Next best lens for birding? (1 Viewer)

[xanderhiley]

Hi,

However much I want one I just haven't got the cash for a 300mm f2.8 IS...

I've been looking at Sigma's 300mm f2.8 lens which are considerably cheaper (the prime and the 100-300mm zoom). I've read some good reviews. I'd plan to couple it with a 1.4x converter.

Are they a worthy challenger to the aforementioned Canon lens or am I best simply cutting my losses and settling on a canon 100-400 or 400 prime?

Many thanks for any advice concerning the crdibility of these Sigma lenses...

Alex

 

[dogbreath]

I have a 400mm 5.6L and think it is the dog's dangly bits. Very fast, pin sharp and relatively light. Are you going to be compromising IQ by getting a 300 and bunging a teleconverter on it? I know you would end up with a faster combo but still. And if you buy the 100-400 you are going to be using it at the 400 end mostly. I accept you get IS with that lens, but that is of questionable value and the IQ of the prime will beat the IQ of the 100-400, all else being equal.

As I see it, there is no right answer to this question just a different series of compromises and only you can decide which are acceptable. The 400 prime comes up regularly pre-loved at about £850 to £900. Buy one of those, if you don't like it sell it on. You won't lose much. Likewise with the 100-400.

 

[xanderhiley]

I have a 400mm 5.6L and think it is the dog's dangly bits. Very fast, pin sharp and relatively light. Are you going to be compromising IQ by getting a 300 and bunging a teleconverter on it? I know you would end up with a faster combo but still. And if you buy the 100-400 you are going to be using it at the 400 end mostly. I accept you get IS with that lens, but that is of questionable value and the IQ of the prime will beat the IQ of the 100-400, all else being equal.

As I see it, there is no right answer to this question just a different series of compromises and only you can decide which are acceptable. The 400 prime comes up regularly pre-loved at about £850 to £900. Buy one of those, if you don't like it sell it on. You won't lose much. Likewise with the 100-400.

hmm thanks for the advice, it's not easy ! But how do the Sigma lenses compare to the Canon lenses you mentioned? They are priced in between the Canon 400 5.6 and the 300 2.8 IS. Are they Sigmas worth the extra cash?

 

[Jaff]

And Mr Dancy should be appearing here in 5...4...3...2...

 

[Roy C]

And Mr Dancy should be appearing here in 5...4...3...2...

Adam, I have now deleted my post for fear of upsetting anyone - the only reason I responded at all was because of the insinuation that adding converters to a 300/2.8 would be a compromise in IQ compared to the 400/5.6 when I know first hand that this is not so :t:

 

[dogbreath]

I put a question mark on the end of my question to indicate that it was a question not a statement. I asked "Are you going to compromise IQ?" I genuinely do not know the answer to that question with regard to Sigma lenses. I am (as always) more than content to acknowledge greater knowledge than my own. Mr C says there is no loss of IQ with that Sigma lens if a teleconverter is put on it as compared to the Canon prime. There you are. A faster lens +tc than the prime and greater flexibility. Maybe an ideal combo.

 

[Jaff]

Adam, I have now deleted my post for fear of upsetting anyone - the only reason I responded at all was because of the insinuation that adding converters to a 300/2.8 would be a compromise in IQ compared to the 400/5.6 when I know first hand that this is not so :t:

Actually I was more insinuating that whenever the Siggy 300mm gets a mention he's the first to trump it. It wasn't anything directed at you.

Believe me though, having that extra Fstop a f2.8 and 1.4x affords can make a hell of a lot of difference. Especially for us northerners. :t:

My advice would be if you can afford the Siggy at new prices Alex then a bit more saving should see you right for a 300mmf2.8 if you order one from Kerso, mine's a few moths old now and it was around the £3100 mark off him. Also consider this though, there's a nice Sigma 500mm going on MPBPhotographic s/h for the price of a new Sigma 300mm, been there a while and no-one can argue against the qualities of that lens.

 

[GYRob]

the 400f5.6 is one of the sharpest lenes canon make but no IS the 300f2.8is +1.4 is just as sharp and a tad softer with the 2x tc but still sharp .
From the few sigmas iv tried there not as sharp and color not as good .
Rob.

 

[Roy C]

I put a question mark on the end of my question to indicate that it was a question not a statement. I asked "Are you going to compromise IQ?" I genuinely do not know the answer to that question with regard to Sigma lenses. I am (as always) more than content to acknowledge greater knowledge than my own. Mr C says there is no loss of IQ with that Sigma lens if a teleconverter is put on it as compared to the Canon prime. There you are. A faster lens +tc than the prime and greater flexibility. Maybe an ideal combo.

