Taking the plunge - Superzoom to DSLR

[Macswede]

I’m finally taking the plunge and buying a digital DSLR. My wife’s currently in the process of starting a company and, figuring money might be tight for a while, I had decided to upgrade my Panasonic DMC FZ-20 to an FZ-50 but when I informed the wife she wasn’t as pleased as I thought she would be. “But you’ve been going on about buying a DSLR for years”, was her response – a definite exaggeration by the way – “What’s the point of buying another superzoom and then selling it in a year at most?” So it’s a question of striking while the iron is hot – or at any rate while there is still money in the bank account and before my wife changes her mind.

I had thought deciding which equipment to buy would be easy; after all I’ve read any number of threads in the forums at Bird forum but such is not the case. Actually the camera part is relatively easy. I’ve pretty much decided to opt for a Canon 400D. The 30D is very much more expensive in Sweden and so is the Pentax 10D, another model I was considering.

It’s which lens to get that’s the problem. Obviously I don’t want a lens that gives me less reach than the set-up I already have – FZ-20 and TCON-17 teleconverter. That, and the prohibitive cost of Canon lenses, means I’m thinking of a Sigma or a Tamron, a zoom rather than a prime lens as that would be cheaper and more flexible.
So the first question is whether to go for a 400 mm zoom with a 1.4 x teleconverter or a 500mm zoom.

Doc’s fantastic images and his advocacy of the Tamron 200-500mm make that lens seem tempting, especially as I really want something I can hand-hold at least some of the time, but then Doc is a wonderful photographer who lives in sunny Israel while I am a relative novice who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden. Plus I won’t be able to use it with a teleconverter.

A Sigma 400mm could be combined with a teleconverter (preferably one that doesn’t involve taping pins) but which one?
The cheapest I can find is the Sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO at 5,762kr.
I understand the Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 is a better lens but it should be as it costs 1,2254kr. Is it that much better?
I can get a Canon EF 100-400mm / 4.5-5.6L IS for 15,694. Would that be better value? Or what about a Canon EF 400mm / 5.6L USM for 12,588. Seems not bad for a prime lens.
Sorry the prices are in Swedish Currency but the relative costs are fairly clear I think.

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

[tjsimonsen]

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

Hi Graham,

Having lived in both Sweden and Denmark myself, I would say the IS would be worth the extra cost unless you plan to carry at least a monopod most of the time. Of the lenses you mention, only the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon 100-400 have IS. That said, I know of Danes who get good results with the Tamron 200-500 or the Sigma 50-500.
I don't know that much about the Sigma 135-400, but based on the naked stats, it seems to be relatively good if not quite up to the standard of the four lenses mentioned above. But then again, it comes at a much lower cost.

Thomas

[Leicaman]

Another possible camera you could consider is the Sony alpha 100. It isn't much more than the Canon 400D in the UK and has image stabilisation via the sensor so evry lens connected would have image stabilisation.

[Macswede]

Another possible camera you could consider is the Sony alpha 100. It isn't much more than the Canon 400D in the UK and has image stabilisation via the sensor so evry lens connected would have image stabilisation.

There are some good packages available for the Sony:
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 (inkl. 18-70mm Af lensand 75-300mm lens) 9,098kr

I've heard there are noise issues but I've seen some good results.
Graham

[gmax]

Hi Graham,

many questions indeed ... you'll likely make this thread tremble for some time ... different armies are preparing their weapons ;)

My beginner's contribute: I have the Tamron 200-500, and I'm not as good a photographer a Doc is nor I shoot mainly in sunny times, nevertheless this lens is great (excellent in good light), good enough sharpness (not so much if you use it with a TC), easy to handhold and quite cheap (when compared to other zooms); does not have stabilization, but I don't miss it. It is said to be better than the Sigma zooms (170-500 AND 50-500) in terms of sharpness, and has a longer range than the 135-400 and the 80-400, but does not have stabilization as the 80-400.

I guess the Sigma 135-400 and the Sigma 170-500 are at a lower overall quality level than the Tamron 200-500 or the Sigma 50-500 (which is heavier than the previous one): these two are the best bets among third party zooms.

