Want a long zoom help please

[picpete8]

I have been told that this is a very good interactive and resource site.
I sold my 75-300 IS lens and was going to buy the 70-300IS and a 1.4 teleconverter, but there seems to be issues with it in portrait mode where it gives various degrees of soft images.
I take a wide range of pictures with the Tamron 24-135, Canon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 150mm 2.8 will buy this lens.
I need a longer zoom for small birds in the backyard and alley, A great horned owl on a friends land in the country. Also at times wild deer, moose, bears and geese and ducks when I vist my family in northern B.C.

So I am thinking about these other lenses.
#1 Sigma 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. Northern Canada has six months of low light.
#2 Sigma 80-400 OS with 1.4 teleconverter.
#3 Sigma 50-500 with 1.4 teleconverter.
#4 Tamron 200-500 with 1.4 teleconverter
#5 Canon 70-200 f4 with 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters
#6 Sigma 70-300 APO and save lots of money
Thanks for your help, picpete.

[Tyger]

#1 no experience but i've heard works well with the 1.4

#2 has OS definitely handy, some complain that AF is slow for birds in flight or action shots, so with the 1.4 TC it would be slower.

#3 IMO best option, good range and versatility and performs fairly well with 1.4 TC, but to get the best results a tripod/monopod is a must. Quite heavy to hand hold, but some hanve no problems.

#4 no experience

#5 Had the 70-200mm f4 combo with 1.4 TC AF was still godd but hunted in low light and AF slowed down. Picture quality had little degration. I've heard with the 2x TC it may or may not AF and quality of image gets soft.

#6 Also had this lens, the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro DG version. Not a bad lens for the price, performes fairly well from 200-250mm but soft on the long end at 300mm. Nosiy motor as well, but not unbearable. Also it can be a challenge at times to handhold at 300mm.

To sum it up I would narrow it down to the Sigma 80-400mm or the Bigma 50-500mm. I seriously considered these two lenses but came across a good deal for a used Canon 100-400mm IS. I could have got a new Bigma 50-500mm but I liked the IS of the 100-400mm and personally I'm Canon faithful, but that's just personal preference. I've seen stunning images with the bigma and the range is perfect for birding, though as mentioned to get best results a tripod/monopod is a must.

[picpete8]

Thanks Tyger,
You have provided great insights thanks.
Sorry to all I'm not sure how I managed to double post but I have. Picpete.

[Sconey]

Hi! I just recently purchased a Sigma 170-500mm for my digital Rebel. So far, I like it a lot. If it is cloudy and gloomy the pics aren't that great but for the $$$ I'm very pleased. I can't afford Canon lens and I think you can't go wrong with the Sigmas.

[picpete8]

Thanks for responding Sconey. I am contemplating this lens. Will you be posting any images in the gallery, if you do please let me know. Thanks again, Peter.

[DOC]

The 80-400 is thought to be very good optically and works fairly well with a TC.

I personally have had the same debate a few months ago and finally - after getting some good advice from some forum members - settled on the Tamron 200-500 - which turned out to be a superb lense .
The lense never leaves the camera .

Both the Tamron 200-500 and the Bigma ( Sigma 50-500 ) - are not recommended with a TC - you loose too much stops and the picture becomes too soft . ( Tamron company themselves do not recommend this combo )
The Bigma is a HEAVY lense and a tripod is a must if you want some good quality shots. The Tamron is lighter ( and a bit cheaper ) , easily handheld and to my opinion - is as good as the Bigma.
As for the weather - all long zoom lense suffer when there is not enough light- and when adding a TC you loose some F stops which make photography in bad lighting even harder .

I have had the Sigma 70-300 before - it's a great lense for the price but the reach is not enough for bird photography.

It's all a matter of price - a 500-600 m"m prime lense is much better but allas !- 5000-7000$$ !!!!

I have a lot of pictures in my gallery - taken with the Tamron 200-500 - you're welcome to take a look .

Hope this helps a bit.

[picpete8]

Hi Doc,
Thanks for responding to this inquiry. A few more questions sorry. I am very interested in the Tamron 200-500 lens. You have taken so many beautiful pictures with this lens. Does this lens produce as sharp or sharper pictures than the Sigma 70-300 APO.
Also how does the auto focus between the two lenses compare. Do you have to do very much sharpening and post processing with the 200-500 lens. I use to have the canon 75-300 IS lens and was very unhappy with it, does the tamron 200-500 seem to be a better lens.
I have the Tamron 24-135 lens and is a slow lens but if it gets the light it needs It can be very good. I like it very much for image quality and as a walk around lens. If things don't make sense I just finished a 14 hour night shift.

[DOC]

I find the Tamron sharper than the Sigma 70-300.
But - one can get very sharp images from both lenses with the appropriate conditions - meaning - a good tripod or bean -bag, fast shutter speeds and good lighting. With these conditions and the Tamron lense- i got quite sharp images straight from the camera withought any post processing.
With sigma - i did get sharp images but still not as sharp.
Here's are 2 examples from the Sigma :
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/39424/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/52877/sort/1/cat/500/page/4
As to autofocus - the Sigma is slower but both of these lenses "hunt" in low light conditions . HSM would have been great to have . ( they both lack it ).
If you shoot in RAW - you always have to post process and personally i don't find post processing a negative thing . Almost all photos shown in many sites all over the net are post processed. Post processing cannot turn a blurred image into a sharp one but can certainly improve a good image .

[picpete8]

Thanks to all for your help. I finally purchased a lense. I'm just going to pick-up it from the Fedex office at the airport as it has just cleared customs. I splurged and bought the Canon 100-400 IS. Plan on getting the Tamron 1.4 teleconverter in the near future. Thanks again Peter.

[Tannin]

An excellent choice! I was about to post and say that anything less than 400mm is really too short for birds, and to consider the 100-400 - but you already did! They are said to not work all that well with a converter though. I'll know for myself before too long, as I have a 100-400 and I just ordered a Canon 500 and a Canon 1.4 TC. Naturally, I'll try the 1.4 on the 100-400 as well.