me again...more doubts about choosing my long lens! (1 Viewer)

Hi! I hope any of you still remembers me, I'm Francesca, from Chiapas, Mexico. I started a thread some time ago, titled "Sigma 50-500mm vs. Canon 400mm f 5.6", you can see it here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=57091&highlight=bigma+canon

Well...I had decided to go for the Canon, used with a 1.4x TC with my Canon 350d, unfortunately it seems impossible to find the Tamron or Kenco Tcs here in Mexico and I wouldn't risk myself ordering from abroad. So I started thinking about the 400mm alone beeing not long enough to photograph small birds like warblers, which I love. Then I am struggling to save the money I need to buy the lens, and as the Sigma here is about 350 dollars cheaper than the Canon, money is a big factor too. Anyway, the final choice will be between these two, I already thought about any other option and decided this is the way to go for me.
Now, as I explained in my previous post, light is a big concern, as I plan to photograph a lot under phorest canopy, but not always. I won't be using a flash...no more money to spend for now! I know the bigma is not the best solution and I know it needs to be stopped down a bit to get the best results, but the f 5.6 of the Canon isn't so good either. I also read about the Canon beeing so sharp, light and hand-holdable and the Sigma beeing not so sharp, at the long end, and especially beeing very very heavy. Now, I imagine it wouldn't be so easy to walk with a tripod and such a heavy lens on my shoulder in a hot, humid forest...I am quite skinny, but in Mexico we say that ability and practice are more effective than strength. I was not planning to use my lens a lot hand-hold anyway, except for flyers and very good light situations, due to the lack of IS. A tripod will be a must most of the time even with the Canon.
Then I saw some wonderful photos by Paul Goode, apparently taken in low light situations with the bigma and I thought that maybe there's a chance I can manage to use this lens here to take decent shots and save me some money. But I wouldn't like to regret it later and having to sell the bigma to buy the Canon as many people have done because of its weight. But the extra reach of the Sigma, combined with its versatility (the zoom), are really appealing me, I know the Canon is a better lens, but has it enough reach? Birds here aren't tame at all, people kill them for fun or to eat them all the time, so it's difficult to get close to them.
The more I think about it more confused I get, I whish I could receive some piece of advice from you experienced users, as I know that both lenses have their pros and cons. Hope you can help me out! I hope I will be travelling to Mexico City to buy the lens in september-october, so I still have time to think about it...and change my mind again and again! I just whish I could have a look at these lenses right now, but unfortunately I will have to cross half the country to get to a good camera store and possibly I would like to make my decision before, so you can help me out finding the right tripod and head for the lens.
Any advice will be most appreciated!!
Thanks and also thank you for inspiring me with your great photos.

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas
Chiapas, Mexico
:hi:

gatafrancesca said:

Hi! I hope any of you still remembers me, I'm Francesca, from Chiapas, Mexico. I started a thread some time ago, titled "Sigma 50-500mm vs. Canon 400mm f 5.6", you can see it here:

Any advice will be most appreciated!!
Thanks and also thank you for inspiring me with your great photos.

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas
Chiapas, Mexico
:hi:

Click to expand...

Hi Francesca,
just read your request and hope you get soon some proper advice ... I'm not so experienced , so you'd better wait for other hints (you know, the L-lenses wild bunch is out there lurking and waiting for a new prey )
Just a couple of things:

• if you plan to use your gear mainly on a tripod, get yourself a good sturdy one with a good head (video head?) ... you won't regret it! More weight but more stability (= sharpness) and durability

• I use a 350D with a 400 + Canon 1.4x TC, and reach is not a problem! I'd better improve my fieldcraft, even though birds are not tame in my area as well

Good luck,
Max

Hi Max and thanks for your answer!
I was wondering if you can get good results with a 1.4X Canon TC, as it is not supposed to autofocus unless you tape some pins and even then it would be very slow (that's what I've read about it). But maybe you don't have any trouble, as I see that you live in Italy and especially in this season the sun should be shining! (I used to live in Italy before moving to Mexico).
The Canon TC is the only one that seems to be available here, but it's very expensive and I am scared by the quality loss (also because of the lack of light). To be totally honest I feel that using TCs would not be a good idea in my case, that's why I thought about the Bigma. And about the tripod, I will check with the shop what kinds they have, so later on I will ask for advice on that too.
I hope that some L-lenses or Bigma fans will help me with their opinions, any piece of advice will be most welcome!
Thank you and enjoy the wonderful italian summer!
Francesca

Francesca. Here is a handheld shot with the Canon 400mm f5.6 and Canon 1.4 tc (pins Taped).

