• 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.

New lens choice. (1 Viewer)

Mickw

Active member
Hi all. New to this forum as i had no wish to ever take pictures of wildlife, loving very dark mono stuff until a friend invited me to a local hide. Something switched on in my brain and i now see what you guys love so much. Its just addictive. Anyway i have a problem, a common one from what i see. Maybe my gear list will help you see my problem.
Canon 5D full frame. Fantatsic camera.
Canon 400D APS-C so i get extra reach if needed.
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L
Canon 16-35 f2.8 L MK2
Canon 24-105 f4 L
Canon 1X4 Teleconverter
Canon 180f3.5 Macro
Sigma 50 f2.8

As you can see i love L series lens. Quality, weather protection and as tough as old boots. Problem is as can be seen from my gear, for shooting wildlife my lens choice is coming up short. Even in a hide with top quality gear im still the one with the small lens. I know i need extra reach as im soon to be found hiding out in the local oak woods. So i need assistance on lens choice. My instincts tell me these are what a lot of you may use.

Sigma 50-500. Good reach but not weather protected and an autofocus problem perhaps with my converter.
Sigma 150-500 Has stabilisation i may not need and only half a stop differance to the above lens but the same drawbacks.

This is where it gets silly.

Sigma 500 f4.5 great lens, tough and optically good. But cost and converter problems i see.
Canon 300 f4 Sharp, tough weather sealed and optically perfect. But is it a little short and i would need to crop on ocassion. Works with my converter though.

Really really silly.
Save up and buy the daddy, Canon 500f4. Got everything but it costs and its very big.

I really do want quality and autofocus and toughness so L series is my preferred option but the first two Sigmas are good lens's just not as good as L and not as tough. My wife says buy the sigma then as you get better sell it and go L series. Decisions decisions.

And please dont give me a tough time as happened on another magazines web site which was full of wannabe pros with attitude. Yes i work hard, yes i earn a half decent wage and yes i know how to take a decent pic and yes i can afford whatever lens i want. I just want honest opinion from people who use these lens and/or know how to take a good pic as i can see you guys do.

Mick
 
Hi Mick,
Welcome to BF
Given your current lens line up you'll hate anything other than the Canon 500 f4. I got one last year and it's great but remember to budget for a really good tripod and head.
While you're saving the Canon 300f4 is a good sharp lens and takes a 1.4x well.
 
Hi Mick and welcome to Birdforum.
Its not an easy choice deciding on a long lens by any means, but i've owned a few so I'll put my thoughts forward.

Sigma zooms - I had the 50-500- Fine if you're on a budget but I'm not sure I'd put one on a FF body and IQ is not up to the primes.

Sigma 500mm f4.5 EX HSM -owned one- nice lens and when I got mine they were about £1000 S/H and were a very good buy for that. Spend much more though and you have to consider a S/H Canon 500mm f4

Canon 500mm f4 - owned one and miss it big time! You say you can afford whichever lens you want, in which case start scouring the ads for one s/h or simply buy a new one ;)
Its often debated on here whether the Canon is worth the money over the Sigma. In my opinion its a resounding yes. The lens is terrific on its own but in a world where reach is often everything its just as good with the 1.4x tc.
My sigma prime was pretty naff with a tc. I didn't like the bokeh and even with a 1d mkIII it wouldn't af without taping the pins on the converter. Again other people have no problems acheiving AF without taping the pins but i can only speak from my experience.

Canon 300mm f4. My current 'long lens' I'm pleasantly surprised how good a lens it is and it works very well with a 1.4x tc. Put bluntly though, if I could afford to I would buy a 500mm f4 again tomorrow
 
Last edited:
I will have to agree with Paul and say that if you can afford a 500mm f4 then it is probably the best lens to buy.
 
Guys, thanks so much for your help and kind advice. Im afraid that on a forum of a popular magazine, if you ask for help such as i did, all you get are snide remarks about having to much money or you should know what lens to buy if you take good pics. What nice informed and friendly help. Thank you.

When it comes to lens choice i forgot i had a chat to a guy in a hide yesterday by chance. He is a Nikon owner (urgh) sorry, and he uses a Nikon 300f4 with a converter and he says he achieves top results. I wasnt so sure so i use this web site as you can instantly compare lens to lens results for sharpness.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-Lens-Reviews.aspx

use the lens comparrison tool top right. Its for primarily Canon lens's but includes Sigma, Tamron etc and Primes, Zooms and when you experiment also converters. It has a standard camera a Canon MK111. It really is a cool site. What it reveals from the ISO comparisons is that converters, whatever we say do degrade the picture. The top L series does kick ass but the consumer end theres not much differance.