The Canon zoom is an excellent lens, very sharp and portable, but more expensive [homework: you BF members add your comments here ....]
The Canon 400mm prime is my favourite lens (cheaper than the Canon zoom ;) ), great(er) sharpness (sorry K.), works quite well with a 1.4x TC on in good light

In your shoes I would make my choice in terms of

1. range: 400mm can be short sometimes: much depends on your main kind of environment and birding spots; that said, a *-500mm zoom has usually a better image quality than a *-400 zoom+TC
2. max aperture: assuming you shoot mainly at the long end of a zoom (400 or 500mm), you'll find yourself operating between f/5.6 and f/6.3 (more if you plan to use a TC)
3. "handholdability": do you plan to use a tripod or mainly handhold your lens? If you mainly handhold it, then stabilization may be of some help
4. flexibility: obviously a zoom is more flexible than a prime
5. price (and availability): for example you can buy a good third party zoom, then save for a longer prime (at the end, it's what everybody would like to do ;) )
6. Image quality/sharpness: primes should be better

My answers (items are ordered from top to bottom):

1. a *-500 zoom > Tamron 200-500; a 400 prime + 1.4xTC
2. a 400 prime > Canon; Canon 100-400 or Sigma 80-400
3. Canon 400m or Canon 100-400, Tamron 200-500
4. Canon 100-400; Sigma 80-400
5. Tamron 200-500, Canon 400mm, Canon 100-400
6. Canon 400, Canon 100-400, Tamron 200-500, Sigma 50-500

Just my thoughts, I hope not to have increased your doubts
Cheers,
Max

[IanF]

For me the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm are the best lenses of the selections mentioned. I'd be very wary of adding a teleconverter to any zoom lens as results are generally very soft.

Camera bodies come and go, but lenses last a lifetime so it's well worth buying the best you can afford. The Canon 400D is very well specified and seems to be a very good performer from the results I've seen in the Gallery.

If primarily for birding then the Canon 400mm f5,6 is the sharpest of the bunch mentioned. Short of buying a 500mm or 600mm prime lens I've not seen a better lens. I't's great value for money, compact and fairly light to carry - a boon when used on a smaller body like the 400D. There's next to no loss in quality when using it with a teleconverter as well. On bright days it's easy enough to hand hold, but when it's a bit duller then I use it with a monopod.

If you're after more of an all round lens that is very good quality then the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 is very good indeed. I find it's very good for macro as well as for bird photos. The IS is a real boon.

[bkrownd]

Camera bodies come and go, but lenses last a lifetime so it's well worth buying the best you can afford.

I'm not too sure about this. The clunky oversized DSLR format has to give way to something much more compact and portable as technology improves. A more compact body will have a more compact mount, and offer more compact lenses. Then you'll want to dump the DSLR albatross. Ah, technology...

Nevertheless, if you're going to put $1500 into a camera, why not just make it $2000 and get what you really wanted? Don't skimp...just don't go overboard.

[Macswede]

Just my thoughts, I hope not to have increased your doubts
Cheers,
Max

Don't know about increasing my doubts but you've expressed yourself a lot more clearly than I think I did and given me a great deal to think about.
Thanks a million!
Graham

[Macswede]

Having lived in both Sweden and Denmark myself, I would say the IS would be worth the extra cost unless you plan to carry at least a monopod most of the time.
Thomas
This is definitely something I have to consider. The great thing about the FZ-20 was that I could carry the camera and my bins and the scope on a tripod, especially if the wife was there to help.. On the other hand I could just buy an extra quick release for the Manfrotto and switch from scope to camera...
Graham

[Macswede]

For me the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm are the best lenses of the selections mentioned. I'd be very wary of adding a teleconverter to any zoom lens as results are generally very soft.

If you're after more of an all round lens that is very good quality then the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 is very good indeed. I find it's very good for macro as well as for bird photos. The IS is a real boon.

Thanks, Ian,
You've always given me good advice in the past so I'll think very carefully about what you have to say now.
Graham

[Macswede]

Nevertheless, if you're going to put $1500 into a camera, why not just make it $2000 and get what you really wanted? Don't skimp...just don't go overboard.

I'm not sure how the technology will develop but I agree with you here. I'm not out to spend a fortune (can't afford it anyway) but if I can get something a lot better by spending a bit more I don't mind doing that.
Graham

[Keith Reeder]

great(er) sharpness (sorry K.), No need to apologise, Max.

Just show me some proof..!

;)

Graham,

I own a Sigma 135-400mm, Sigma 80-400mm OS and the Canon 100-400mm IS.

Without any doubt, if I was in the market for a lens in the 400mm range right now, and based on the rather substantial amount of research and effort I put into making my decisions, I'd have the 100-400mm in an instant over any other lens mentioned in this thread.

It's versatile, sharp as a very sharp thing, with great colour and contrast; it has a good minimum focus range of 1.8m, and of course it covers a good range of focal lengths.

Then there's the IS...

There's no doubt that every lens mentioned above can provide great pictures in the right hands, but I haven't once regretted buying the 100-400mm or found myself wishing that I'd bought something else instead.