That's a great shot Roy, very sharp indeed, could you give some EXIF info, please? Based on your experience: is this combination ok in poor light and to take photos of small, active birds (using a tripod)?
I also forgot to mention that the other TC I can find here is the Sigma. The Canon is definetely too expensive for me, but has anyone experience with the Canon 400 f 5.6 and a Sigma 1.4X TC?
Thanks!
Francesca

gatafrancesca said:

That's a great shot Roy, very sharp indeed, could you give some EXIF info, please? Based on your experience: is this combination ok in poor light and to take photos of small, active birds (using a tripod)?
I also forgot to mention that the other TC I can find here is the Sigma. The Canon is definetely too expensive for me, but has anyone experience with the Canon 400 f 5.6 and a Sigma 1.4X TC?
Thanks!
Francesca

Click to expand...

Think this was ISO 400 at 1/1000 sec and wide open. I have never used a tripod with this combo but you could obviously shoot at a lower speed than this (you could also up the ISO to 800).
Cheers
Roy

gatafrancesca said:

Hi Max and thanks for your answer!
I was wondering if you can get good results with a 1.4X Canon TC, as it is not supposed to autofocus unless you tape some pins and even then it would be very slow (that's what I've read about it). But maybe you don't have any trouble, as I see that you live in Italy and especially in this season the sun should be shining! (I used to live in Italy before moving to Mexico).
The Canon TC is the only one that seems to be available here, but it's very expensive and I am scared by the quality loss (also because of the lack of light). To be totally honest I feel that using TCs would not be a good idea in my case, that's why I thought about the Bigma. And about the tripod, I will check with the shop what kinds they have, so later on I will ask for advice on that too.
I hope that some L-lenses or Bigma fans will help me with their opinions, any piece of advice will be most welcome!
Thank you and enjoy the wonderful italian summer!
Francesca

Click to expand...

Thank you Francesca, as a matter of fact it's a hot summer this year (38°C in the last few weeks, it's hard going out for birding)
As for the slowness with the pin-taped lens, it's definitely not a problem: yes, it tends to hunt a bit in poor light, but if you pre-focus or release and depress the button, it is fast enough, you won't even realize you're using a TC (BTW, I bought mine S/H on Ebay at a fairly good price).
As for the quality loss scaring you when using a TC, I'd say that it's not that much, your growing skills may overcome this disadvantage: check these opposite situations here (this one was taken handheld, but with shining sun), here (this one was taken after twilight, at 1/50s) and here (this one was taken in almost complete darkness, using a tripod at 1sec!)
I'm just a newbie, but I'm sometimes satisfied with some results of mine.
One last thing, check the overall weight of the kit you will drag around, it will make the difference both during long walks (tripod?) and also when handholding for longer periods (Bigma?)
Hope to get good news about your choices.
Cheers,
Max

Francesca,
Sorry to join in so late but hope it helps.
I have the Canon 400 5.6 and a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor. I too wanted to take photos of small birds so went for this option. After many shots with this combination I still wanted to get closer, so the only options were a bigger more expensive lens or try and improve my field craft and get closer. I opted for the cheaper option, try and get closer. I have a couple of hides one a cheap tent which I cover with camouflage material and some twigs. I set it up at locations where I know birds visit and wait, and wait and wait.
Here in the North East of Scotland the light is not that great for long periods of time so I have to work at high ISO 400 800 and even 1600. I don’t think there is one photo in my gallery taken with the 1.4 teleconvertor, in fact I have to use extension tubes to reduce the minimum focusing distance. I have attached 2 photos of a young Robin. Image 1 was 1/125 @ f5.6. 1600 ISO and Image 2 was 1/60 @ f 9 1600 ISO, as it was facing away from me and I wanted to try and get the tail and head in focus so went to f 9. Unfortunately not having IS I have to use tripod at these slow shutter speeds.
So I think a lot of it is, knowing where to find your birds and waiting, sometimes for long periods of time and sometimes with nothing to show for it.

