Getting to 500mm - help!

Printable View

05-09-2012, 01:34 AM
thekingb

Getting to 500mm - help!
Looking for some forum wisdom here....

Summer is closing in again. I desperately want to get to 500mm, which I experienced yet again a few weeks ago at Horicon Marsh in Wisconsin -- a place teeming with birds, waterfowl and other wildlife. While you can get close enough to the wildlife to view and enjoy, most everything interesting was out of the comfortable range of my 70-300L. Sure, I can crop in, but in doing so I lose detail, sharpness, etc.

A 500mm lens would have changed everything.

The Canon 500 f/4 (mark I or II) is out of the question unless money falls out of the sky into my pocket. So what's a guy to do?

Best I can tell, here are my options, none of which I particularly like:
- Sigma 50-500 (apparently soft at the long end)
- Sigma 150-500 (I really want to like this lens, but many reviews say it's very soft past 350mm)
- Tamron 200-500 (no IS and soft at the long end)
- Canon 100-400 (older lens and IS, and 100mm short unless you add an extender and lose AF)
- Canon 400 f/5.6 (no IS and see Canon 100-400)
Am I missing anything? What's your advice? Am I stuck with the Canon 400mm options?

As a related question, I know that I would generally need a shutter of at least 1/800s with the Canon 400 f/5.6 because it has no IS. How would using a monopod change things? I have one but almost never use it. How much could I save in shutter speed by using it?

Thanks in advance,
Brian
05-09-2012, 02:04 AM
HDNitehawk

My second choice after the 500mm is the original 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x. Still takes allot of money falling out of the sky, just not as much, maybe 2 grand less.

I would stick with the canon choices. My first 400mm was the 100-400mm, it is a good lens and I eventually traded up to the 500mm. Since you already have the 70-300L and money was limited I would go with the 400mm F/5.6. The reason is that with the 100-400mm I know I wouldn't have it on as a walk around if I owned the 70-300L, the IQ would push me to taking it off.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0
05-09-2012, 02:20 AM
thekingb

Thanks HD. I briefly owned the 100-400 but got a bad copy and returned it. I ended up with the 70-300L and really love its combo of great IQ, great IS and great zoom range. It spends a lot of time on my camera outside of the winter months. But those birds....

I've come close to pulling the trigger on the 400 f/5.6 a few times. The lack of IS has been the issue. It's not 500mm, but it might be the best option....
05-09-2012, 02:30 AM
ddt0725

Hi Brian -

I know absolutely nothing about the 500mm lenses you mention above but as you know, I have been to Horicon Marsh a few times over the last few months. I used my 100-400mm and I didn't have as many keepers as I would have liked! Some worked ok as more of a landscape shot with a bird in the distance if you know what I mean. A few worked out with the cropping not doing to much damage. If you are hoping to get some decent shots of that middle section on I think it's Dike Road, that will be difficult with a 400mm lens.

This shot is slightly cropped I think taken on a very foggy morning but you get the idea of how far the GBH still is with the 400mm ...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7200/7...4e9b322a_z.jpg
Just me & nature on a early foggy morning by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

This one is cropped alot more ...

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6176/6...fd8be775_z.jpg
IMG_4248 by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

You can take a look at my flickr site if you want for more shots taken there. The 400mm length works well for the birds on the road & in the trees.

I have tried a 1.4x II on my 100-400mm and shots weren't too bad, I just couldn't adapt to MF quickly enough before the bird was gone.

I'm very interested what others have to say about the 500mm lenses listed above and in what you decide. I have thought of ditching my 100-400mm every time after leaving the marsh and getting a 500mm but as you, I couldn't decide on which less expensive one to get.

Good luck with your decision!

Denise
05-09-2012, 02:42 AM
HDNitehawk

For me, I want the best IQ I can possibly get. I shake like a tree in the wind (maybe an over exaggeration), at least with the 400mm F/5.6 I would know my limitations and find other crutches to compensate for the lack of IS. Maybe I would have less keepers because I shake, but I would rather have fewer picks with the higher IQ.

