Taking the plunge - Superzoom to DSLR (4 Viewers)

[Macswede]

I’m finally taking the plunge and buying a digital DSLR. My wife’s currently in the process of starting a company and, figuring money might be tight for a while, I had decided to upgrade my Panasonic DMC FZ-20 to an FZ-50 but when I informed the wife she wasn’t as pleased as I thought she would be. “But you’ve been going on about buying a DSLR for years”, was her response – a definite exaggeration by the way – “What’s the point of buying another superzoom and then selling it in a year at most?” So it’s a question of striking while the iron is hot – or at any rate while there is still money in the bank account and before my wife changes her mind.

I had thought deciding which equipment to buy would be easy; after all I’ve read any number of threads in the forums at Bird forum but such is not the case. Actually the camera part is relatively easy. I’ve pretty much decided to opt for a Canon 400D. The 30D is very much more expensive in Sweden and so is the Pentax 10D, another model I was considering.

It’s which lens to get that’s the problem. Obviously I don’t want a lens that gives me less reach than the set-up I already have – FZ-20 and TCON-17 teleconverter. That, and the prohibitive cost of Canon lenses, means I’m thinking of a Sigma or a Tamron, a zoom rather than a prime lens as that would be cheaper and more flexible.
So the first question is whether to go for a 400 mm zoom with a 1.4 x teleconverter or a 500mm zoom.

Doc’s fantastic images and his advocacy of the Tamron 200-500mm make that lens seem tempting, especially as I really want something I can hand-hold at least some of the time, but then Doc is a wonderful photographer who lives in sunny Israel while I am a relative novice who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden. Plus I won’t be able to use it with a teleconverter.

A Sigma 400mm could be combined with a teleconverter (preferably one that doesn’t involve taping pins) but which one?
The cheapest I can find is the Sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO at 5,762kr.
I understand the Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 is a better lens but it should be as it costs 1,2254kr. Is it that much better?
I can get a Canon EF 100-400mm / 4.5-5.6L IS for 15,694. Would that be better value? Or what about a Canon EF 400mm / 5.6L USM for 12,588. Seems not bad for a prime lens.
Sorry the prices are in Swedish Currency but the relative costs are fairly clear I think.

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

 

[tjsimonsen]

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

Hi Graham,

Having lived in both Sweden and Denmark myself, I would say the IS would be worth the extra cost unless you plan to carry at least a monopod most of the time. Of the lenses you mention, only the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon 100-400 have IS. That said, I know of Danes who get good results with the Tamron 200-500 or the Sigma 50-500.
I don't know that much about the Sigma 135-400, but based on the naked stats, it seems to be relatively good if not quite up to the standard of the four lenses mentioned above. But then again, it comes at a much lower cost.

Thomas

 

[Leicaman]

Another possible camera you could consider is the Sony alpha 100. It isn't much more than the Canon 400D in the UK and has image stabilisation via the sensor so evry lens connected would have image stabilisation.

 

[Macswede]

Another possible camera you could consider is the Sony alpha 100. It isn't much more than the Canon 400D in the UK and has image stabilisation via the sensor so evry lens connected would have image stabilisation.

There are some good packages available for the Sony:
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 (inkl. 18-70mm Af lensand 75-300mm lens) 9,098kr

I've heard there are noise issues but I've seen some good results.
Graham

 

[gmax]

Hi Graham,

many questions indeed ... you'll likely make this thread tremble for some time ... different armies are preparing their weapons

My beginner's contribute: I have the Tamron 200-500, and I'm not as good a photographer a Doc is nor I shoot mainly in sunny times, nevertheless this lens is great (excellent in good light), good enough sharpness (not so much if you use it with a TC), easy to handhold and quite cheap (when compared to other zooms); does not have stabilization, but I don't miss it. It is said to be better than the Sigma zooms (170-500 AND 50-500) in terms of sharpness, and has a longer range than the 135-400 and the 80-400, but does not have stabilization as the 80-400.

I guess the Sigma 135-400 and the Sigma 170-500 are at a lower overall quality level than the Tamron 200-500 or the Sigma 50-500 (which is heavier than the previous one): these two are the best bets among third party zooms.

The Canon zoom is an excellent lens, very sharp and portable, but more expensive [homework: you BF members add your comments here ....]
The Canon 400mm prime is my favourite lens (cheaper than the Canon zoom ), great(er) sharpness (sorry K.), works quite well with a 1.4x TC on in good light

In your shoes I would make my choice in terms of

1. range: 400mm can be short sometimes: much depends on your main kind of environment and birding spots; that said, a *-500mm zoom has usually a better image quality than a *-400 zoom+TC
2. max aperture: assuming you shoot mainly at the long end of a zoom (400 or 500mm), you'll find yourself operating between f/5.6 and f/6.3 (more if you plan to use a TC)
3. "handholdability": do you plan to use a tripod or mainly handhold your lens? If you mainly handhold it, then stabilization may be of some help
4. flexibility: obviously a zoom is more flexible than a prime
5. price (and availability): for example you can buy a good third party zoom, then save for a longer prime (at the end, it's what everybody would like to do )
6. Image quality/sharpness: primes should be better

