Canon 400mm f5.6 L Vs Canon 100mm -400mm Zoom.......Opinions please???

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

RE: Canon 400mm f5.6 L Vs Canon 100mm -400mm Zoom.......Opinions please???

mark gilligan · Status: Offline

Hi Folks!
I am a professional photographer and all my kit is exclusively Canon.
(www.was****erphotography.co.uk and www.picturesandwords.org)
The 'L ' series lens are quite simply superb. You will quite rightly though need a good tripod and a 1.4 convertor to undertake bird photography.
There is nothing between Canon and Nikon, literally just personal pref and as I began with Canon I aint gonna be foolish enough to go and chuck it all away to cross over.
There is no doubt that Sigma, Tamron and some other lens makes have made substantial strides over the years and occassionally one pops up that is as good if not slightly better in some circs.
The only and I mean only way you'll ever know is to actually test and not read reports or completly rely upon say so.
A good pro shop like Calumet will let you stand outside the premisies and test the kit.
For me thats what you should do.
Enjoy the discovery!

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Dennis atherton wrote:

Thank you, thank you, thank you again for everyone help and ideas,

I did early on realize this issue would be fraut with conflicting opinions, but the final decision was made and the reasons if you are interested are as follows

I bought the Canon 100-400 f4/f5.6 IS lens,

i went backwards and forwards daily on the choices, there are slight comprimises but the main contenders were these lenses, the canon prime 400mm and the bigma sigma 50- 500 lens,

I know the canon prime would be slightly sharper but the useability of the zoom overall won because the extra shots i will get of birds i could miss by being to close for the prime, also the prime lens has no IS, back again to John tymon who also uses a zoom and gets some excellent shots, no problem with the zoom for him...
now to compare the two zooms, i saw pictures comparing the canon and bigma lenses at full reach on the same subject shot from the same camera, the extra 100mm reach of the bigma was not noticable, i did also read somewhere else that the bigma actually only shoots at 460mm, side by side they look the same reach, so the extra 100 reach of the bigma did not sway me like it might,

Also when you look at it the canon 550d, it has a crop factor of 1.6, quite a large crop factor pushing the actual reach of the canon 400mm on the canon body to 640mm, also add the fact that you can also use a pin taping trick to add a 1.4 x converter to the mix and still have the use of auto focus, when you add a converter to the bigma lens you lose auto focus, it then became a no brainer, a canon lens on a canon body, made for each other, with extra use added bonus of being able to shoot with auto focus with a 1.4x converter giving you a new reach of 896mm

i have seen good shots shot with the 1.4 converter, the 2x is a bit much from what i read and the loss in IQ is quite high though with the 1.4 it is very good still and you are shooting at 896mm, enough for anyone, i would try to get a little closer rather than try to shoot from any further away, out of interest you can also stack up the converters for maximum reach if you have no chance of getting any closer, interestingly if you own all three then a 400mm lense on a canon camera with a 1.6 crop factor added to a 1.4 x and a 2.0 x converter similtaineously gives you an amazing reach of 1792mm, of course the results would show a large drop in IQ but if you need to get a record shot of something far away then would get the shot as long as you were on a tripod,
I am getting off point now sorry, the canon zoom won because it was slightly lighter than the bigma, it had the same reach even though 100 mm less than the stated sigma reach, it has IS and the prime did not, i like the fact you can still have auto focus with the 1.4x and a reach of 896mm, and the fact that the Canon lens is of course made to be at home on the Canon Body, the useabilty of the zoom,

Thanks again for all the input on here, i just need to learn how to use it all now

good decision Den,if nikon did the equivilent lens,i would never have got the sigma.i wouldn't bother with anything above a 1.4 convertor though,as the results will be poorish,but prove me wrong,i know you will

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Final decision had to be made.........

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

RE: Canon 400mm f5.6 L Vs Canon 100mm -400mm Zoom.......Opinions please???