'dogbreath' I have no knowledge whatsoever about the Sigma 300/2.8. I was referring to the Canon 300/2.8 v the 400/5.6. Not that I am knocking the 400/5.6 as I had one for three years and think it is a cracking lens.
I have had the Canon 300/2.8 for quite a while now but am still gob-smacked by how well it takes converters, so much so that I use it mostly as a 600/5.6 (but try to stop down to f8).

 

[dogbreath]

Roy, I think we must have been at cross-purposes. That will teach me to read boards late at night. I cannot comment upon the Canon 300 f2.8, way out of my league price wise. I feel guilty enough with the 400 5,6L!

Best wishes,

DB

 

[JohnZ]

I also use the 400mm prime and it has saved me on countless occasions. Except when it went wrong that is.

 

[websurfer]

Adam, I have now deleted my post for fear of upsetting anyone - the only reason I responded at all was because of the insinuation that adding converters to a 300/2.8 would be a compromise in IQ compared to the 400/5.6 when I know first hand that this is not so :t:

The Canon 400mm shootout

 

[Roy C]

The Canon 400mm shootout

Yep, I have seen that one before, it is usually used by the 400/5.6 supporters when the old 400/5.6 v 100-400 slanging match comes up. There is nothing like having the two lenses yourself when it comes to comparisons IMO. . I believed the findings before I got two of the lenses to compare myself.As far as I am concerned it just highlights the point that you cannot take all these so called tests as being gospel

Having taken thousands of shots with both lenses I am in no doubt whatsoever that My 300/2.8 + 1.4tc had a definite edge over My bare 400/5.6 (and that is even disregarding the stop advantage and I.S. that the 300 combo has). IMO the 300 combo is sharper and has nicer colours and better contrast. The thing that surprised me most with the 300 + 1.4 tc when I first used it was just how little sharpening a raw file needed compared to the 400/5.6 (that was when I had both lenses in my possession).
I am also in no doubt myself that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc is superior to the 400/5.6 + 1.4 tc but that's another issue.

I do wonder just how good the tester is when he indicates that the 300/2.8 + 1.4tc as being wide open at f5.6 !!!! (could be he was using a 300/4 + 1.4 tc LOL) I am also betting that a lot 100-400 users would also question the test also I cannot see which brand of converter he used and were all the combos subject to microadjustment?

BTW, you will notice from scores of my post's on BF that am one of the biggest fans around of the 400/5.6 (just look at the number of times I have been hammered for defending the lens LOL :-O ).
There are times even now when I do miss 400/5.6 for its lightness and still rate it better for BIF (probably due to its lightness and balance which I find far better than the 300/2.8).

As far as I am concerned, for bird photography, the 300 combo is superior to the bare 400/5.6 for me - what others think does not matter to me and it couple be that others have come to a different conclusion. Having said that I would certainly not rule out getting another 400/5.6 in the future, especially when/if the weight of the 300 gets too much for me.

Just my 2p's worth (or should it be 5p's).

 

[a.dancy]

Do you mean you are cosidering the Sigma 300f2.8 and the Sigma 120-300f2.8 zoom?

We need to know what you want to photograph the most,where when etc. Will you be walking about taking pictures or are you going take with you a hide etc etc. Are you prepared to use a tripod?

All the lenses will do the job . The Sigma 300f2.8 is sharp and so is the 120-300. The Canon equivalants do produce better IQ but the difference is not huge. You can get stunning results with the Sigma 300f2.8. The photographer will make more of a difference than the lens and your image processing can make a big difference too.

The 400 Canon prime gives you a big bang for your buck and supreme sharpness and light to carry around. If you don't use a tripod you will be limited to using only in good light, or high ISO in which case the benefit in cropability and sharpness takes a hit.

The Canon 300f2.8 IS is probably the sharpest lens there is in the Canon batch of long lenses and works wonderfully with converters. But it is expensive. The Sigma equivalant does not have IS or a focus distance limiter switch which at times can be a pain but if you cannot afford Canon then the Sigma will be a good second choice. You will be able to get AF with a 2X converter and results are acceptable and sometimes more than acceptable. Used bare it is razor sharp. 300f2.8 lenses can be a bit heavy for some.