My answers (items are ordered from top to bottom):

1. a *-500 zoom > Tamron 200-500; a 400 prime + 1.4xTC
2. a 400 prime > Canon; Canon 100-400 or Sigma 80-400
3. Canon 400m or Canon 100-400, Tamron 200-500
4. Canon 100-400; Sigma 80-400
5. Tamron 200-500, Canon 400mm, Canon 100-400
6. Canon 400, Canon 100-400, Tamron 200-500, Sigma 50-500

Just my thoughts, I hope not to have increased your doubts
Cheers,
Max

 

[IanF]

For me the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm are the best lenses of the selections mentioned. I'd be very wary of adding a teleconverter to any zoom lens as results are generally very soft.

Camera bodies come and go, but lenses last a lifetime so it's well worth buying the best you can afford. The Canon 400D is very well specified and seems to be a very good performer from the results I've seen in the Gallery.

If primarily for birding then the Canon 400mm f5,6 is the sharpest of the bunch mentioned. Short of buying a 500mm or 600mm prime lens I've not seen a better lens. I't's great value for money, compact and fairly light to carry - a boon when used on a smaller body like the 400D. There's next to no loss in quality when using it with a teleconverter as well. On bright days it's easy enough to hand hold, but when it's a bit duller then I use it with a monopod.

If you're after more of an all round lens that is very good quality then the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 is very good indeed. I find it's very good for macro as well as for bird photos. The IS is a real boon.

 

[bkrownd]

Camera bodies come and go, but lenses last a lifetime so it's well worth buying the best you can afford.

I'm not too sure about this. The clunky oversized DSLR format has to give way to something much more compact and portable as technology improves. A more compact body will have a more compact mount, and offer more compact lenses. Then you'll want to dump the DSLR albatross. Ah, technology...

Nevertheless, if you're going to put $1500 into a camera, why not just make it $2000 and get what you really wanted? Don't skimp...just don't go overboard.

 

[Macswede]

Just my thoughts, I hope not to have increased your doubts
Cheers,
Max

Don't know about increasing my doubts but you've expressed yourself a lot more clearly than I think I did and given me a great deal to think about.
Thanks a million!
Graham

 

[Macswede]

Having lived in both Sweden and Denmark myself, I would say the IS would be worth the extra cost unless you plan to carry at least a monopod most of the time.
Thomas

This is definitely something I have to consider. The great thing about the FZ-20 was that I could carry the camera and my bins and the scope on a tripod, especially if the wife was there to help.. On the other hand I could just buy an extra quick release for the Manfrotto and switch from scope to camera...
Graham

 

[Macswede]

For me the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm are the best lenses of the selections mentioned. I'd be very wary of adding a teleconverter to any zoom lens as results are generally very soft.

If you're after more of an all round lens that is very good quality then the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 is very good indeed. I find it's very good for macro as well as for bird photos. The IS is a real boon.

Thanks, Ian,
You've always given me good advice in the past so I'll think very carefully about what you have to say now.
Graham

 

[Macswede]

Nevertheless, if you're going to put $1500 into a camera, why not just make it $2000 and get what you really wanted? Don't skimp...just don't go overboard.

I'm not sure how the technology will develop but I agree with you here. I'm not out to spend a fortune (can't afford it anyway) but if I can get something a lot better by spending a bit more I don't mind doing that.
Graham

 

[Keith Reeder]

great(er) sharpness (sorry K.),

No need to apologise, Max.

Just show me some proof..!



Graham,

I own a Sigma 135-400mm, Sigma 80-400mm OS and the Canon 100-400mm IS.

Without any doubt, if I was in the market for a lens in the 400mm range right now, and based on the rather substantial amount of research and effort I put into making my decisions, I'd have the 100-400mm in an instant over any other lens mentioned in this thread.

It's versatile, sharp as a very sharp thing, with great colour and contrast; it has a good minimum focus range of 1.8m, and of course it covers a good range of focal lengths.

Then there's the IS...

There's no doubt that every lens mentioned above can provide great pictures in the right hands, but I haven't once regretted buying the 100-400mm or found myself wishing that I'd bought something else instead.

I intend to keep mine even when I finally upgrade to a Canon 300mm f/2.8.

 

[Macswede]

I discovered the Canon prime that seemed suspiciously cheap (EF 400mm f/5.6L USM) doesn't have IS so I have prepared 2 packages based on everything that I've been told.

1:
Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 (inkl. 18-70mm Af lensand 75-300mm lens) 9,098kr
Tamron 200-500mm 9699kr
Total: 18,883kr (£1,363)
Interestingly a fairly respectable photo shopping site in Sweden claims that one of the best things about the Tamron is that it can be used with a Soligor 1,4 x teleconverter while admitting that this setup would require a great deal of light.