John

hillie said:

Francesca,
Sorry to join in so late but hope it helps.
I have the Canon 400 5.6 and a Canon 1.4 teleconvertor. I too wanted to take photos of small birds so went for this option. After many shots with this combination I still wanted to get closer, so the only options were a bigger more expensive lens or try and improve my field craft and get closer. I opted for the cheaper option, try and get closer. I have a couple of hides one a cheap tent which I cover with camouflage material and some twigs. I set it up at locations where I know birds visit and wait, and wait and wait.
Here in the North East of Scotland the light is not that great for long periods of time so I have to work at high ISO 400 800 and even 1600. I don’t think there is one photo in my gallery taken with the 1.4 teleconvertor, in fact I have to use extension tubes to reduce the minimum focusing distance. I have attached 2 photos of a young Robin. Image 1 was 1/125 @ f5.6. 1600 ISO and Image 2 was 1/60 @ f 9 1600 ISO, as it was facing away from me and I wanted to try and get the tail and head in focus so went to f 9. Unfortunately not having IS I have to use tripod at these slow shutter speeds.
So I think a lot of it is, knowing where to find your birds and waiting, sometimes for long periods of time and sometimes with nothing to show for it.

John

Click to expand...

Hello John,
sorry to but in.... I'm to be getting the same lens as yours soon, and I was just wondering how close you were to the robin. Your photos are great, and worth the effort. I'm happy to use a tripod, or a bean bag from the car window.
Ken

Ken,
I was about two and a half meters from the robin in a hide. The photos have not been cropped. I was quite pleased with the 1600 ISO and the noise on the original is not that intrusive
John

For my pennyworth I'd go for the Canon 400mm f5,6 as well. It's lightweight and easy to carry and you may be surprised at the reach as with a 8.2 MP sensor you can enlarge quite a lot. It's by far the sharpest lens I have ever owned - even wide open - and the only improvement I could do would be to buy a 500mm or 600mm - but that's not going to happen anytime!

Using the Canon 1.4x there's virtually no loss of sharpness, but you do lose an f-stop - but as has been mentioned you can easily bump up the ISO value. I'm not convinced that using the lens with TC attached under the tree canopy is a good idea. I rarely do that myself in our woods but find the lens alone copes very well especially when there are trees to lean against to support the camera. Instead of a tripod I mostly carry around a monopod - much lighter and easier to use with active birds. With TC added under the canopy for me light loss is too much.

The TC I find is more suitable for stationary birds such as those on ponds or sat perched, where there is time for the TC to operate. I tend to manual focus to roughly the right focus and then use autofocus - that way it's almost instant.

Thanks so much for your great advice Max, John and Ian, I really appreciated it! Things are much better for me now, economically speaking, as my restaurant has been full of tourists for the high season, so I hope I will eventually manage to save enough money to buy the Canon lens. Everybody seems to be so happy with it!! Many people really like the Bigma too, but sooner or later most of them seem to "upgrade" to something else...Probably the extra money spent for the Canon is worth it, I think I haven't read any negative feedback about this lens so far. So I will do my best in order to buy the 400mm f5.6, but if I can't raise the money, then I guess I will go for the Bigma.
I would like to ask for some advice on a good tripod and head for the Canon lens, as I think I will be using it almost all the time, shooting hand-held only flyiers or in very good light conditions. I had thought about a Manfrotto 055nat3 coupled with a 501 head, as I read so many good opinions about both of them. Do you experts think this would be a very heavy combination? I know that the Canon 400mm f5.6 is quite light and my 350d is light as a feather, that certainly helps but I would not like to ruin this advantage with the rest of my equipment. But, on the other side, I would really like to buy a sturdy tripod, I think it will help me a lot shooting under forest canopy as sometimes the light is really bad. I think a will buy a remote shutter release too, they seem to be quite cheap, so I hope I can afford it.
Thanks again for your help, you can't imagine how much I have learned here in BF...just can't wait to buy my lens, go out and practice with it!
Hasta pronto

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas
Chiapas, Mexico
[email protected]
:hi:

For quality of results you can't fault the 400mm f5,6 and realistically the only way to uprgade would be the 500mm or 600mm prime.

One downside of this lens not so far mentioned is the minimum focus of 11½' - this can be a real pain for photos of flowers, insects etc. The distance is too great for capturing a realistic sized image on the sensor. Using an extension tube of 30mm+ helps a bit. If that area of photography doesn't interest you then it doesn't matter a great deal.

I was of the same mind as you prior to buying this lens. I was concerned about the lack of IS and holding a 400mm lens steady. Having used it for a while now then most worries were groundless. Apart from the gloomiest of weather or darkest of woodland I have no trouble keeping the camera steady - without resorting to a tripod. Even photographing Owls at dusk a monopod is all that's needed.

