• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Best package for £1600 budget (1 Viewer)

postcardcv said:
Indeed the budget is £1600 and clearly Goodwin is pointing out that by looking for a good deal on a used lens it's possible to get even more for the money. A Sigma 120-300 f2.8 recently sold on here for £1150 which would leave enough money for a tc and a secondhand 40D. Tbe Sigma 300 f2.8 lenses are certainly a possibility within the budget if a good deal can be found. You only need to have a look in Adrian's gallery (though not all taken with this lens) to see how good the Sigma 300 f2.8 prime is - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/25708
Click to expand...

Cannot agree Pete, there would be memory cards to get, spare battery, tripod etc and £1600 is not that elastic. Best bet would be for him to look at the for sale on here and MPB. AS for a 40D I would think twice about that given the reliability issues.

PS Just looked on the sale thread, 50D and a choice of 400mm prime or 100-400 zoom and would still be in budget.
 
Last edited:
Robert L Jarvis said:
AS for a 40D I would think twice about that given the reliability issues.
Click to expand...
I reckon that there was a bad batch of 40D shutters but most of them has already failed and been replaced with a good shutter. You hear very little about 40D shutters failing these days (yes, I know Adam's went recently but that was the first one I have heard about for a fair while).
I had mine fail after 1 year but it has worked flawlessly since. If I was in the market for a cheap second hand xxD I would certainly go for a 40D without a moments hesitation - at today second hand value they are a steal IMO.
 
Thanks for all the advice everyone. Some interesting points are raised! In the end I have settled on a 50d picked up for 600 pounds second hand, great condition. That just leaves the lens issue! 400/5.6 prime is looking good but I see that there are plenty of good arguments for sigma 50-500 amongst other thing. In any case both would fall into my budget that rests (1000 pounds). I can't edit to get started!
 
xanderhiley said:
Thanks for all the advice everyone. Some interesting points are raised! In the end I have settled on a 50d picked up for 600 pounds second hand, great condition. That just leaves the lens issue! 400/5.6 prime is looking good but I see that there are plenty of good arguments for sigma 50-500 amongst other thing. In any case both would fall into my budget that rests (1000 pounds). I can't edit to get started!
Click to expand...

Go with the 400mm f5.6 the Sigma 50-500 has more reach but the 400mm f5.6 is better option............just get closer

on
 
40/50d and the 100-400 IS L lens.

If your a birder and enjoy walking around and taking photos of what you see then the 100-400 IS is a must.

The un stabilised 400L 5.6 will need a tripod with you at all times to get anything decent.
 
peteh said:
The un stabilised 400L 5.6 will need a tripod with you at all times to get anything decent.
Click to expand...
This is absolute rubbish, there are thousand of cracking shots taken with the 400/5.6 hand held in the BF gallery. I used one myself for more than three years and it is easily hand holdable if you know what you are doing.
You may prefer the the 100-400 but to say what you just have about the 400/5.6 is absolutely out of order and so untrue.
 
Suppose it depends on what you class as decent.
I can't see how anyone apart from Geoff capes or maybe a Marines Sniper could handhold an un IS lens and keep it steady enough to have a pin sharp shot. Its hard enough with IS lenses.
If the OP isnt that bothered about getting the maximum sharpness then by all means include the 400/5.6 in your options.
 
peteh,,its possible to handhold the canon 400mm 5.6l, as i have one..
i have attached a couple of photos that have been taken handheld.

i arnt saying everyone can get away with handholding but its possible..
 

Attachments

  • stonechat.jpg
    stonechat.jpg
    96.6 KB · Views: 66
  • reed bunting.jpg
    reed bunting.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 63
You may be right peteh I have found it awfully difficult to get sharp shots with my 400mm f5.6. All from my pbase gallery.
 