I intend to keep mine even when I finally upgrade to a Canon 300mm f/2.8.

[Macswede]

I discovered the Canon prime that seemed suspiciously cheap (EF 400mm f/5.6L USM) doesn't have IS so I have prepared 2 packages based on everything that I've been told.

1:
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 (inkl. 18-70mm Af lensand 75-300mm lens) 9,098kr
Tamron 200-500mm 9699kr
Total: 18,883kr (£1,363)
Interestingly a fairly respectable photo shopping site in Sweden claims that one of the best things about the Tamron is that it can be used with a Soligor 1,4 x teleconverter while admitting that this setup would require a great deal of light.

2:
Canon 400D 6,394kr
Canon EF 100-400mm / 4,5-5,6L IS 15,626 kr
Total: 21,016kr (£1,517)
Would it be possible (or more importantly advisable) to use a 1.4 teleconverter with this setup?

What do you think? Have I misunderstood everything you've all told me or have I come up with something interesting?

Graham

[bkrownd]

If you're going to consider the Sony, you might as well consider the Pentax too.

[Macswede]

If you're going to consider the Sony, you might as well consider the Pentax too.

Had a look at prices for the 10D but couldn't find anything under 7,7791kr (£562). The Sony admittedly cost 9,183kr but that was with 2 lenses, 18-70 + 75-300. The Pentax is worth considering but does it have inbuilt IS and is there a compatible version of the Tamron that would fit it?
Graham

[destombe]

Or what about a Canon EF 400mm / 5.6L USM for 12,588. Seems not bad for a prime lens.
Sorry the prices are in Swedish Currency but the relative costs are fairly clear I think.

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

I use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L without IS but I almost always use a tripod. The lens is not so heavy, that is an important thing sooner or later.

Here are some examples: http://www.destombe.nl/xmasbirds/

Louis

[impotentspider]

Graham,

Have you considered Importing the Pentax from the UK? I got my K10D and Sigma 50-500 and 2gig card for just short of £1600 (incl. P&P)

The Canon 400 is a nice bit of kit but the Pentax Shake Reduction and the sheer number of extra features makes the K10D a far better buy, not forgetting the pro spec build quality. Plus you have the ability to use almost every Pentax K mount lens ever made, there are some suberb KA mount optics that will function fully with the K10 (if you dont mind focusing manually) and most can be had for peanuts compared to the cost of new lenses. Though sadly a 600mm Pentax KA will still cost you more than £1500+ second hand........
There are even some very reasonably priced 300mm AF zooms available.

Quick Edit.....
PS; the Sigma 50-500 is a beast of a lens, IMHO you would need to use it with at least a monopod for support, alternatively you could try the 175-500 and have change to buy the K10D with the 18-55 kit lens.

[bkrownd]

Had a look at prices for the 10D but couldn't find anything under 7,7791kr (£562). The Sony admittedly cost 9,183kr but that was with 2 lenses, 18-70 + 75-300. The Pentax is worth considering but does it have inbuilt IS and is there a compatible version of the Tamron that would fit it?

The K10D and K100D have the same kind of sensor IS as the Sony. I'm not sure that the Tamron 200-500 comes in a Pentax mount. The Sigma 170-500 and 50-500 seem like the logical parings for the Pentax, or the 135-400 if you need it to be lighter.

Doesn't the Canon 100-400 have a USM focus motor? The Pentax and Sony would lack that, if it matters to you.

[paul goode]

Hi Graham,

I've pulled one line out of your original post:

'who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden.'

Unless you want a summer only hobby I think that a body that can handle high ISO noise is essential and, quite simply, thats the Canon. Matching that with a lens with a USM/HSM motor should give you the best chance of keeping shooting throught the winter. Lens choice is personal but go for the fast AF provided by those motors.

I don't know if you can get the magazine but the March 2007 issue of Photography Monthly has a large group test of DSLR's, in which the Canon comes out top, and lots of advice for first time DSLR users.

My other thought is to do with residual values. Canon kit holds its value, especially the 'L' lenses. Haven't got a clue on the Tamron but secondhand Sigma lenses are cheap. Buy one new and you'll lose loads of money when you upgrade. If you do want a Sigma I'd look out for one secondhand. I did with my 500mm f4.5 and got a bargain but buying one new would leave a bad taste if you saw what it was worth a year later. And that is the voice of experience from buying and selling a 50-500.

All the best

Paul

[Macswede]

I use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L without IS but I almost always use a tripod. The lens is not so heavy, that is an important thing sooner or later.