2:
Canon 400D 6,394kr
Canon EF 100-400mm / 4,5-5,6L IS 15,626 kr
Total: 21,016kr (£1,517)
Would it be possible (or more importantly advisable) to use a 1.4 teleconverter with this setup?

What do you think? Have I misunderstood everything you've all told me or have I come up with something interesting?

Graham

 

[bkrownd]

If you're going to consider the Sony, you might as well consider the Pentax too.

 

[Macswede]

If you're going to consider the Sony, you might as well consider the Pentax too.

Had a look at prices for the 10D but couldn't find anything under 7,7791kr (£562). The Sony admittedly cost 9,183kr but that was with 2 lenses, 18-70 + 75-300. The Pentax is worth considering but does it have inbuilt IS and is there a compatible version of the Tamron that would fit it?
Graham

 

[destombe]

Or what about a Canon EF 400mm / 5.6L USM for 12,588. Seems not bad for a prime lens.
Sorry the prices are in Swedish Currency but the relative costs are fairly clear I think.

Is it easier or harder to hand-hold a Tamron 200-500mm, a Sigma 135-400mm or a Sigma 80-400mm?

Then there is the matter of image stabilisation, something I’ve got used to on the FZ-20. Do any of these lenses have it? I know the camera body doesn’t. Or is IS less important with a DSLR?

I know there are lots of threads dealing with some of these issues – I’ve read many of them – but If anyone feels like taking the time to point me in the right direction I’d be really grateful.:stuck:

Graham

I use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L without IS but I almost always use a tripod. The lens is not so heavy, that is an important thing sooner or later.

Here are some examples: http://www.destombe.nl/xmasbirds/

Louis

 

[impotentspider]

Graham,

Have you considered Importing the Pentax from the UK? I got my K10D and Sigma 50-500 and 2gig card for just short of £1600 (incl. P&P)

The Canon 400 is a nice bit of kit but the Pentax Shake Reduction and the sheer number of extra features makes the K10D a far better buy, not forgetting the pro spec build quality. Plus you have the ability to use almost every Pentax K mount lens ever made, there are some suberb KA mount optics that will function fully with the K10 (if you dont mind focusing manually) and most can be had for peanuts compared to the cost of new lenses. Though sadly a 600mm Pentax KA will still cost you more than £1500+ second hand........
There are even some very reasonably priced 300mm AF zooms available.

Quick Edit.....
PS; the Sigma 50-500 is a beast of a lens, IMHO you would need to use it with at least a monopod for support, alternatively you could try the 175-500 and have change to buy the K10D with the 18-55 kit lens.

 

[bkrownd]

Had a look at prices for the 10D but couldn't find anything under 7,7791kr (£562). The Sony admittedly cost 9,183kr but that was with 2 lenses, 18-70 + 75-300. The Pentax is worth considering but does it have inbuilt IS and is there a compatible version of the Tamron that would fit it?

The K10D and K100D have the same kind of sensor IS as the Sony. I'm not sure that the Tamron 200-500 comes in a Pentax mount. The Sigma 170-500 and 50-500 seem like the logical parings for the Pentax, or the 135-400 if you need it to be lighter.

Doesn't the Canon 100-400 have a USM focus motor? The Pentax and Sony would lack that, if it matters to you.

 

[paul goode]

Hi Graham,

I've pulled one line out of your original post:

'who lives in dark and dismal (at least during the winter months) Sweden.'

Unless you want a summer only hobby I think that a body that can handle high ISO noise is essential and, quite simply, thats the Canon. Matching that with a lens with a USM/HSM motor should give you the best chance of keeping shooting throught the winter. Lens choice is personal but go for the fast AF provided by those motors.

I don't know if you can get the magazine but the March 2007 issue of Photography Monthly has a large group test of DSLR's, in which the Canon comes out top, and lots of advice for first time DSLR users.

My other thought is to do with residual values. Canon kit holds its value, especially the 'L' lenses. Haven't got a clue on the Tamron but secondhand Sigma lenses are cheap. Buy one new and you'll lose loads of money when you upgrade. If you do want a Sigma I'd look out for one secondhand. I did with my 500mm f4.5 and got a bargain but buying one new would leave a bad taste if you saw what it was worth a year later. And that is the voice of experience from buying and selling a 50-500.

All the best

Paul

 

[Macswede]

I use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L without IS but I almost always use a tripod. The lens is not so heavy, that is an important thing sooner or later.

Here are some examples: http://www.destombe.nl/xmasbirds/

Louis

Your pictures are really astonishingly good. Really professional and inspiring! It was a real pleasure to look at them.
I intend to buy a monopod and will use a tripod at least some of the time. I imagine the light situation in Arizona is different from that in Sweden but do you have any examples of pictures taken ewith a handheld camera?
Graham