It sounds like you have a handle on what to expect of both lenses.
05-09-2012, 02:47 AM
HDNitehawk

Denise

I have been reading the reviews on the Sigma and Tamron's that were listed for years. I have never read one that was very stellar. The only positive I have heard is that they get you to 500mm. It would be interesting to see side by side comparisons.

Rick
05-09-2012, 03:27 AM
thekingb

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Some worked ok as more of a landscape shot with a bird in the distance if you know what I mean.

Denise

Tell me about it! This GBH is cropped in to 5.4mp and taken at the DNR site.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5200/7...2a602173_c.jpg
photo by thekingb, on Flickr

At the north end there's a car loop with places to get out with lots of ducks, and they're within reach of a 500mm lens. At 300mm they're good "documentary" shots but nothing that you'd frame.
05-09-2012, 05:54 AM
JJphoto

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekingb

I've come close to pulling the trigger on the 400 f/5.6 a few times. The lack of IS has been the issue. It's not 500mm, but it might be the best option....

the 400mm 5.6 is a very good bird/wild life lens to begin with, I have seen a lots of fantastic shots taken with it(including Nate's bird shots)on the internet. is IS that important for you( sounds like a deal breaker)?, you may ask Joel, Nate or other birders how often they use their IS, my self almost never use the IS, I use tripod or just simply choose faster shutter speed or higher ISO, not a big deal without it.
ok, what about 300mm 4.0 IS +1.4TC if you have to have IS and still AF on non 1D body
or, get a 600mm or 800 mm without AF
most important, having fun instead of getting frustrated because of the limitation of your lens( sorry, coz I often get frustrated;))
05-09-2012, 07:45 AM
Dr Croubie

http://bnail.net/photo/daily/Lens-TOZ-500-camera.jpg
500mm f/3.5 fast enough to make up for Manual Focus and no IS?
If you could find one, you'd probably get a few for the price of a 400/5.6 and 1.4x extender... :rolleyes:

Otherwise, i've got a 7D with 70-300L, Kenko 1.4x TC and a katz-eye screen for MF, it doesn't make such a bad combo, even if you lose AF you still get IS
05-09-2012, 09:04 AM
qwRad

I'm extremely interested in this topic also. There was a rumor about a Sigma 500mm with OS on canonrumors.com but I guess that didn't pan out.

Here are some pretty good results with the mentioned Sigma zooms:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/expl...robert-otoole/
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/lens...6-3-dg-os-hsm/
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/the-...o’toole/

Okay I know they are not exactly non-biased critical reviews since he promotes Sigma stuff but he has some great images in his blog with those lenses nevertheless: http://www.robertotoole.com/

I have owned the Sigma 120-400mm OS but eventually I sold it to fund the 7D. It was pretty good and I got some nice results with it but I was just starting this hobby with a 450D so my experience and expectations were not that high and I hadn't become infected with the L bug yet.. :D

The Tamron could fit nicely after my 70-200 f/2.8 II (not IQ-wise though probably) but the lack of IS is a deal breaker for me on long lenses. I'm just so used to the smooth and stable viewfinder image that I can't imagine myself shooting with one that jumps all over the place at the slightest movement of my shaky hands :) Maybe with enough practice...

And the 100-400mm L IS really isn't an option because of the reasons the OP mentioned. Maybe if Canon releases the rumored updated version with better IS and full weather sealing. Instead of that I would probably get the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS + 1.4x which is great IQ and OS-wise (from what I've read and by some testing at the store) but a bit heavy and for the OP (and me) it would be too short compared to the lenses we already have and for the ones we are longing for.

I wish Sigma would make the rumored 500m f/4 with OS and 120-300mm OS like IQ for around 3-5k. Or even better a 500mm OS f/5.6 for less...
05-09-2012, 12:19 PM
thekingb

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJphoto

most important, having fun instead of getting frustrated because of the limitation of your lens( sorry, coz I often get frustrated;))

That's very good advice. It's too easy to get stuck in a cycle of want want want when it comes to lenses...