Here are some examples: http://www.destombe.nl/xmasbirds/

Louis

Your pictures are really astonishingly good. Really professional and inspiring! It was a real pleasure to look at them.
I intend to buy a monopod and will use a tripod at least some of the time. I imagine the light situation in Arizona is different from that in Sweden but do you have any examples of pictures taken ewith a handheld camera?
Graham

[postcardcv]

Hi Graham,

I've pulled one line out of your original post:

'who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden.'

Unless you want a summer only hobby I think that a body that can handle high ISO noise is essential and, quite simply, thats the Canon. Matching that with a lens with a USM/HSM motor should give you the best chance of keeping shooting throught the winter. Lens choice is personal but go for the fast AF provided by those motors.

I totally agree with this, the high ISO performance of the Canons is simply amazing. In you situation I'd go for the Canon with either the 100-400IS or the 400 f5.6... hard to know which one - from what I've seen the prime handles a tc better (good if you ever wanted a bit more reach) and has slightly faster AF. However the zoom is a bit more versatile, has better close focus and has IS... As you are used to using a camera with a zoom lens, you might find the prime a bit limiting.

Here's a link to an ISO1600 shot taken with a Canon 350D (sorry I know I've linked it before...) http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/77940

[iporali]

Graham,

People who use Canons value its high-ISO performance and people who use in-camera-IS appreciate its usefulness.

Here is why I would choose the Pentax K10D - though I live in even darker Finland. I haven't taken the plunge yet, but am considering it seriously.

Pentax K10D Pros:
+ sensor-IS (+ dust removal)
+ weather-sealed body (like MUCH more expensive Nikon D200, Canon 1D)
+ excellent viewfinder (for a DSLR) makes manual focusing usable
+ HSM-focus support (lenses available in March 07)
+ huge, compatible lens selection since 70's (eg. legendary "Limited" primes compare well with Leicas & Zeisses). Some ultra-cheap, second-hand MF tele-lenses.
+ nice innovations & implementations (Sensitivity-priority exposure, RAW-button, DNG-RAW...)

Cons:
- higher & sometimes "patterned" high-ISO noise (800-1600) compared to C
- "only" 3fps serial shooting
- slower AF than C & N *at the moment* (should improve soon)
- limited *new* lens selection *at the moment*
- poor battery indicator


Sony is very good too, but IMHO it has discounted the "savings" of body-IS by pricing their best lenses too high.

I like the out-of-camera image quality of the Canons very much, but the viewfinder and mechanical durability of the 400D are not nearly at the same level as eg the 30D (or K10D). The 400D also does not have spot metering, which is sometimes very useful in bird photography. Also remember that not all Canon's motorized lenses are any faster than camera driven lenses of other brands.

We are lucky to have many good options! :t:

Best regards,

Ilkka

[gmax]

I imagine the light situation in Arizona is different from that in Sweden but do you have any examples of pictures taken ewith a handheld camera?
Graham
Hello Graham,
I'm glad to see that you are receiving a great deal of helpful and experienced advice: it seems the range of choices is narrower now; if you need, just search through the gallery for pics taken with these lenses, you'll find lots of excellent examples ...
just for a matter of comparison, have a look at these examples here (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/109673/sort/1/cat/500/page/6) and here (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/124417/sort/1/cat/500/page/2) - both shots were taken with the prime AND a TC handheld in difficult low light situation at ISO 400 - not the best of shots, but decent enough in my opinion.
Cheers,
Max

[paul goode]

I wouldn't mind seeing a few bird images taken with old manual focus lenses on DSLR's. I don't mean professional images just those taken by amateurs.
I'm curious because I've tried using MF and haven't taken a single decent image.
I know my eyesight isn't great but I totally rely on AF for bird photography.
Still mess around sometimes with my old OM1 and can manually focus fine for 'normal' photography, but bird photography, I'm a non-starter!

Paul

[gmax]

I wouldn't mind seeing a few bird images taken with old manual focus lenses on DSLR's. I don't mean professional images just those taken by amateurs.
I'm curious because I've tried using MF and haven't taken a single decent image.
I know my eyesight isn't great but I totally rely on AF for bird photography.
Still mess around sometimes with my old OM1 and can manually focus fine for 'normal' photography, but bird photography, I'm a non-starter!

Paul

Hello Paul,
I've used MF just a few times, only when really necessary; this one (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/104834/sort/1/cat/500/page/8) was taken with MF at close range, because MFD would not allow me to use AF
Cheers,
Max

[iporali]

In you situation I'd go for the Canon with either the 100-400IS or the 400 f5.6... hard to know which one - from what I've seen the prime handles a tc better (good if you ever wanted a bit more reach) and has slightly faster AF. However the zoom is a bit more versatile, has better close focus and has IS.

