Long lens choice?

[Slartibartfast]

Hi,

A good few years ago I sold my 300mm f4 IS lens as I just didn't use it enough......

But now I've changed my mind! I need somthing longer than I have as I miss wildlife. (current longest is 70-200 f4)

I like the 300mm + ish length, and I'm looking a couple of options, but both have pro's and con's so would love your input!!

Option One - Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS L
Good quility lens with a nice zoom. Not the best aperture though. (would buy new)

Option Two - Sigma 300mm EX DG APO 2.8
Great aperture, and length. Can be used with 1.4 converter for 420mm 4 or with 2x for 600mm 5.6 keeping AF. (this one would have to be s/hand)

I'm not sure - go for the IS or large aperture? Zoom range or converter option but have to change more often?

Main wildlife would be mammals (foxes/deer/seals etc) rather than birds.

I'm leaning towards the 300mm - but not sure as this will be a once in a lifetime purchase!

[Bawbee]

Sam,

I think that you have already made your decision with the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 - it is probably the best decision for you and for the reasons that you state. Go for it

[TimF]

Have you considered re-buying the 300/4? I'd lean towards the 2.8 prime lens too, but as I'm sure you know they're heavy beasts so be sure before splashing the cash.

[Slartibartfast]

I did think about the 300/4 again, but would like the option of the extra reach - and with a 1.4 converter on I'd get a 420/5.6 so might as well go for the 100-400 in that case?

I'm sure that it's going t spend most of it's time on top of a tripod or monopod and my 70-200 is still going to get the most use when I'm out and about.

Yep - going to be the 300/2.8, I know it comes down to what I think - but glad no one seems to think either would be a daft choice

[Muffin]

I finally bought the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime. It is a superb lens and I use it mainly on a Manfrotto tripod plus gimbal. I needed a 'walk about' as well so I got rid of my Canon 70-200mm zoom and added a Canon 70-200mm IS zoom. This will take a 1.4TC and I have another superb lens which has an effective zoom of 157-448mm on the 7D AND can be easily handheld. The IS works very well. I have managed to get some good shots of wildlife not to mention the cats! The 7D produces incredible results with this lens even at 3200 ISO.

[daft_biker]

The 300/2.8 a daft choice? Nah but it would be daft's choice

[MickLL]

The 300/2.8 a daft choice? Nah but it would be daft's choice

Me too. I've always coveted one and I was lucky enough to be given one a while back (there's a thread about it somewhere).

The only downside as far as I'm concerned is the bulk and weight - it's very heavy. It also requires a tripod most of the time but as I almost always use a tripod that's not a 'down' for me.

MickLL

[OneTen]

My choice would be between the Canon 300/4 with 1.4x and 400/5.6. I have the 400 and it is superb, very fast focussing and tack sharp. Here's an example:



I'd be just as happy with the 300/4 and 1.4x combo as it's a bit more versatile for general photography. For wildlife I rarely need a shorter focal length.

[Hotblack]

Yep - going to be the 300/2.8, I know it comes down to what I think - but glad no one seems to think either would be a daft choice

I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. I know it's not the same but I just wanted to point out that with the 1.4xTC it's still excellent. With a 2xTC quality is compromised quite a bit and images can be very soft.

[Slartibartfast]

I was looking at the 100-300/2.8 before too!

With a 2xTC quality is compromised quite a bit and images can be very soft.

Yer - I think I've proberbly been thinking numbers too much, not end result with a 2X converter - will be starting off with lens and 1.4 converter.

I'm still going to have to wait a couple of months before it get my mits on one, but really looking forward to it

[Muffin]

How did you manage to capture that raptor shot? It is most excellent. I am hoping to get similar shots but it would mean taking myself off into the country somewhere carrying my 'hide' plus a tripod! The 400mm f5.6 is a first rate lens.

[OneTen]

How did you manage to capture that raptor shot? It is most excellent. I am hoping to get similar shots but it would mean taking myself off into the country somewhere carrying my 'hide' plus a tripod! The 400mm f5.6 is a first rate lens.