For tripod I use Manfrotto. I like the design and stability. I started off with a 055NAT and upgraded to the CarbonOne 443 as it was called then when I had the cash. Carbon fibre are definitely worth the bit extra for the weight reduction as they're so much lighter which counts a lot even if carrying even over short distances. For head I started off with and am still using the 128RC. It's a simple lightweight head capable of holding a spotting cope as well, which is what I bought it for originally. If starting over again then I'd likely buy the 701RC. I do like the design of the 501 but it's a very heavy head which may be useful for scopes and very heavy lenses rather than something lighter to carry around for normal camera use.There are other models of both haed and tripod which I'm sure are just as suitable - my needs cater for scope and camera use.

One thing to bear in mind is that using a tripod is really confining for bird photos due to bulk, weight and immobility. I tend to do a fair bit of birding in woodland as well for which I seldom use a tripod. Woodland birds tend to be active and you do need mobility to follow them to whichever branch they land on and then position yourself to avoid leaves and branches. In woodland I tend to use the nearest tree to lean against or a low branch/protrusion to brace the camera. If that's not possible then I use a fairly rigid Manfrotto monopod which is far more versatile than a tripod.

I'd be inclined to give the tree-leaning and Monopod a go before buying a tripod which you may not use that much.

IanF said:

I'd be inclined to give the tree-leaning and Monopod a go before buying a tripod which you may not use that much.

Click to expand...

I second that - here's a picture taken with the 400mm f5.6 at 1/60 second simply hand-held, the one shot out of five that was more-or-less in focus. It was gloomy / overcast weather.

A tripod would not have helped much - too much time to assemble etc., I usually carry a Manfrotto 685B monopod which I wasn't using at the time as I was was climbing down through an old and steep pine forest looking for something totally different.

When I use the monopod in this sort of situation the results are good down to 1/20 sec or so provided the dog stays still.

Full Photo Details Here

Well, it seems you have already been given the most proper answers (which I second: Ian's comments are usually well-informed and balanced) to your request, great!

I'll add some considerations (sorry if I repeat something already said) re. tripods/monopods: I've started using a light monopod (a Manfrotto 676B + a quick release head 234RC: this kit supports up to 4.5Kg, enough for my gear, and weighs less than 700 g), which gives good results in harsh situations (thick woods, mountains, marshes) where bulk and weight may prevent you from getting close to your subjects; results are pretty good, but not to be compared to those obtained by using a tripod!
Low light shots are always difficult for me, especially when you are hard pressed by time, weather, environment etc ... on the other hand, when you feel comfortable, you may get some amazing shots of unexpected quality.

Otherwise, leaning against a support of any kind is the useful and obvious solution, but I realized that almost all of my 'best' shots have been taken when using a tripod (surprised? |;| ).

Now I almost always use a Manfrotto 055 V (which superseded the NAT3 in their 2006 catalogue): it's very stable and durable, its aluminium legs have foam hand grips and are finished in a non-glare dark green; notice they lack the spiked feet, which must be bougth as accessory; the head is an old 128RC NAT3, very smooth and quite light; I think this kit's load capacity is ca. 4 Kg.

If weight matters a lot for you, then - as already pointed out - a carbon fiber tripod is obviously the natural choice: Manfrotto offers as a special kit a 055View + a 701RC2, it weighs 2.8Kg and has a load capacity of 4Kg, this head seems to be better because its quick release plate may slide forward/backward to ensure perfect balance of you kit ... you can find here all the details

I'm not prepared to give advice re. other brands, which I do not know directly (Gitzo etc), but I'm sure they can offer plentiful of options (I was told that Gitzo's carbon fiber is better than Manfrotto's .. don't know), your choice may depend much on your area's availability.

Now it's time to see sooner or later some of your shots!

PS glad to hear things are going well, hope one day to be a guest in your restaurant |;|

