly other wildlife and larger insects. For wildlife I often find that 400mm is too much, and for butterflies and dragonflies the 1.8m close-focus distance of the zoom makes it a great close-up lens for larger and more nervous critters. But I agree with Roy: it is not, repeat NOT, a macro lens. Fortunately, I have my beloved 100/2.8 for that. It was actually the close-focus distance more than anything else that made me choose the zoom over the 400/5.6.

Thomas

[postcardcv]

Realising that this is 'BirdForum', does anyone not use the same lenses for photos other than birds?

I think that the 100-400 IS is an outstanding alrounder, however I'm with Paul on the desire for more reach... So is use a 500mm with a 1.4x tc for the vast majority of my bird shots, the only other stuff I shoot with it is other wildlife. I've got other lenses for photographing other stuff, but as birds are my main thing (97+% of my photos are birds or my kids) it made sense to buy a dedicated birding lens.

[GYRob]

well i use the 500f4isL and often have a 1.4tc on it but as Keith says you can often chop wings .
Iv always being a prime shooter apart from the wide end 17/40 although i do have a 70/200 isL mostly just for aircraft .
Im very intrested in the new 150/500 though as long as the reviews give it a good mark as im finding often im just to long with the 500 prime this is mostly at local lakes were the birds are not so shy ,i dont think i would go for the 800f5.6 fixed the 300/800 is a far better bet and said to be just as sharp but both are a lot of weight to carry thats for sure .
i do think value for money goes to the sigma 500f4.5 for anyone wanting a cheaper/lighter way to get to 500mm.
Rob.

[Roy C]

i do think value for money goes to the sigma 500f4.5 for anyone wanting a cheaper/lighter way to get to 500mm.
Rob.
Still quite heavy at 3.15 kg but as you say lighter than the Canon 500 (3.87 kg).
If only the new siggy turns out ok that would be great at only 1.9 kg

[rezMole]

I used a Tamron 200-500mm lens for ages, and loved it. However, I always wanted a prime, so ended up getting a Sigma 500mm (no way could I afford a Nikon 500mm). I thought I'd keep the Tamron because it was lighter and therefore better as a walkabout lens. However, after 6 months, I had never used the Tamron, so I have now sold it.

The Tamron was pretty rubbish with the Kenko converter, whaereas the Sigma prime and converter produces very good pictures with little if any loss of quality - even though I have to focus manually.

[GYRob]

Still quite heavy at 3.15 kg but as you say lighter than the Canon 500 (3.87 kg).
If only the new siggy turns out ok that would be great at only 1.9 kg

yes i really fancy one as a walk around birding lens -the 120/400 and 150/500 have a bug that needs fixing if used on the 40d but sigma have a fix sorted out.
Rob.

[a.dancy]

For some reason, the Sigma primes get a bit of a slamming for shots taken wide open and in low light. I can't quite work this out. I use the Sigma f4.5 500mm regularly in low light and wide open.

If you have the cash to get a secondhand Sigma f5.4 500 then perhaps you should consider going for it. Brand new it is still a very good value lens. The facility of IS on the Canon equivelant and I suppose its slightly faster speed will bring some benefits but I do not accept that the difference in quality (for most shooting situations) is as great as many might imagine...and yes I have used the Canon. I my view the Sigma primes are much under-rated.


Although I have not used the Sigma 800 prime it is my understanding that it is a bit soft. If you cannot afford the canon 500 then you will not be able to afford the 300-800 and besides you will need a rock steady tripod and head to use it. I would love to be able to try that lens out though.

The attached spotted flycatcher shot is taken in low light with lens wide open very minor alteration of levels an minimal sharpening. The stonechat shot is taken with a 2X converter.

Good luck with your choice.

[paul goode]

"For some reason, the Sigma primes get a bit of a slamming for shots taken wide open and in low light. I can't quite work this out. I use the Sigma f4.5 500mm regularly in low light and wide open."

Must admit I've not come across this Adrian. I also used mine regularly wide open with no problems.

