[Widowmaker]

I am about to sell my Sigma EX 50-500, 105 macro and 2x teleconverter to get some cash towards a new Canon L lens. My question is whats going to be my best choice?

I am debating between two but will consider others if suggested (in the same price area).

The Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM SLR lens or Canon EF 300mm F4.0L IS USM SLR lens. I would guess that 300mm would probably be the minimum I should get for birding. I guess my question would be about sharpness. Is the fixed 300mm going to give noticeably sharper results or would I be just as happy with the 100-400? The apreture difference does not bother quite as much as losing 100 mm but I would give that up for noticeable extra sharpness.

Input needed.

[nigelblake]

If you are using a 10D I think you might be best to have you camera body checked for focus accuracy before taking the step of changing your lens, many 10D's have had slight problems with focus accuracy when using long lenses, I know of 5 people who have had their cameras recallibrated, this has solved the softness issue! Have you done a few test shots with the 50-500 to check this? if you set up some matchboxes or similar in a row, stepping them back at an angle and photograph them with the camera fixed off to a tripod yoh may well find that the box(es) forward or rearward of the focused one are the sharper, this will give you a measure of how far out the focus is, It is worth noting that as the depth of field with long lenses is much shallower they will show up focus inaccuracies more readily.
Out of the lenses you list here the 100-400mm is the best option, I have had one since they where first launched and it is one of the best, sharpest, lenses I have ever owned, however you will lose A/F with it when using converters. The 300mm f4 IS is also an extremely sharp lens, but it does lack the 'reach' that is needed for bird photography.
Quite honestly though the EX 50-500mm Sigma is a good lens I know a few people here who use them and get very sharp results.
I had a slight focus accuracy problem with my 1Ds when I first got it, Canon recallibrated the body, I took the lens to them also, and it is now pretty well consistanly spot-on.

[Richard]

Nigel,

This is interesting - I have a new 300d and have been strugging with the focus. Do you happen to know if the 300d has this problem? I will try your matchbox test! Do you know how long it takes to get a body recalibrated?

Thanks

Richard

[Widowmaker]

Originally Posted by nigelblake

If you are using a 10D I think you might be best to have you camera body checked for focus accuracy before taking the step of changing your lens, many 10D's have had slight problems with focus accuracy when using long lenses, I know of 5 people who have had their cameras recallibrated, this has solved the softness issue! Have you done a few test shots with the 50-500 to check this? if you set up some matchboxes or similar in a row, stepping them back at an angle and photograph them with the camera fixed off to a tripod yoh may well find that the box(es) forward or rearward of the focused one are the sharper, this will give you a measure of how far out the focus is, It is worth noting that as the depth of field with long lenses is much shallower they will show up focus inaccuracies more readily.
Out of the lenses you list here the 100-400mm is the best option, I have had one since they where first launched and it is one of the best, sharpest, lenses I have ever owned, however you will lose A/F with it when using converters. The 300mm f4 IS is also an extremely sharp lens, but it does lack the 'reach' that is needed for bird photography.
Quite honestly though the EX 50-500mm Sigma is a good lens I know a few people here who use them and get very sharp results.
I had a slight focus accuracy problem with my 1Ds when I first got it, Canon recallibrated the body, I took the lens to them also, and it is now pretty well consistanly spot-on.

Thanks for your advise Nigel. I found a printable scale to use and conducted the test with three lenses. The pattern was set up at a 45% angle in relation to the centerline of the lens. I used a sigma 105, canon 28-135 and sigma 50-500. The last two were set at full zoom. The center focus point was selected and I focused on the single line in the middle of the two scales. For the 500mm test I rotated the scale more than 45% to decrease the DOF. From the results it looks pretty good to me overall. What do you think. Is this a fairly accurate test?

http://www2.netdoor.com/~brenda/testresults.jpg
Results are from top to bottom, 105mm, 135mm and 500mm. May need to zoom in to actual size after opening.

Its not that I have been unhappy with the lens but I see very impressive results with the Canon L with IS. I just purchased the Canon 28-135 IS lens and the IS really sold me.

[Widowmaker]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nigel,

This is interesting - I have a new 300d and have been strugging with the focus. Do you happen to know if the 300d has this problem? I will try your matchbox test! Do you know how long it takes to get a body recalibrated?

Thanks

Richard

Hi Richard. Nigel may know different but I would think that any SLR could have this problem. If you want to test it. Go to this address, download the full size image, print it out and follow the instructions on the page.


http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/

I also have a rebel, which I thought was sold but due to an ebay issue, I still have it. Here are the results.

http://www2.netdoor.com/~brenda/105mmreb.jpg

I am only posting the 105mm so I can use a larger image to show more detail. The other lenses were the same as my first results.