Cheers,

Max

Hi again everybody! Your tips are just great, thanks to you all...it's so good to be able to rely on someone who has more experience when you are a newbie. I wouldn't even have thought about trying to learn bird photography if it wasn't for BF, so I'm happy that this place exists!
Well, speaking about hand-holding the 400mm f5.6, I hope I will learn proper technique and I will be able to get decent results without a tripod, but for now, beeing a beginner, I feel that I'd be better buying one in order to be able to shoot in any situation. Please consider that to get to the nearest good camera store I will have to travel through half of Mexico...it's quite a long and expensive trip and I won't be able to do it again for a while, so in case I decide to buy a tripod later on I will have some trouble.
Ian, you are probably right when you speak about low mobility when using a tripod in a wood, but I hope I can manage to learn how to cope with it. I have a friend here who is a birdwatcher and photographer and in some occasions we went out birdwatching together and he was carrying his tripod and a very big Canon lens. Well, I didn't feel like he was having any trouble moving it around and he certainly could keep up with the rest of us "non photographers". I guess he was just really experienced and he was having more troubles because of the lack of light actually (with a non-digital camera). I would like to give the tripod a try, I know I will need it in some situations. I will be shooting in different habitats, however here in my town we have mostly cloud forests, just think about them as a foggy british day, the sun is there somewhere but you can't see it and you are under the forest canopy which makes it worse. Eventually, the clouds move away and the sun comes out, but we aren't always so lucky. So, I hope I will do the best thing getting a tripod and a remote shutter release as I know my camera speed will be very slow sometimes.
Max, thanks for the advice about the Manfrotto View Kits. My dealer in Mexico City will be checking with Manfrotto to see if they can get me one. Carbon fibre tripods are just too expensive for me, but the 055 V (aluminium), coupled with a 710RC2 head seems to be a good solution at 3.1 kgs. Hope they have it here in Mexico. The other tripod brand they sell is Velbon, but they only seem to have photographic rather than video heads and I read that you can't couple a Velbon tripod with a Manfrotto head unless you have some kind of adapter. So Manfrotto is the way to go I think.
I will let you know what happens next! |;|
I stil have to wait a long time, at least a month, before I can go for my equipment, hope that days will be passing quickly!
If I have any other quiestion about my future set-up I will let you know...
And I would sure love to have any of you as a guest in my restaurant! We have some excellent birding here in Chiapas! Unfortunately I won't be visiting Italy in a while, but maybe we will have chance to meet in the future Max, I have some relatives in Friuli Venezia Giulia!
Well, thanks again and I'll keep in touch!
Bye

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas,
Chiapas, Mexico
[email protected]

Hi again, it's still me!
I already checked with my photographic equipment dealer in Mexico City and they don't have many tripods and heads unfortunately, so I will settle for an older Manfrotto 055 (no new view models). They have various versions, the classic silver one (but I don't like silver), the 055CLB (black), the 055NAT2 and 055NAT3. Could everybody please explain to me what are the main differences between those tripods? There is quite a difference in price, so I think it's important to know why.
They don't have the 701 head, only the 128 and the 501, so I must choose between one of these two. I know about the wheight difference, but generally speaking, which one is easier to use and would be better for a beginner?
Also, sorry for the silly question, but I plan to carry around my future Canon 400mm f5.6 lens and Canon 350D attached to the tripod and leaning on my shoulder. I am a bit concerned about the lens getting loose and falling...is this possible? I've seen my photographer friend doing it without any trouble with a quite cheap tripod, so maybe I am worrying too much, but I do care about such an expensive equipment! I am not planning to use a backpack or any kind of strap or harness, just resting the tripod on my shoulder, hope this can work.
Any comments will be very welcome, as usual!
Cheers

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas
Chiapas, Mexico
[email protected]

Do NOT get the 701 or 128. The 501 will probably be OK.

Do you have any way of getting equipment from the US?

Well, I thought about buying from B&H, but the shipping costs are very high and the taxes will be probably expensive too, so I think that eventually is better for me to buy here in Mexico. The Canon lens I am going to buy costs in the US half the price we have to pay here in Mexico, but I would not sleep comfortably knowing that it can possibly get damaged during the trip.
But thanks for the advice anyway! I will think about it, maybe I could try buying something cheaper first (a Tamron TC maybe?) and see what happens...
Cheers

Francesca Albini
San Cristóbal de Las Casas
Chiapas, Mexico
[email protected]

Francesca,
Both of these lenses, as most other F5.6 lenses, love light. The 400mm F5.6 is sharper wide open than the Bigma at any focal length. But most especially at full tele zoom. I used the Bigma for 16 months and loved it. But, like most bird shooters, I needed more reach. So I bought the 400mm F5.6 and use it almost exclusively with the cheap Tamron 1.4X TC. Even during rainy overcast days, I find this combo to be stellar As happy as I was with most of my Bigma pics, it definitely had problems in poorer light. Slower AF, lack of contrast and color and higher ISOs required to maintain shutter speed.

I'd suggest the 400mm with any decent TC you can find in Mexico. Tape pins if you have to. I have found the 400mm to be superior in just about every aspect versus the Bigma.

Remember also that even though using a 1.4X TC will cost you a stop of light. The DOF will be the same as it was without the TC attached. For example the 400mm shot wide open with a TC will have a DOF of an F5.6 aperture. Not an F8 aperture.

I also have a hard time visulaizing toting the Bigma through a rain forest for hours at a time :-(


Good luck,
Steve