Thank you for all your views on my question which long lens with Canon 5D. I have decided to sell my Canon 70-200 f2.8 Lens and Canon 2x converter and buy either a Canon 100-400 IS or Sigma 50-500 Lens with a Canon 1.4x or Tamron 1.4x converter. I am swaying more towards the 100-400 because it is lighter and has IS but the sigma would give me the extra 100mm length which one should I go for to get that buzzard hovering in the sky?? Also, does anyone know whether either of the teleconverters would work on auto focus with either of these lenses please?Look forward to hearing from you :h?:
-
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.
Canon 5D- 100-400 is Lens or Sigma 50-500 Lens? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DICKER
- Start date
paul goode
Well-known member
DICKER said:
Hi
Dicker,
I can't help you much on the canon lens as I've never used one but do own the Sigma, so....
With a 2x convertor it does not autofocus and don't think it will with a 1.4x. In my experience it is useless with the converter. It may be my manual focussing but I have not come close to a sharp image with it.
Without the converter I find it a nice lens which takes good sharp images used on my 20d. Whether the full frame sensor would expose any weaknesses I don't know. At the end of the day its a relatively cheap lens and I'm sure Canon envisaged fitting L glass to the 5D.
Couldn't help with the Buzzard but have attached a Red Kite from the weekend to give you an idea of the lenses capabilities.
Regards
Paul
Attachments
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
An impressive shot,Paul.
Ragna
Well-known member
Dicker i still think the Canon 100-400 5.6L +1.4x will be a better option than the bigma on a full frame camera.No neither will autofocus with the converter. The Canon is the best converter but Kenko make a Teleplus 300 PRO 1.4x which is reported to be good as the Canon but a Far better price.Try www.one-stop-digital for thr Kenko good prices.If you go for the Canon 100-400 i would buy in this country so you can try and if not pleased with it get a refund.Warehouse express are very good for this.
Tyler Vargo
Well-known member
Ragna and I seem to be on opposite sides of the tracks here, I think that a Bigma would be a better bet than a 100-400L with a 1.4x TC. With the latter you won't have any AF and it'll be f8. You may have IS with that L and the 1.4x TC, but is the image quality increase (which I'm sure would be barely noticable, if even, esp. with a TC in there) really worth the drastic price increase and loss of AF?
IanF
Moderator
Between the two options I'd be inclined to go with the Sigma as well.
I have the Canon 100-400 which is a great lens on it's own but adding the 1.4x does turn it into manual focus and softer results. The IS counts for a lot on average days, though on bright days it gives less of an advantage over a non-IS lens.
There's no doubt about the 50-500 being a sharp lens, if a little hefty - but then they both are!
The other option I'd consider is the Canon 400mm f5,6 - it's non IS but easier to hand hold and is a tad sharper. You still have the same problem though as regards using the 1.4x - it does autofocus but very slowly. It's okay for static birds but a shot similar to Paul's Red Kite would be very hard to emulate using manual focus.
I have the Canon 100-400 which is a great lens on it's own but adding the 1.4x does turn it into manual focus and softer results. The IS counts for a lot on average days, though on bright days it gives less of an advantage over a non-IS lens.
There's no doubt about the 50-500 being a sharp lens, if a little hefty - but then they both are!
The other option I'd consider is the Canon 400mm f5,6 - it's non IS but easier to hand hold and is a tad sharper. You still have the same problem though as regards using the 1.4x - it does autofocus but very slowly. It's okay for static birds but a shot similar to Paul's Red Kite would be very hard to emulate using manual focus.
redshift
Toad Popper
IanF said:
Having owned and sold an IS lens, I really cannot see the point for birding. Birds move, wind flutters feathers, these are sports action shots and a fast shutter time is almost always essential for sharp photographs. IS gets rid of your hand tremor but it does not freeze the bird.
While IS isn't the perfect solution for all low light situations, it is VERY useful for bird photography.
IanF
Moderator
I'm not sure I understand your thinking on this. If you've got shaky hands holding the camera and a moving bird albeit it slightly - then surely by using IS to remove the hand holding shakiness you only then have to concentrate on the movement of the bird?redshift said:
IS isn't meant to control the movement of the subject - just the camera itself.
Personally I find IS a boon for normal/low light conidtions to give a higher number of keeper shots. It also helps with panning flight shots helping with smooth lateral movement dampening any vertical camera movement.
redshift
Toad Popper
IanF said:
I'm equally baffled by your thinking! (You think you can track a flying bird at a low shutter speed well enough to get rid of blur?!) But then we all have different expectations / ways in which we use the optics. To sacrifice optical quality for a technological fix seems wrong to me. If the 400mm F5.6L had IS as a bonus, believe me, I'd take it like a flash, but I would die rather than trade the non-IS fixed lens for the zoom with IS.
DICKER said:
Dicker,
Please read my latest response in your other thread.
If these are the only 2 choices, I'd suggest the 100-400 ISL. I loved my Bigma, but the AF wasn't very fast, it didn't have IS, was heavy, was softer from 400mms on out and the "extra" 100mms is closer to an extra 65mms (465mm at full zoom). Neither of these will work well with a 1.4 TC. You may be able to coax the AF into getting you some decent shots of sitting/perched subjects under great light, but that's about it. I have viewed many thousand bird-in-flight images (shot by others) and I have never seen even 1 decent BIF shot taken with any of the zooms, you have mentioned, with a TC attached. I've gotten some "sitting ducks" using a 1.4X TC on the Bigma, but never a flier :-(
The 5D gives you more room to crop, but zoom or prime, most of your zooming will be done using your feet no matter which of these lenses you choose
Steve
Just to add to the mix, no one has mentioned the prime 300mm 4L. With 20d and 1.4 extender the zoom extends way past 500m then the lens becomes 5.6L and keeps AF IS and is pretty compact.....any comments please since 300mm is rarely mentioned as an option but surely based on spec this seems to be quite a good option as a walk around with reach!!