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Thanks Martyn, i think the photos look good, i think the slight sharpness that is not there is probably not there with all zoom lenses, the slight drop in quality is worth the useabiltiy of the lens, it is still much sharper than anything i could get digiscoping, if we want the spot on stunning sharpness then the only way to go is with a prime lens,
As with the Calibration issues i know john had the same problems too, defo a good idea to get camera and lens calibrated together,
Best wishes Den,

Martyn Jones · Status: Offline

Denis, I have a Nikon D90 and a secondhand Sigma 50-500mm 'Bigma' without OS or VR. After talking to John Tymon I wish I'd had got the 150-500mm with OS, but for now I'll just have to stick with it. I find a tripod too much of a faff when out walking, but often use a clamp when in a hide, which can also be used for my Aldi scope.

I'm still very new to birding and photography, but I'm slowly getting used to my camera and lens. As others will know, I have had doubts about the sharpness and calibration of my lens, but that said, I've had some pleasing results amongst the hundreds (thousands even) of poor ones.

Why not have a look at my blog (link below) to see what a beginner can do with this setup? You even get a mention about your cuckoo picture in one post! Any comments appreciated.

GeekTeacher's Birding Scrapbook

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

thanks Tony, sounds good, i do quite fancy a monopod, i have a tripod already but a monopod would be a bit lighter and i will probably have a go at both

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

I've never used a tripod for any shot ive ever taken,and i don't seem to do too bad,most of the recent lenses apart from the big primes are hand holdable.

Tony Coatsworth · Status: Offline

I use the Canon 100-400 and it is pretty light to carry around all day and hand-hold. Also fits in my cabin luggage when I fly anywhere.

However for pin-sharp images you're always going to need a tripod/monopod whatever you go for.

PS I used to agonise over Raw v JPG until I discovered Adobe Lightroom. Marvellous software which enables you to manage your images and it accepts Raw or JPG and automatically processes the files for you seamlessly, so all you see are the thumbnails. When you spot a real 'keeper' you can then process it and print/convert it.

-- Edited by Tony Coatsworth on Friday 21st of May 2010 09:35:53 PM

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

many thanks again, John and Adrian, i think we are all on the same wavelengh, we all know primes are slightly sharper but not as user friendly, i think the very slight drop in sharpness is wothwhile for the usability and fun of using the zoom lense, well time will tell, keep your eyes on the galleries and lets see how i do? the big day tommorow, Calumet to have a play with them all, thanks again everyone for all your advice, looking forward to actually holding and trying these lenses now as i have a good idea about what i want and need,

best wishes Dennis

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

i agree with Adrian in the last post,feildcraft and knowing your subject is much more important than a big expensive lens,in fact ,for a first time dslr,it may be better to start with a entry level dslr,just to learn all the little things that differ from a dslr and point and shoot.
I know being with you,when birding that you are gaining the feildcraft pretty rapidly,and you have more patience than i would ever have

8 hours for a cuckoo shot ,sat in that ditch

but you got your shot

so like Adrian says any of the kit will be fine.
Don't worry about zooms,I personally think they have a lot of advantages,remember the hobby,i was in and out with that one as it flew over my head,i got 100 shots,whereas it was more difficult for the photographer with the big prime that was with us.The 50-500 is a fine lens,and now with os will be a fantastic lens.
A few months ago i did a day on the ribble with charlie owen,only had the 150-500,and got some of my favorite shots,Ian has these and may post them sometime,but i used every bit of that 150-500 that day and the final shots ,the sky went red,and a mist came down and at 150 i got the best shot of the day as a masive flock of waders flew from the beach with the dunes in the background,charlie only had his 500mm with him and wished he had a landscape lens,and missed the shot,That 50-500 would have been a brilliant lens that day

hand holding a big 500 prime almost impossible,ask John Taverner,and Tim Wilcox still will be feeling it after john spent the afternoon taking ospray shots with his nikon 500 prime rested on Tims shoulder.So personally at 500mm ,i think stableisation is more important than having one stop faster lens,as the stableisation is worth at least 2 stops

Also with the cameras you are looking at being fine to much higher ISO's than the past,its not as vital to have a f2.8 or f4 lens.I bang it on f8 for most shots,and thats fine.
Whatever youn decide,take your time,try as many as you can,then make your own Decision using all the advice given on here,and other reviews,and enjoy.

p.s
don't forget to buy 2 external hard drives for back up,you will need them as the files are massive ,expecially if you go the raw root! I stick to jpegs,lifes too short for Raw,expecially if your working,it takes hours trawling through raw files and converting them.