Not in the countryside and no hide required. I had seen the bird several times, perched on telegraph poles on the road past Fleetwood tip at around 4:00pm. I returned at the right time and when the light was good, parked up and waited and sure enough it turned up again. I drove past the pole it was on, carefully got out of the Land Rover. I took a shot of it perched, it then took off and this was the second shot of a sequence of three.

[Muffin]

Your bird shots are ace and I am most impressed. I have a fairly large garden and I do get quite a few photo opportunities but I would like to capture pix of large raptors and I think this may mean going somewhere and taking all the kit. I did buy a hide - made in China - but very well done for about £89. It has two seats and is rain proof - hopefully.

I was hoping that I could maybe get my 400mm f5.6 and 7D in there! The lens really is very good - did you hand hold your shot of the hawk? I seem to be stuck with a Manfrotto tripod and gimbal to use mine.

[OneTen]

I tend to hand hold the 7D and 400 most of the time for birds in flight. For more static subjects I use a monopod.

For best results photographing raptors from a hide I'd be looking at using bait on a regular basis.

[Rustyknight]

Do you ever use a tele-converter Richard?

I'm thinking about getting the 400mm 5.6 for wildlife, as the Bigma can be very soft at the long end (which apparently does not go to the full 500mm, but just 465mm).

Allegedly, there's a Kenko 1.4 tele-converter that will maintain autofocus with the 400mm, but I'm still looking into the finer details.

[Muffin]

My experience with the 400mm Canon would suggest that any TC is a no-no. My 1.4TC didn't work and the images I managed to get were poor.

One answer is the 70-200mm IS Canon. It takes a 1.4TC very well and can be hand held quite easily. On my 7D the 70-200 plus the 1.4TC operates as a 448mm lens at the long end and that is quite good for hand held. The 400mm on the 7D is a 640mm without the TC.

[Muffin]

Bait could be a good idea and then maybe I could just use the hide in my garden! Unfortunately we suffer from pigeons but they might attract the hawks!

Your shot of the hawk in flight was a once in a life time shot and everything came together. The 7D is a good camera!

[El_Sid]

Do you ever use a tele-converter Richard?

I'm thinking about getting the 400mm 5.6 for wildlife, as the Bigma can be very soft at the long end (which apparently does not go to the full 500mm, but just 465mm).

Allegedly, there's a Kenko 1.4 tele-converter that will maintain autofocus with the 400mm, but I'm still looking into the finer details.

The Canon extenders report the effective aperture to the body so with the 1.4x unit the effective aperture is f8 - if you have a normal Canon body that's requires apertures of f5.6 or better for the AF to work then the AF is disabled. The advantage with Kenko and similar 3rd party units is that they pass the lens aperture on without alteration which means the camera still reads the aperture as f5.6 even though the effective value is f8 so the AF system is not disabled.

I have used a 2x Teleplus on my 70-210 f4 with my 20D and it did focus albeit a bit slowly - paricularly in low contrast lighting. Even a 5.6 lens tried to focus though it never actually succeeded...

[Rustyknight]

The 7D is a good camera!

I'd agree with that. Even with the softness at the long end of the Bigma, being able to push the ISO is giving me far better results than when using the 30D..... especially considering the time of year and dull light.

[OneTen]

Do you ever use a tele-converter Richard?

Yes and no to be honest. I had both the Canon 1.4 and 2x converters but sold them both when I was out of work. I didn't like the image quality produced by the 2x converter and working at f/11 is rather restricting for wildlife especially. The 1.4x is a different story as the drop in image quality in my experience is negligible. As you lose AF with with any combination above f/5.6 on non-1 series bodies which can be an issue for some subjects. However, I happily use the 400 with a 1.4x (giving an f/8 lens) for static subjects and manually focus. Here's an example of a heavily cropped image from a 40D with 400 f/5.6 and 1.4x converter:



My choice was a compromise or no image at all.