Now, how do i get my wife to let me buy a second hand 500f4?

And, why is bird photography so addictive? Can i get help for it? Am i doomed to a life full of pleasure, wandering woods, coasts and pastures taking pics of these beautifull species? Oh and insects aswell.

Mick
 
Hi Mick, sounds like you got bit by the bird bug. According to your referenced lens review site, the 300mm f4 IS is not weather sealed. This may or may not be a big deal for you. Another lens to consider that is very popular here is the 400mm f5.6. When you take the next step into birds-in-flight (BIF) photography, this is one of the best lenses going. I have the 500mm L and it is definitely a fantastic lens but factor in a top notch tripod, ballhead/sidekick, or gimbal-type head which can add another $1500 USD to the cost. Good luck with your decision.
 
Yeah, forgot the tripod bit. If you go for a 500mm prime I'd certainly go for a gimbal head and a Gitzo or Feisol tripod.
I did however use mine a lot on a beanbag on hide windowsills , car doors and quite often on my rucksack for getting (nearly) eye level shots of waders.

If you've got a dog tell it to make room in its kennel because thats where you'll be sleeping when the wife clocks the bill for this lot. Believe me though, when those images open up on your screen it'll be worth it. :t:
 
Last edited:
Ive been "discussing" this with the missus. Buying the 500 she said was a good choice as they dont loose much value and im yet to see one advertised second hand. Ive had a day looking on forums and comparing optical quality on the digital picture site. She actually came up with a good point. Hire a few lens's for a few days. See how they handle and what the pics look like. I was talking to a pro today who uses Hassleblads, the best around. He has three!!!
He has used a 500 on his digital Mk 111 s and raved about its quality except its major drawback is weight. It needs a quality tripod as you guys point out. He also has a 300f4. Wildlife thats static he uses the 500, birds in flight the 300. So im going to hire a 500 and see how it goes. Then ill have to be nice to my wife when i buy one.

Just out of interest, have any of you guys actually used the Big Sigma zooms. A couple of guys in the club to top shots with them. Although such shots have never been lined up against similar shots with a prime. Can you tell the differance easily? Certainly i can between my 180 macro and any zoom.

Thanks again.

Mick
 
Just to throw another one into the equation, how about the 400 DO? Not as long as the 500 but much lighter and actually hand holdable plus takes the 1.4 converter very well whilst maintaining autofocus. It is the only lens I own at this quality level but the results are superb to my eye. It is a bit of a controversial lens but I have never suffered from any of the faults it is criticised for and many owners like me love it. Worth looking in to. I managed to get a pristine example second hand. In general this is a site worth looking round: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_supertele_test_200-300-400-600.htm
 
These are my thoughts. I use the 300 F4 and the 70-200 F4 both IS and love them and they both work well with TCs. I think you should definately aim F4 or lower for your lens.

The 500 F4, 400 Do or F4, 300 2.8,300 F4 and may be 100 - 400 for versitiliy. My choice if I had the money would be the 300 2.8 with 1.4 and 2x TC options.

Also one thing to consider is your field craft and become invisable to the birds and invest in some camo gear.
 
Again, thanks for the advice. Ive again visited a few local hides and im even more addicted to this. Went to a local bird of prey center and watched the guy allow a Harris Hawk to fly inches over my head, land in local trees and walk behind him. Then the Bateleur Eagle. The guy let me stay behind after the show and talked about the place, conservation projects and let me watch as he began training an African Fish Eagle. Never been so close to something so beautifull. Ive got cammo gear from a way back when i was a bit American Chopper.
Today i did notice in poor light, my 200mm f2.8 zoom with 1x4 on an ASPC camera was way short and when i go out into the fields isnt enough.

Nearly forgot, as i left he got the Little Owl out to move to another part of the sight. Let me take some pics from 2 feet. Maybe its not a true wild shot but certainly, a very stunning bird. Never seen one even when i was a keen bird enthusiast when i was a kid.

Mick
 
Since you already have 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the solution is simple in your case:

If you can afford the EF 500mm f/4L is, go for it.
If not, get the EF 400mm f/5.6L.
 