When you are shooting birds it is not the same as shooting bank notes on a wall and advice always seems to get reduced to questions of sharpness. Comparisons using one to one crops suggest greater degrees of sharpness/softness than is really the case when shooting birds at optimimum distance or close up. I know for many ultra sharpness seems to be important and for me is just a shame. The critical question should be is a particular lens sharp enough for birds as a subject. All the lenses suggested above are sharp enough. It then becomes a balance between your particular needs in the field and your finances. I have seen some great pictures in exhibitions with folk going up to them: you can see they wished they had a magnifying glass to see how sharp the images are....how sad is that?, they are usually photographers! I'd rather stand back and enjoy the compostion, colour and the moment that has been captured. I prefer to look at photograph and see the main picture not whether I can see a mandible whisker at 50 yards.

I have only three pictures on my wall at home (not mine sadly). They are pictures of fairy terns (probably the bird I would most like to photograph) they were taken with a Tokina with glass probably made from milk bottles. They beat the pants off some images of this bird I have seen taken with top glass (by top photographers) save one by Frans Lanting which is brilliant. Sometimes photographers cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

[cookie99]

I will agree with Roy here.

I love my 400 f/5.6 and it is permanently attached to one of my MKIIIs but my 300 f/2.8 + 1.4 is a better combo for IQ and Colour but I cannot follow fast birds with it hand held for long so I only attempt that for slower and colourful birds but it is more suited to tripod work.

With the 400 f/5.6 properly Pre-Focused it is hard to beat and if I am good and the stars and moon are right and I am wearing my pink tights and check socks I can keep that thing on the eye of the fastest zig zagger of a bird out there, can't be done with any other lens in canon's armory. The 300 f/4 is next in line but slows up with a 1.4XTC whereas the 400 does not (once again pre focused.)

 

[dlleno]

Having taken thousands of shots with both lenses I am in no doubt whatsoever that My 300/2.8 + 1.4tc had a definite edge over My bare 400/5.6 (and that is even disregarding the stop advantage and I.S. that the 300 combo has). IMO the 300 combo is sharper and has nicer colours and better contrast. The thing that surprised me most with the 300 + 1.4 tc when I first used it was just how little sharpening a raw file needed compared to the 400/5.6 (that was when I had both lenses in my possession).
I am also in no doubt myself that the 300/2.8 + 2x tc is superior to the 400/5.6 + 1.4 tc but that's another issue.

I'd say the important point above is about real world experience with specific copies. Whats interesting to me is that (1) there is theoretical evidence that the bare 400mm f/5.6 has better resolution than the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x, (2) data suggest also that the 400 + 1.4x resolution is also better than the 300 +2x (3) Birds don't wear resolution charts, (4) there is much more to IQ than resolution, and finally (5) the only one that needs to be convinced is the photographer; no one else matters

Here, the resolution of 400mm f/5.6 is compared to 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x (both at f/5.6)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=3

Here, the resolution of 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x is compared to 300mm f/2.8 + 2x
(both at f/8)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=4

What the charts don't show is color and contrast, which are quite different from pure resolution.

 

[tjsimonsen]

What those charts say to me is that the bare 400/5.6 has an edge in corner sharpness in the first comparison. Center sharpness, and the second comparison overall are both too close to call. If the 300/2.8 combos have an edge in color and contrast, that would tip the scale in both cases IMO.

Just my 0.2 pennies.

Thomas

 

[Kevin Conville]

Looks like some here have history together regarding the Canon 300 2.8 v Canon 400 f5.6.
The OP did mention something about price. I'm sure all here realize that the above 300 + 1.4 ext is approaching 4x the cost of the latter lens -and- 2x the weight.

Requirements of other equipment, say gimbal head required v good ball head and maybe a heavier tripod, might come into play as well.

 

[Kevin Conville]

As I see it, there is no right answer to this question just a different series of compromises and only you can decide which are acceptable. The 400 prime comes up regularly pre-loved at about £850 to £900. Buy one of those, if you don't like it sell it on. You won't lose much. Likewise with the 100-400.

I think this is quite good advice. :t:

 

[Kevin Conville]

Well Alex, et al,

I did wind up buying the EF400 f5.6 that I'm using with my old 350D body. I'm quite happy with it generally but it has somewhat exacerbated the issue of my camera being a bit long in the tooth. The lens front focused about 6" at 40' until I did the mirror box calibration trick on the body. Now it focuses perfectly with the exception that in dim light it still is kinda slow. In good to moderate light the lens focuses very quick indeed.

The shortcomings of the 350D have me thinking of a 7D now though it's not in my budget. The 50D and 7D both have MFA (micro focus adjust) which allows one to fine tune focus to match the body for up to 20 lenses. That and the far superior focusing and low noise, well...

Here's a few sample pics with the 400 on my 350D:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/310390/ppuser/63161

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/311668/ppuser/63161

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/309852/ppuser/63161