Getting to 500mm - help!

[thekingb]

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

[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

[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....

[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

[JJphoto]

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)

[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 ...


Just me & nature on a early foggy morning by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

This one is cropped alot more ...


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

[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.

[thekingb]

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.


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.

[Dr Croubie]

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...

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

[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..

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...