Hi Mick,

I quickly realized that I wanted a 500 f4, and that faffing about buying compromises "till I could afford one" would just eat into those dedicated savings and delay the day I could afford one. So, I stopped buying and started saving - it's amazing how one can manage with the right motivation. I got my 500 and am well, well pleased. For mounting it I used GyRob's tips on making my own gimball, and mounted it in the back of a tractor (the seat goes right round). Hide and solid tetrapod in one :) Now the tractor might be expensive, but the head is not if that is a "wife-breaker". Sounds like you're wife is as sensible as mine though.

The lens is heavy. I have since bought a 300 f4 to take on trips. Secondary benefit is that my wife enjoys using it. At the moment we are fighting over the 1.4TC, so we'll have to fix that. Apart from that, I really don't use the 500 without TC. Extension tubes too sometimes.

This was taken with 500 and 2xTC, manual focus (hangover from 70-200 f2.8 efforts). I think it shows this lens really does take TCs well.

Mike.
 

Attachments

  • Chaffinch_5341_cropped.jpg
    Chaffinch_5341_cropped.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 120
The 500 f4 is a lovely lens and with a 2x converter thats a nice pic, but alas unless I sell up all my model train gear I cant afford one yet.

But I am still dreaming, next lens macro
 
No contest. 500/4 every time, but then there is the 600/4 and 800/5.6 too. A simple fact of life is that whatever you buy you will never have enough reach, and always want more. I know Pros who use the Sigma 300-800 and get great results with it, just a thought.
 
I went to the Farne Islands last May and on the boat was the entire panoply of gear. I have to say there was a plethera of 400-500 EFs and 1 x 600 (even TC'd). There were smaller lenses too. I had the 5D and 40D with me, and invariably I used the 40D and the 100-400on the Farne Islands.

I used the 100-400 all the time NOT ALWAYS at the long end as there are nesting birds within feet of you in fact on the Outer Island (can't remember its name - but the all day boat does two islands) on the rocks you have to watch every step in case you step on a nest and indeed on the paths on Inner Farne, not just beside the paths, ON the paths there are Artic Terns nesting.

To conclude, I came away thinking that the guys with the big guns were a bit stuffed overall. Your 70-200 and the idea of a 300 + TC sounds good, though thinking long term you may ultimately need that 400/500 thereafter 'cos I bet you will want to go on and do more.

However my dream lens would be the 300 F2.8L + 2x Canon EF TC II - Why?....because that would give me the best of both worlds (versatility) I think and it is a lot 'cheaper' than a 400/500 F4. I subsequently 'compromised' on one body to satisfy my needs for both landscape/Portrait and Wildlife but still a 300 2.8L + 1.4 and 2x TC I think would do the IDMKIII justice and keep me happy for years - even if I have to foot zoom on occasions (mind you foot-zooming on top of Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire could be rather perilous ;-)).

Just some thoughts

Jamie

ps some Farne Islands and Bempton Cliffs shots on my site www.jayteepic.com ALL with that 40D though
 
Sincere apologies for misposting this! Duh...and I haven't even been on the sauce!

Sorry

Jamie



I went to the Farne Islands last May and on the boat was the entire panoply of gear. I have to say there was a plethera of 400-500 EFs and 1 x 600 (even TC'd). There were smaller lenses too. I had the 5D and 40D with me, and invariably I used the 40D and the 100-400on the Farne Islands.

I used the 100-400 all the time NOT ALWAYS at the long end as there are nesting birds within feet of you in fact on the Outer Island (can't remember its name - but the all day boat does two islands) on the rocks you have to watch every step in case you step on a nest and indeed on the paths on Inner Farne, not just beside the paths, ON the paths there are Artic Terns nesting.

To conclude, I came away thinking that the guys with the big guns were a bit stuffed overall. Your 70-200 and the idea of a 300 + TC sounds good, though thinking long term you may ultimately need that 400/500 thereafter 'cos I bet you will want to go on and do more.

However my dream lens would be the 300 F2.8L + 2x Canon EF TC II - Why?....because that would give me the best of both worlds (versatility) I think and it is a lot 'cheaper' than a 400/500 F4. I subsequently 'compromised' on one body to satisfy my needs for both landscape/Portrait and Wildlife but still a 300 2.8L + 1.4 and 2x TC I think would do the IDMKIII justice and keep me happy for years - even if I have to foot zoom on occasions (mind you foot-zooming on top of Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire could be rather perilous ;-)).

Just some thoughts

Jamie

ps some Farne Islands and Bempton Cliffs shots on my site www.jayteepic.com ALL with that 40D though
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top