One of the best Finnish nature photographers Vesa Huttunen http://www.birds.fi/ says the 100-400IS is perhaps his most used lens due to its utmost versatility (and he probably has all the lenses Canon has ever produced ;)).

Ilkka

[iporali]

I wouldn't mind seeing a few bird images taken with old manual focus lenses on DSLR's. I don't mean professional images just those taken by amateurs.
There are many situations, when affordable zooms that amateurs tend to use are struggling with their "autofocus". In these cases they often switch to MF and just shoot away hoping that some pics were acceptable. If you can get a fast(er) MF prime at the same price as a new AF monster-zoom, it may not be a bad choice.

Ilkka

[paul goode]

Hello Paul,
I've used MF just a few times, only when really necessary; this one (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/104834/sort/1/cat/500/page/8) was taken with MF at close range, because MFD would not allow me to use AF
Cheers,
Max

Thats a great shot Max. And I never knew that you could manually focus below the minimum focussing distance. Pity I'm as blind as a bat in my left eye, and if I try to look through the viewfinder with my right eye I can't see a thing!

Paul

[paul goode]

One of the best Finnish nature photographers Vesa Huttunen http://www.birds.fi/ says the 100-400IS is perhaps his most used lens due to its utmost versatility (and he probably has all the lenses Canon has ever produced ;)).

Ilkka

There are some tremendous images on this web site. The Snow Bunting on the home page is bl##dy marvellous!

Paul

[eliz82]

Macswede

dont equal sensor IS whit a floting glass elements IS at long zoom ... i was make the same stupid asumption when i buy konica minolta 5D (sony alfa is an exact copy except for the sensor ... almost twice more pixels and much noisier). pentax senzor stabilisation is even worst then the minolta/sony system.
dont get me wrong the system is great and it works very well in low light condition and at short focal length.
and if you want to shot flying birds you better take in consideration autofocus speed to ... canon L is winner to this section. 100-400 lens is reaching from the short to the long zoom in half a time of the tamron 200-500.

i think that best choise is canon eos400 (30d autofocus system) and canon 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6
try to buy lens at second hand

p.s sorry for my english

[impotentspider]

Hi Graham,

I've pulled one line out of your original post:

'who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden.'

Unless you want a summer only hobby I think that a body that can handle high ISO noise is essential and, quite simply, thats the Canon. Matching that with a lens with a USM/HSM motor should give you the best chance of keeping shooting throught the winter. Lens choice is personal but go for the fast AF provided by those motors.

I don't know if you can get the magazine but the March 2007 issue of Photography Monthly has a large group test of DSLR's, in which the Canon comes out top, and lots of advice for first time DSLR users.

My other thought is to do with residual values. Canon kit holds its value, especially the 'L' lenses. Haven't got a clue on the Tamron but secondhand Sigma lenses are cheap. Buy one new and you'll lose loads of money when you upgrade. If you do want a Sigma I'd look out for one secondhand. I did with my 500mm f4.5 and got a bargain but buying one new would leave a bad taste if you saw what it was worth a year later. And that is the voice of experience from buying and selling a 50-500.

All the best

Paul


I would tend to agree with the re-sale values, (despite buying the Sigma) but that is true for most third party lenses and even "basic" branded lenses dont fetch very much, that is also true of any new product to a certain degree, its all down to supply and demand. But unless your more Gear Freak than Photographer there should be no need to be selling lenses if you are happy with your original choice.
Will I sell my Sigma when they get around to releasing a sonic motor version for the Pentax K10? I think not, I bought it for what it was and I aim to get my moneys worth, even if the new model does focus slightly quicker (whoop de do)
Strangely enough the Pentax fit Sigma 50-500 fetches some ridiculous prices on ebay (I know because thats the first place I looked for mine) it all comes back round to to supply and demand.

[gmax]

Thats a great shot Max. And I never knew that you could manually focus below the minimum focussing distance. Pity I'm as blind as a bat in my left eye, and if I try to look through the viewfinder with my right eye I can't see a thing!

Paul
Well, that was a strange and useful surprise for me as well, I don't know yet if it's up to a disfunction of MY lens or it's possible with any other similar lens .. don't get me wrong, MF helped in reducing the MFD, but not in eliminating it: the prime's MFD is said to be at 3.5m, that shot was taken at ca. 2.8-3.0m, not much closer, but enough... :t:
Cheers,
Max

[impotentspider]

"dont equal sensor IS whit a floting glass elements IS at long zoom ... i was make the same stupid asumption when i buy konica minolta 5D (sony alfa is an exact copy except for the sensor ... almost twice more pixels and much noisier). pentax senzor stabilisation is even worst then the minolta/sony system.
dont get me wrong the system is great and it works very well in low light condition and at short focal length."

