What Canon lens to buy

[ceflin]

I am into wildlife photography, but currently use the cheaper Sigma telephoto & zoom lenses. I want to invest in a Canon lens and have decided on either the 400mm f5.6 USM lens or the 100-400mm zoom f4.5/5.6 USM. Could some one tell me which one of these would be the best and I want to use it with the 1.4 converter. My budget for the lens is around £1000.
Cheers.

[Malcolm_Stewart]

The Eos 3 (film SLR) and 1 series bodies will AF down to a working aperture of f8, other Canon bodies are limited to f5.6. So, unless you have a 1 series body, you will not be able to AF reliably with your 1.4x extender on the EF 400 f5.6L, which will look like an f8 lens. I don't have the zoom, but do have the EF 400 f5.6L, and I'd recommend it for wildlife and nature. It does have a very good reputation.

(Taping some of the pins, so that the reduced aperture isn't reported to the camera, may allow AF but it's not a reliable technique.)

Whichever lens you buy, expect to need plenty of practice.

[beejaybee]

Could some one tell me which one of these would be the best

The 400/5.6 is significantly better than the 100-400 used at 400mm. OTOH if 400mm is too much, the zoom lens is better because you have the choice.

I don't like the handling of the 100-400 "trombone" zoom but this may be personal. But at least it has image stabilization, the 400/5.6 doesn't. A moot point if you're only intending to use on a tripod, though.

I want to use it with the 1.4 converter.

You're going to lose autofocus - unless you have a 1D variant, autofocus doesn't work with lenses slower than f/5.6, and the lenses you list are f/8 with the 1.4x extender fitted.

Suggestion - 300 f/4 + 1.4x extender - this gives you more flexibility, keeps autofocus and still gets you 400mm f/5.6 capability. It's image stabilized, too.

[bench_ubbster]

I hired both of these lenses from Lensesforhire and I would recommend doing just that before splashing out that amount of dosh. To me both lenses have pros & cons. The 400mm was very sharp but obviously lacked IS and the versatility of zoom. The 100-400mm seemed to fire dust at my sensor and mirror, but I found the handling OK (it's been described as a Marmite lens). If it was my money I think I would go for the zoom as I seemed to get on better with it, but then only having the lenses for a week I don't think I got the best out of the 400mm in that time.

What Sigma are you currently using? I've seen good reviews for the 150-500mm OS and the 100-300 f4 has a good reputation and would take a 1.4x extender without any focusing issues.

[Wheelu]

What Sigma are you currently using? I've seen good reviews for the 150-500mm OS and the 100-300 f4 has a good reputation and would take a 1.4x extender without any focusing issues.

I have the 100-300 f4 Sigma and it's a fine lens for the money, but it is at its weakest at the 300 end, and, used with a 1.4 x converter, is less than impressive. I would not rely on that combination.

[ceflin]

Thanks for the suggestion, I am going to add the 300mm to my options.

[Straightarm]

Why does it have to be a Canon lens?

Sigma make a couple of nice zooms that reach 500mm;

a 150-500mm

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens.../150-500mm.htm

and a 50-500mm

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens...m/50-500mm.htm

[OneTen]

I have the 400mm f/5.6 and I've been delighted with it for shooting wildlife. It's incredibly sharp and fast focussing, light enough to carry in the field and lack of IS isn't an issue. I use it with a 1.4x converter on a 40D even though it won't AF. The drop in quality is hardly noticeable, unlike adding the 2x converter.

I've seen some great results from both this and the 100-400 and I guess it comes down to personal preference. I don't often think I wish this lens was a little shorter focal length, quite the opposite, I usally still need to crop.

[Straightarm]

The 400/5.6 is significantly better than the 100-400 used at 400mm.

Please produce evidence to support this claim

[OneTen]

The 400/5.6 is significantly better than the 100-400 used at 400mm.

Please produce evidence to support this claim

There are many tests comparing these two, here's one of them: Clicky

[AGW]

I love the fact that this review is so old ("the new 10D")but still relevent! As is the plea for Canon to get their backsides in gear and bring out the IS version!

Graeme

[daft_biker]

Can remember some crops from the 100-400mm on a 50D were posted on here a wee while back...they were terrible. Suspect it would be difficult to find an even poorer quality L lens I know which side of the fence I sit with that lens after seeing how much better the 50mm f/1.4 was on the same body!

The 400mm f/5.6 on the other hand....very tempting

[Malcolm_Stewart]

Why does it have to be a Canon lens?

Sigma make a couple of nice zooms that reach 500mm;

a 150-500mm

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens.../150-500mm.htm

and a 50-500mm

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens...m/50-500mm.htm

Hmmm.

Neither of the above are f5.6 at the long end. They may cheat by reporting f5.6 to the camera, but that doesn't sort the physics of the AF system which needs f5.6 on the non-1 series bodies.

Having used a cheating Sigma, it does make a difference, and I've now invested in Canon long teles.