[Richard]

Hi Widowmaker,

Thanks for posting the focustest link, I will try it. I have a feeling my problem is more to do with limited depth of field when using a 300mm lens rather than a soft focus. It will be interesting to see.

Richard

[nigelblake]

The test shots look good to me too, there is very limited depth of field with long lenses, and it wets less the longer the lens.

One of the problems that occur re focus on digital cameras, and particularly on feathers is that of anti aliasing, this softens the jagged edges of curved, and to some extent diagonal lines, when there are lots of them next to each other, as in the barbs of feathers, they tend to get merged and look smudged.

[Widowmaker]

Originally Posted by nigelblake

The test shots look good to me too, there is very limited depth of field with long lenses, and it wets less the longer the lens.

One of the problems that occur re focus on digital cameras, and particularly on feathers is that of anti aliasing, this softens the jagged edges of curved, and to some extent diagonal lines, when there are lots of them next to each other, as in the barbs of feathers, they tend to get merged and look smudged.

Yes I figured that it was focusing ok especially after the test shots. The IS feature is really what I'm looking at. I was so impressed with the one I just got and the results I see from big IS lenses seem to be very good. I know it wont be a miracle lens that will suddenly make all my shots perfect but every little bit helps. I also find its faster to hand shoot instead of a tripod so the IS should help a bit there.

I had my rebel on ebay and it went for $889, which I thought was good but the buyer was not verified so I did not feel safe with the deal .Now Im at the point to where I have the Digital Rebel Kit with the 18-55 lens, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 105, Sigma 2X teleconverter (All three EX). Everything still under warranty and less than 2 months used. Throwing in a somewhat lacking 64mb CF but at least its better than nothing. Do you think $1800 is an acceptable asking price? Thats almost $600 off the total package.

[LzyPhotographer]

Go for the 100-400. I've had it for almost a week now and love it! It's clear & sharp, and still handhold-able. :-)

I did own the Sigma 50-500 for about 2 weeks, but sent it back. Overall, the Sigma was soft - soft colours and soft focus, even with a tripod.

[Widowmaker]

Originally Posted by LzyPhotographer

Go for the 100-400. I've had it for almost a week now and love it! It's clear & sharp, and still handhold-able. :-)

I did own the Sigma 50-500 for about 2 weeks, but sent it back. Overall, the Sigma was soft - soft colours and soft focus, even with a tripod.

Thanks for the input. Thats the overall opinion I have about the sigma also. The images are good but soft. Every now and then I get one that has a bit of sharpness but they are few and far between.

[citreola]

Originally Posted by Widowmaker

The Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM SLR lens or Canon EF 300mm F4.0L IS USM SLR lens.
Input needed.

Here is a lenstest between the Canon100-400mm and the Canon EF 400mmf5.6 : http://luminous-landscape.com/review...tten-400.shtml.

[Doug Greenberg]

This isn't going to make me popular, but the telling comment above is that *on occasion* the photos produced by the allegedly "soft" lens are sharp. This shows that the lens itself is capable of sharpness. The truth is that it's REALLY difficult to achieve optimal results with long telephoto lenses. They are prone to vibration, misfocus, heat wave interference, and did I mention vibration?

My personal anecdote: I own several telephoto lenses I've collected over the years, and the most frustrating was my Sigma 600mm. mirror lens. Time after time I photographed birds using the thing and drat, the images came out soft. What a lousy lens! But once in a while there it would be: a sharp image! This indicates that the lens was not causing the problems, I was. When I moved to a digital slr, I was able to use very high ISO speeds with this lens. When the ISO was bumped up to 1000 or higher, suddenly the photos taken with the Sigma were sharp (except for within the "macro range," which I do think is a problem for this lens). This indicated to me that it had been my technique, not the lens, that had caused me such grief over the years.

It's not surprising to me that people get superior results using the 100-400 IS lens. The image stabilization feature is a BIG help. It's also possible that given the reality of sample variation, a particular 50-500 zoom might have problems. But I've seen excellent photos taken with that Sigma zoom, and I really doubt that given optimal conditions and technique, one could really tell the difference betweeen a shot taken at 400mm. with the Sigma and one taken with the Canon, except perhaps for differences in color cast. The Sigma zoom, however, is notoriously difficult to handle, given its slow aperture and its large size.

[spiderwood]

Speaking from direct experience with both lenses (I still have and use both)...Go for the 300/4 rather than the 100-400. If I was starting out again, then I wouldn't bother with the 100-400 and would buy the 300/4 and 1.4xII convertor.