Doc- nice setup there! I'll keep my eyes open for one of those monsters!

Q- the 300 + tc has also intruiged me, except that Bryan's review pretty clearly gives the IQ edge to the 400. But that was with the mark II tc. Anyone use the mark III tc with the 300 f/4?
05-09-2012, 01:09 PM
HDNitehawk

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

Bryan has the chart for it. The 300mm F/4 with the 1.4x III is not as good. Since you have the 70-300mm L I don't think it would be a good option.
05-09-2012, 01:12 PM
HDNitehawk

The 300mm F/4 could be a good option over the 100-400mm IS though, the 300mm with the 1.4x shows to be better in the corners and midframe.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=7&APIComp=0
05-09-2012, 01:16 PM
jrw

With regards to the option of using one of the 300's with TCs to get the reach. Having both of them I can say the f2.8 Vii plays much better with the 2x TC than the f4 does with the 1.4x TC. I am finding that when stopped down to f8 or more, that there is only a small amount of CA and distortion which limits the extreme cropping options.

It may be out of your preferred budget range, but has anyone heard anything about the 200-400 f4 with 1.4x TC built in?
05-09-2012, 01:22 PM
HDNitehawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrw

It may be out of your preferred budget range, but has anyone heard anything about the 200-400 f4 with 1.4x TC built in?

If you are referring to Canon's version of this lens yes we have heard about it. It is a fantasy lens that Canon announced back when they announced the 500mm II and 600mm II. So far there is no release date, no preorder and for all we know it was just a (badly timed) April fools joke from Canon. Also it is probably going to be a $12,000 lens (just my guess).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
05-09-2012, 02:50 PM
JJphoto

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

Bryan has the chart for it. The 300mm F/4 with the 1.4x III is not as good. Since you have the 70-300mm L I don't think it would be a good option.

for 70-300mmL, you will lose AF at 300mm with the TC.
05-09-2012, 04:14 PM
HDNitehawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJphoto

for 70-300mmL, you will lose AF at 300mm with the TC.

I was actually referring to the 300mm with the 1.4x III not being as good as the 400mm F/5.6. What I meant to say about the 70-300mm L is he has 300mm covered, in that regard the idea doesn't make sense as he is duplicating the reach he already has. I don't think the 70-300mm L with a 1.4x would be a good option.
05-09-2012, 04:15 PM
jrw

The last I'd heard was when it was indefinitely delayed last fall. Just hoped that I'd missed some official announcement since with regards to it, as there were some prototypes made before the tsunami. Apparently that is not the case.
05-09-2012, 04:55 PM
JJphoto

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I was actually referring to the 300mm with the 1.4x III not being as good as the 400mm F/5.6. What I meant to say about the 70-300mm L is he has 300mm covered, in that regard the idea doesn't make sense as he is duplicating the reach he already has. I don't think the 70-300mm L with a 1.4x would be a good option.

oh, sorry Rick. BTW, i agree it's frustrating waiting for those new big lenes, how can u not say it's not a jock, it's more than one year, same thing as the 1D X,
05-09-2012, 05:37 PM
jrw

Getting back to the original question, the only way that I have found to get high quality images in the 500 or 600 mm range that will allow major cropping without spending more than $10k on a lens that isn't even available to buy in a store yet is to use the latest generation of TCs with the EF 300 f2.8 II. With the 2x on it, the image quality is quite similar, once stopped down, to the original version of the EF 600. At wider apertures the 600 is better, but for the money it bloody well better be! At least when compared to the pricing of the hopefully coming soon 500 and 600 the 300 almost seems a bargain.:rolleyes:

Canon really does not provide many options other than spending lots of money once you want to go beyond the 400 mm focal length.
05-10-2012, 06:48 AM
Scott Stephen

Are you shooting crop alrady, or FF?