That is rather strange, my K10D Shake Reduction works perfectly with the Sigma at 500mm, the attached pic was shot at 1/90sec at f6.7 HANDHELD and I have arthritis and have difficulty holding the camera with this lens on, someone with steadier hands could have got a much better shot.

[Macswede]

If you're after more of an all round lens that is very good quality then the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 is very good indeed. I find it's very good for macro as well as for bird photos. The IS is a real boon.

I'm definitely leaning towards the Canon 100-400mm. I would like IS and flexibility and your macro tip is very interesting to me as I like to take dragonfly shots when I get the chance. And I'm going to buy a monopod.
Graham

[Macswede]

lus you have the ability to use almost every Pentax K mount lens ever made, there are some suberb KA mount optics that will function fully with the K10 (if you dont mind focusing manually) and most can be had for peanuts compared to the cost of new lenses. Though sadly a 600mm Pentax KA will still cost you more than £1500+ second hand........
There are even some very reasonably priced 300mm AF zooms available.


I'm afraid this sort of thing would demand more competence than I possess but I take your point. Everything I've read about the 10D suggests that it's a very good camera.
Graham

[Macswede]

Unless you want a summer only hobby I think that a body that can handle high ISO noise is essential and, quite simply, thats the Canon. Matching that with a lens with a USM/HSM motor should give you the best chance of keeping shooting throught the winter. Lens choice is personal but go for the fast AF provided by those motors.
My other thought is to do with residual values. Canon kit holds its value, especially the 'L' lenses.

I don't want a summer only hobby and I'm thinking along the same lines, Paul. Your point about residual values is one I had missed and it's a good one.
Graham

[Macswede]

I totally agree with this, the high ISO performance of the Canons is simply amazing. In you situation I'd go for the Canon with either the 100-400IS or the 400 f5.6... hard to know which one - from what I've seen the prime handles a tc better (good if you ever wanted a bit more reach) and has slightly faster AF. However the zoom is a bit more versatile, has better close focus and has IS... As you are used to using a camera with a zoom lens, you might find the prime a bit limiting.

Here's a link to an ISO1600 shot taken with a Canon 350D (sorry I know I've linked it before...) http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/77940

What an amazing shot! I can't imagining managing anything approaching that. I think I'd prefer the zoom for the reasons you mention despite the fact that it's less good with a TC.
Graham

[Macswede]

Here is why I would choose the Pentax K10D - though I live in even darker Finland. I haven't taken the plunge yet, but am considering it seriously.


If I knew a lot more about cameras and which lenses to go after I'd be more inclined to buy the Pentax. You certainly make a good case for it. As it is the Canon's looking more and more attractive, Ilkka.
Graham

[Macswede]

I'm glad to see that you are receiving a great deal of helpful and experienced advice:


To be honest I'm overwhelmed - but in a nice way, Max. It's really great to get so much great input and I'm beginning to get a clearer idea of what I want.
Graham

[Macswede]

Hello Paul,
I've used MF just a few times, only when really necessary

It certainly worked out this time! I cant remember seeing a better shot of a Snipe.
Graham

[Macswede]

[QUOTE=iporali]One of the best Finnish nature photographers Vesa Huttunen http://www.birds.fi/ says the 100-400IS is perhaps his most used lens due to its utmost versatility (and he probably has all the lenses Canon has ever produced ;)).
/QUOTE]

Can't imagine ever achieving anything approaching his results by a million miles but I find this lens more and more attractive.
Graham

[Macswede]

[QUOTE=eliz82]i think that best choise is canon eos400 (30d autofocus system) and canon 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6
try to buy lens at second hand/QUOTE]

I think I'm going to follow your advice.
Graham

[Macswede]

Thanks again for all the great advice. Many people on Bird Forum have said the there are no bad DSLRs and that's also something I've kept in mind.

I think the Pentax would be a great choice for someone who knew which lenses to go for but I don't and I'm not sure I want to take the time to learn.

I'm coming round more and more to the view that the Casnon 400D /Canon 100-400 IS is the combo for me. I also plan to buy a monopod.

I understand that it's better to use a teleconverter with a prime lens but is it possible to get good results with the 100-400 IS and a TC?

Thanks again for all the really advice and the wonderfiully inspiring photos.