Why?
*The 300/4 is a prime lens and is sharper all round than the 100-400.
*You can add a 1.4xII convertor to it and get a 420/5.6 that is still sharper than the 100-400.
*You can add a 2xII convertor to it and get a 600/8 that still gives excellent results.
*AF Good on D30/60/10D
*It weighs less than the 100-400.

That said, I still like my 100-400 as a general day to day lens. The ability to compose/frame a shot using the zoom is usefull.

Downsides to the 100-400....
-Sharpness tails off after 350-370mm.
-Useless with a 1.4x Convertor.
-AF can be slugish on D30/60/10D/300D
-Weight.

[vigibill]

I tend to favor the Canon 400mm f5.6. Atrhur Morris has always referred to it as his "toy lens" and highly favors it for hand-held flight photography. (www.birdsasart.com)

[138mph]

Yes I ditched the 100-400 IS in favour of 300 f/4 IS + 1.4xextender II. I found the 100-400 awkward to use, not sure why (overall balance of lens and camera?), but I just find the 300+extender more manageable. I guess its all down to trying them out on an example of your camera in the shop and seeing which suits you. And yes, I ditched a 2xextender having found it relatively useless with the 100-400.

[ArtMachine]

Originally Posted by spiderwood

Speaking from direct experience with both lenses (I still have and use both)...Go for the 300/4 rather than the 100-400. If I was starting out again, then I wouldn't bother with the 100-400 and would buy the 300/4 and 1.4xII convertor.

Why?
*The 300/4 is a prime lens and is sharper all round than the 100-400.
*You can add a 1.4xII convertor to it and get a 420/5.6 that is still sharper than the 100-400.
*You can add a 2xII convertor to it and get a 600/8 that still gives excellent results.
*AF Good on D30/60/10D
*It weighs less than the 100-400.

That said, I still like my 100-400 as a general day to day lens. The ability to compose/frame a shot using the zoom is usefull.

Downsides to the 100-400....
-Sharpness tails off after 350-370mm.
-Useless with a 1.4x Convertor.
-AF can be slugish on D30/60/10D/300D
-Weight.

I just purchased the 300 IS F4 and the 1.4x Converter for the reasons cited. I am very happy with the combination and I am thinking about the 2x converter.

I've been taking photos for a lot of years but I'm new to birding. I am just now realizing how demanding it is. At 420mm I'm just in the ballpark. 500 or 600mm would be better but budget does not allow. Depth of field is tiny, vibration is everywhere, equipment is cumbersome, the subject won't hold still and 21" and larger monitors reveal every imperfection.

I cannot comment on the 100-400, but I can say that at these extremes anything less than what I am getting with the 300 IS prime would just not do.

[TwoBoy]

For me the 100~400 is the answer. Mine is incredibly sharp throughout the entire focal range but I do suspect that I am a lucky 10D/20D owner. I think its a case of - If the camera is right, the lens is right. I use the 1.4 x II converter with no apparent loss of sharpness. I have compared it against the 400L prime and I cannot see any real difference except price.

Whilst I see many are recommending primes I dont think its that practical. How long does a bird sit in one place whist you try to find the right prime for the job. Also, a prime means you have to crop images often to get what you want a lot of the time. This in itself is detrimental to your image and the chances are the L zoom will win out anyway.

The 100~400 is a top lens but it will only give optimum results if your camera is right and your technique is right. You need to also bear in mind that IS with this lens is not effective when it is tripod mounted. Canon are specific about this and trying to use IS with a tripod may actually make this lens lose sharpness. Read your book!!!!!!!

Good zoom lenses seem to be the best for all wildlife in my opinion and by this I mean L lenses with a ratio not exceeding 4x. The 28~300L IS USM which I also own has an 11x ratio - I have to sacrifice a degree of sharpness for the versatility but my eyes were open when I bought it.

[LAF]

I agree the 300 F4 IS is a cracking little lens. Solid but small and light and the built-in lens hood is excellent. On its own it's lovely and sharp. Every time I've used one with a 2x TC I've been very dissappointed. Soft, even on Film (70-200 L IS + 2x is crap too). I know a number of others who bought the 2x for this lens and were dissappointed also. I've never tried this lens witha 1.4x myself but others who swapped to this TC were more than happy with the combination.

The 300 F4 + 1.4x would make an interesting comparison to the 100-400. Wide open I woudn't like to bet which was sharper, but at f8 my money would be on the 300/1.4x combo.

Regards, Lee.