Are you already shooting a 1.6x crop frame camera? If not, you could buy a good crop body for little more than a 1.4X tele-extender, which works out to just a fraction of what a super-tele lens costs.
05-10-2012, 04:14 PM
thekingb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Stephen

Are you already shooting a 1.6x crop frame camera?

Yes, a 7D.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I think I need to go on a 5 year savings plan for that 500mm lens....

Anyone have ideas about my other question: how much shutter speed can I save on the 400 f/5.6 by using a monopod? From 1/800 or 1/640 handheld down to ____ on a monopod?
05-10-2012, 04:50 PM
FastGass

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-arti...-your-ef-body/

Need I say more?:rolleyes:

Cheers,
John.
05-10-2012, 05:26 PM
HDNitehawk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekingb

Anyone have ideas about my other question: how much shutter speed can I save on the 400 f/5.6 by using a monopod? From 1/800 or 1/640 handheld down to ____ on a monopod?

I have never seen a review where someone tested this. For one thing it probably depends on how steady you could hold the lens to start with.

From my experience with the 100-400mm and using a monopod, I would say the monopod would give you more stabilization than the IS system of the 100-400mm, or at the very least it would be equal to it. But I think everyone is different, and it would matter what monopod you used and how you used it. With a monopod on the 100-400mm I could exceed what I could do with the IS system hand held.
05-10-2012, 05:55 PM
dsiegel5151

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekingb

Yes, a 7D.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I think I need to go on a 5 year savings plan for that 500mm lens....

Anyone have ideas about my other question: how much shutter speed can I save on the 400 f/5.6 by using a monopod? From 1/800 or 1/640 handheld down to ____ on a monopod?

The 400mm f5.6 is sweet b/c of the weight. Not only is it relatively easy to handhold in decent light, but you don't have to dump $2000 into a tripod setup to support the lens. B/c of the light weight, I've had what I would consider critically sharp images with the 400mm f5.6 at 1/200s on a monopod. However, this is with me holding down the shutter and picking the one sharp one out of 15 from a 6fps burst. I wouldn't expect to use a single frame to capture a keeper with the 400mm f5.6 on a monopod at 1/200s. Anything under that and you pretty much just have to get lucky unless your technique is far superior than mine!

Now, I have a question: has anybody used the 400mm f5.6 with a 1.4x III. The posted iso charts look pretty good. The third generation teleconverter definitely gives you some better sharpness at the periphery. I've been throwing around the idea of getting a used 1d mark III (especially b/c you can pick these up for almost the price of a new 7d) for awhile and I was wondering if anybody uses this combination and how much AF speed is lost? Sorry if I change the direction of the thread, but I thought it was somewhat pertinent.
05-10-2012, 08:38 PM
Scott Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsiegel5151

Now, I have a question: has anybody used the 400mm f5.6 with a 1.4x III. The posted iso charts look pretty good. The third generation teleconverter definitely gives you some better sharpness at the periphery. I've been throwing around the idea of getting a used 1d mark III (especially b/c you can pick these up for almost the price of a new 7d) for awhile and I was wondering if anybody uses this combination and how much AF speed is lost? Sorry if I change the direction of the thread, but I thought it was somewhat pertinent.

Does this lens AF at all with the TC? I could be mistaken, but I thought not.:confused:
05-10-2012, 08:41 PM
jrw

I did try it out many combinations in stores within a couple of hours driving distance before making the decision to go with the EF300 and the 2x tc to fill in on the long end. The 400 f5.6with the 1.4 TC on it is just soft enough in the center to make extreme cropping more of a challenge in PP than I want to deal with.

The other factors that entered in were losing AF and no IS in the 400. With changing to a 1D body, AF is retained. The difference in cost between lenses was going to shrink considerably if another body was purchased to go with it. In my area, 1D bodies seldom come up for sale used in a condition that would make me want to buy them. that 400 is lighter, but the 300 is still very handholdable and the IS is of great benefit.

There is very little effect on focus speeds with lenses I have when using the new TCs. Not sure how that holds up with older bodies, as I haven't kept any.