Graham

[Keith Reeder]

is it possible to get good results with the 100-400 IS and a TC?I'll say!! (http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is)

[gmax]

I'll say!! (http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is)

:cool:
Romy is a great photographer with lots of experience, no doubt .. in his hands many a lens will produce excellent results!
But, and this is a tiny, wee, modest but, I'm not impressed by the results taken with this lens + TC: mind, I'd be glad to get myself similar pix on a consistent basis!
I've seen superb shots taken with the naked zoom lens, but especially/mainly at close range: when a bit more distant, they are closer to what an amateur may get ... is Romy (as well as others) getting worse with farther subjects? Not at all, given for example the excellent samples in his superb gallery .. I guess this is due to the soft(ish) feeling this lens gives to me when used at the long end with faraway subjects, a feeling much more evident when there's a TC on .. just my impressions ;)
PS nothing personal Romy, just profiting for the sake of comparison from the wide range of great shots you provide in your galleries

[Macswede]

I'll say!! (http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is)

Great!!
Graham

[Macswede]

I've seen superb shots taken with the naked zoom lens, but especially/mainly at close range: when a bit more distant, they are closer to what an amateur may get

Well, I'd lke to give it a try anyway somewhere down the line.
Graham

[destombe]

Your pictures are really astonishingly good. Really professional and inspiring! It was a real pleasure to look at them.
I intend to buy a monopod and will use a tripod at least some of the time. I imagine the light situation in Arizona is different from that in Sweden but do you have any examples of pictures taken with a handheld camera?
Graham

I have used both a monopod and a tripod, but I'm not very enthousiastic about a monopod. I find it almost more difficult with a monopod than handheld. The horizontal freedom of the camera makes it feel like it's jumping uncontrollably.

I strongly prefer to use a tripod because I'm not a very stable handholder but actually there is one picture in the series you saw that was handheld: the Harris's Hawk. It was somewhere at the roadside on a phone pole, I just jumped from the car, no time for a tripod, it flew away, I was just in time. There was good light, it's at ISO 800, f/8, 1/5000. Of course I had to do some noise reduction on it.

Bu as I say generally I prefer a tripod at all times, I think it is much better than any IS will do ever. Just get a light-weight one, it's a bit of cash but once in a lifetime. And if you would consider a tripod, consider carefully the head. Fine readjustment should be possible. Tilting the horizon should be very hard, you have already enough problems to not have to consider that. I think this means ball-heads are out. Plus it is essential that you can handle the head with your left hand since your right hand is on the camera.

BTW I don't know about the light situation in Sweden but in Arizona it was Xmas time and the weather was mixed. Sunlight was rarely strong. Some pics of the series you saw were taken on overcast days, e.g. the roadrunner. For some birds e.g. spotted towhee all pics taken without sunlight were useless because you could not see the eye. Generally I took about 1800 pics and threw away almost all taken in no-sun conditions.

Best,

Louis

[Macswede]

I have used both a monopod and a tripod, but I'm not very enthousiastic about a monopod.

Thanks for the extra informatioin and clarification. I've never actually used a monopod so maybe I should try one out before buying.

The Harris Hawk picture is pretty convincing and it's very interesting to learn that Arizona is't always bright and sunny. That makes your photos even more impressive as does your extraordinary perseverance. I think I might have given up but looking at your pictures again that woiuld have been a huge mistake.

Thanks again!

Graham

[bkrownd]

I think the Pentax would be a great choice for someone who knew which lenses to go for but I don't and I'm not sure I want to take the time to learn.


I'm not sure why it would be difficult to decide on a lens. The 500mm Sigmas are the obvious (only?) choice for Pentax. You have more decisions to make with Olympus, Canon or Nikon. Anyhow, the features and handling of the camera should be your decision-maker.

As far as tripod vs. monopod, tripods are only an option if you plan to sit in one spot for a long time. Monopods are the only option if you want to go cross-country and find wildlife in the wild.

[impotentspider]

I'm not sure why it would be difficult to decide on a lens. The 500mm Sigmas are the obvious (only?) choice for Pentax. You have more decisions to make with Olympus, Canon or Nikon. Anyhow, the features and handling of the camera should be your decision-maker.

As far as tripod vs. monopod, tripods are only an option if you plan to sit in one spot for a long time. Monopods are the only option if you want to go cross-country and find wildlife in the wild.