Attachments

  • 112870909_ryBhvIJp_IMG_9503copy.jpg
    112870909_ryBhvIJp_IMG_9503copy.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 69
  • 113141278_NUjDbf74_IMG_9766copy.jpg
    113141278_NUjDbf74_IMG_9766copy.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 59
  • 87623631_02Ixwv9F_IMG_4102copy.jpg
    87623631_02Ixwv9F_IMG_4102copy.jpg
    82.3 KB · Views: 63
I think the 100-400 does have a slight advantage in that it is easier to locate a bird at 100mm, then zoom in to the optimum length (often 400mm!) for the photos.
 
John I don't think sarcasm was called for.
This is a forum at the end of the day and we are all entitled to our own opinions.
We all have our own standards and personally those sample shots haven't changed my mind. No offence meant.
I also believe the 100-400 is a better walk around lens and is easier to use.
 
peteh said:
Suppose it depends on what you class as decent.
I can't see how anyone apart from Geoff capes or maybe a Marines Sniper could handhold an un IS lens and keep it steady enough to have a pin sharp shot. Its hard enough with IS lenses.
If the OP isnt that bothered about getting the maximum sharpness then by all means include the 400/5.6 in your options.
Click to expand...
I could show you a thousand shots like the attached all taken hand held with the 400/5.6.
I don't mind you saying that I have no decent shots in my BF Gallery but there are loads of BF members who regularly hand hold the 400/5.6 and post their pics and you are saying that there is not a decent one among them which is out of order.
just have a look at IanF Gallery pics and tell me there is not a decent one among them.
 

Attachments

  • stonechat toned bg.jpg
    stonechat toned bg.jpg
    145.1 KB · Views: 41
  • bullfinch1.jpg
    bullfinch1.jpg
    181.4 KB · Views: 39
  • canada2.jpg
    canada2.jpg
    179.7 KB · Views: 33
  • goose1.jpg
    goose1.jpg
    127.7 KB · Views: 41
  • stoney.jpg
    stoney.jpg
    119.3 KB · Views: 43
peteh said:
We all have our own standards and personally those sample shots haven't changed my mind. No offence meant.
I also believe the 100-400 is a better walk around lens and is easier to use.
Click to expand...
This is a bit different from saying that you cannot get anything decent from the 400/5.6 without using a tripod. You are insulting loads of people on this forum by that comment.
I have tried the 100-400 and much prefer the 400/5.6 even hand holding but I would never say you cannot get sharp shots from the 100-400 as that would be ridiculous (although I have seen countless hundreds of post on the web saying the 100-400 is soft at the long end).
I Attached some 100% crops from the 400/5.6 all hand held. shown is the full frame and the crop. Not to bad from a lens where it is impossible to get sharp shots hand held.
 

Attachments

  • wren_org.jpg
    wren_org.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 38
  • wren3.jpg
    wren3.jpg
    161 KB · Views: 50
  • bw3.jpg
    bw3.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 44
  • bw2.jpg
    bw2.jpg
    152.8 KB · Views: 52
Last edited:
To say that you can't get sharp shots out of a 400 f5.6 without a tripod is going a bit far, yes in low light IS will help getting sharp shots but in decent light handholding the prime isn't that hard. I got plenty of sharp shots out of mine including some that I have had printed big.
 
Roy, I think our definitions of decent are different.
All the shots on here with the 400 5.6 are good.
But in my eyes the 100-400 would have took them better.
Thats why I always recommend the 100-400 as a lens to get at the lower budget.
 
Obviously if you have tons of light you can be shaking like a leaf and get something sharp. But how often do we get tons of light in the UK. Not often.
Remember this is a person starting out with photography, I think recommending a lens that limits them to certain light conditions to give them a chance of a good photograph is the wrong recommendation in my opinion.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

BenjiS
Budget Canon lens
Replies
8
Views
1K
nikitasius
N
M
The best binoculars
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
6K
Trinovid
T
W
Buying advice for a newbie on a budget.
Replies
12
Views
2K
Rg548
R
Henry_Flower
Camera for EF 100-400, up to ~ £1000
Replies
8
Views
1K
Prestdj
Prestdj
R
Choosing pocket binoculars
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
forent
forent

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top