"If you have the cash to get a secondhand Sigma f5.4 500 then perhaps you should consider going for it. Brand new it is still a very good value lens. The facility of IS on the Canon equivelant and I suppose its slightly faster speed will bring some benefits but I do not accept that the difference in quality (for most shooting situations) is as great as many might imagine...and yes I have used the Canon."

On this point I'm going to have to disagree Adrian

I've owned the Sigma 500mm f4.5 and own the Canon 500mm f4. In my experience there is a marked and obvious difference in IQ.
However this difference didn't appear straight away. For the first month I owned the Canon I wondered what the hell I'd wasted £3500 on. Images weren't sharp, I was having to use higher shutter speeds than I used on the Sigma and nothing was working. Practice paid off though and as I got used to the lens the images improved to the point now that I'm totally happy that the expense was justified.
I'd owned 500mm lenses and IS lenses but I still found a big learning curve to get used to the Canon, which I admit was the last thing I expected. Its been a relief to talk to one other former Sigma 500mm f4.5 owner who had exactly the same experience.

[postcardcv]

For some reason, the Sigma primes get a bit of a slamming for shots taken wide open and in low light. I can't quite work this out. I use the Sigma f4.5 500mm regularly in low light and wide open.

If you have the cash to get a secondhand Sigma f4.5 500 then perhaps you should consider going for it. Brand new it is still a very good value lens. The facility of IS on the Canon equivelant and I suppose its slightly faster speed will bring some benefits but I do not accept that the difference in quality (for most shooting situations) is as great as many might imagine...and yes I have used the Canon. I my view the Sigma primes are much under-rated.

I agree that the Sigma can perform very well even in low light conditions, I've attched three shots taken wide open in poor light, I'm happy with them all.

I can't agree with the comments about the Canon though, there really is a significant difference between the two lenses. I say that having owned the Sigma for almost three years before upgrading to the Canon last year. The differences between the lenses are not instantly apparent, it took me a while to learn how to use the Canon.

When I first got the Canon I was expecting a lot however on the first couple of outings with it I wasn't seeing anything that would justify the cost of the upgrade. When reviewing my images on the PC I honestly thought I'd made a mistake in buying it as I couldn't see any difference between images from it and my Sigma. After a couple of weeks I started to see the potential of the lens, most images were still at the Sigma standard but some really stood out.

After a month I finally saw the reason for buying the Canon. When processing the images from the Sigma the first process was to delete the OOF shots, normally ~40%, with the Canon I get less than ~5% OOF (ignoring shots lost to my errors). If I got oa run of similar shots I used to view at 100% and keep the sharpest shot, however the Canon seems to nail every shot so I end up with many more keepers (I'm glad memory is cheap).

I agree that the Sigma is an underrated lens, however in my experience the Canon does have a clear edge in IQ. The Sigma can nail shots but with the IS, f4 and it's consistent IQ you're far more likely to get the shot with the Canon.

[paul goode]

Spooky :eek!::eek!::eek!:

[DaveTaylor]

Thank you to all those who have given their thoughts on this subject, and for the kind offer to try out some of the lenses (namely the Canon 500mm IS lens.) I'm going to pass the offer up as I can't afford one, and I know I'd really like already. . . . maybe one day.
I've had a cheque through today for my stolen items so I'm going to see if there are any Sigma 500mm F4.5 lenses about. The advice here has been most useful. Thank you all once again.

[gymell]

I have the 100-400 and have found it very useful in circumstances where I need a lot of versatility and mobility. So far for me this has been limited to photo shoots of captive birds, for example an owl festival (http://www.pbase.com/gymell/houston_owl_festival) I attended a few months ago had a photo session with owls of various sizes that I could get very close to. Aside from that, I use my 500 f/4 almost exclusively, occasionally using the 400 f/5.6. It is very rare for me to feel that I have too much focal length when using these primes, although it does happen occasionally.

[PeterUK300]

I use a Canon 300 f4L IS USM plus Canon 1.4 extender and get good results. This is a great combo and within your budget.