Ahem....Not quite so bkrownd, Pentax have some excelent choices for lenses, though most are out of production so only available secondhand, and there are the new sonic motor ones due out anytime.
The attached was taken with a Pentax 80-320AF which cost me £149 brand new about five years ago. The lens isn't perfect around the edges but most people who use this sort of lens crop later anyway. you can pick this lens up for around £80 on ebay.
And for the Technophiles.....Pentax K10D, 1/125th f8, ISO 400, Handheld at 320mm, equiv. to around 450mm on the DSLR. Cropped to about 1/3rd original with a bit of "photoshop tree pruning"

[Macswede]

Ahem....Not quite so bkrownd, Pentax have some excelent choices for lenses, though most are out of production so only available secondhand, and there are the new sonic motor ones due out anytime.
The attached was taken with a Pentax 80-320AF which cost me £149 brand new about five years ago. The lens isn't perfect around the edges but most people who use this sort of lens crop later anyway. you can pick this lens up for around £80 on ebay.
And for the Technophiles.....Pentax K10D, 1/125th f8, ISO 400, Handheld at 320mm, equiv. to around 450mm on the DSLR. Cropped to about 1/3rd original with a bit of "photoshop tree pruning"

Yes, I meant Pentax lenses. Very nice picture by the way.
Graham

[postcardcv]

As far as tripod vs. monopod, tripods are only an option if you plan to sit in one spot for a long time. Monopods are the only option if you want to go cross-country and find wildlife in the wild.

I've got to disagree with this - you might not take a tripod out with you when going 'cross-country', but mine goes with me whenever I'm out birding. Sure it's a bit heavier and bulkier than my monopod, but it's also a lot more solid.

[NIGHTJAR1]

The 400D and 100-400is lens is an ideal set-up. It's also a very flexible lens for most nature based trips, ie, animals etc. It's also a very capable macro lens as it focuses quite close. The other lenses you are considering do not compare to the 100-400.

[Macswede]

The 400D and 100-400is lens is an ideal set-up. It's also a very flexible lens for most nature based trips, ie, animals etc. It's also a very capable macro lens as it focuses quite close. The other lenses you are considering do not compare to the 100-400.

Thanks, that's the conclusion I've reached myself. It'll be intreresting to see what kind of resultts I get. I'm guessing it will take me a while to learn how to use it

Graham

[bkrownd]

I've got to disagree with this - you might not take a tripod out with you when going 'cross-country', but mine goes with me whenever I'm out birding. Sure it's a bit heavier and bulkier than my monopod, but it's also a lot more solid.

Must be a good workout carrying that around all day. Trying to set it up fast in the bush and manouver it through the understory must be challenging, as well. I'll pass.

[bpw]

Must be a good workout carrying that around all day. Trying to set it up fast in the bush and manouver it through the understory must be challenging, as well. I'll pass.

I have both but only use the tripod now. I suppose it depends on your environment, approach, and equipment – I don’t have an IS lens. With the tripod legs closed, it can be used like a monopod if there isn’t time or room to open up the legs. Sure, it’s bulkier and heavier, but I’ve got used to that and I feel I get much better results with it.
.
The other lenses you are considering do not compare to the 100-400. ?

[Macswede]

I got the Canon 400D last week and the 100-400mm IS arrived today so hopefully I'll have some pics to post soon.
Graham

[jackpalmer]

Just saw your post from February this year. I do digital photography and birding. This past year I purchased a Sigma 170-500mm, 5.0-6.3 zoom lens to use with my Nikon D40x. The lens has been great. But it's a DG lens which means that on my D40x it does not auto-focus - I have to manually focus. It will however autofocus on a camera with a servo motor for focussing. All D40x metering works OK through the lens so there is no problem there. Manual focus has been a really good experience. Birds sitting in trees for example are hard to focus with an auto focus lens (I have a Nikon 75-300mm zoom also which I will probably sell as I always use the Sigma.) - the tree branches are always in focus and the bird not always - it's hard to get it right - unless you manually focus. Some of my photos are at http://www.pbase.com/jackpalmer if you care to look. The Sigma lens costs 740 USD or about 4700 SEK.

Jack Palmer
Houston USA

[RAH]

Thanks for the extra informatioin and clarification. I've never actually used a monopod so maybe I should try one out before buying.

Here is a link to a good article which has been posted before on this forum. I particularly like Option 3:
http://www.outdooreyes.com/photo5.php3

I think that monopods are in no sense a substitute for tripods. They are really in a different category, more akin to shoulder harnesses, bean-bags, etc. - things that help you with your hand-holding. A tripod is rock steady and you can shoot 2 hour star trails!

I do think that monopod use is a real advantage of image stabilization. I too have often felt that since I usually use a tripod when I'm using high zoom level, what do I need IS for. However, IS DOES in fact make the use of a monopod much more possible with large lenses.