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Friday 21st of May 2010 10:53:39 AM

Adrian Dancy · Status: Offline

I would not worry too much about the zoom ratio with the Sigma 50-500. The IQ of the old version was or is very good, granted not Canon or Nikon prime quality, but still good. A few years ago it was sensible to avoid such zooms but with computer aided lens design, quality has improved significantly. The use of cropped sensors has helped also. There is not much on the net regarding the new Sigma 50-500 OS lens but what I have seen at 100% file size had my jaw dropping for its quality and ability to handle low light with optical stabilisation used. The only problem with looking at pictures on the net is that you cannot for sure know how reliable and responsive autofocus is.

The only other combination to consider is the Canon 300f4IS plus 1.4 converter (420mm FL). The IQ with the 1.4 is still outstanding and as a prime lens it is awesome and you have the added advantage of an extra stop of light (+) than lenses previously suggested and is great for doing woodland birds or birds in low light.

Caveat

I think it is easy to get hung up on camera/ lens technicals etc. I think the secret is to know the equipment and its limitations. Understanding the technical aspects of exposure is a great help...essential really...and with DSLRs the histogram makes it easy. LEARN TO READ THE HISTOGRAM! We would all like the best but with bird photography everything is about compromise and having the best equipment will not make you a better photographer. By way of analogy, if you give me David Beckhams football boots they won't make me a better footballer (certainly not at my age) . There is absolutely no reason why , with any of the equipment suggested that you cannot get a picture on the front page or centre spread of a birding magazine. Whilst I personally would favour the Sigma 50-500 over the Sigma 170-500 one of my favourite bird shots was in fact taken with a Sigma 170-500 and it won best in category in the Wild Bird Photograper of the Year competion. In my humble opinion field craft and knowing your gear is more important than the gear itself.

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Thanks paul, some more good points to consider, this weekend i am going to go to calumet and hopefully have a play with these contender lenses, see how they feel to use, its a pity cannon dont do a 100-500 lens

Paul Wilson · Status: Offline

Dennis atherton wrote:

the 50-500 sigma lens sound like a very good set up,

I have never felt very confident about zooms that are as much as 10x like the 50-500. Zooms with shorter ranges tend to give better image quality for the same cost.

Paul Wilson · Status: Offline

Dennis atherton wrote:

Cheers John, i did notice that there are two versions of this lens and the cheaper one does not have OS on it, for such a big lens then OS is a must or IS as on the canons,

I wouldn't say it's a must at all. Most of the time you need a fast shutter speed for bird photography - especially action shots. IS/OS is only really a benefit when you use slow shutter speeds. Don't forget, it only helps with camera shake, not movement at the subject end! Only one of my lenses has OS, and I usually leave it turned off - having it swithed on causes a delay - it has to react when you press the shutter speed and this can be a pain.

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Cheers John, i did notice that there are two versions of this lens and the cheaper one does not have OS on it, for such a big lens then OS is a must or IS as on the canons, the D90 and the 50-500 sigma lens sound like a very good set up, i will probably search later on for a test of a nikon D90 vs a canon 550d, they are similar priced so they should be similar spec???

going ont moss for an hour tonight, speak soon, winchat maybe?

Den

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

just buy a d300s body-£1160 jessops,and a lens,don't bother with the kit,as the kit lenses,if you enjoy it you will replace anyway,as they are fairly cheap and nasty,but add for some reason a couple of hundred quid on a body,if you get the 50-500(make sure its the new version,as the old one was hard to hand hold) its the ex range of sigma ,which means higher quality,and will probably not have the issues ive had with the 150-500.Also the 50-500 is excellent for dragonflys,narrow landscapes,flock shots,great when you have 5000 knot flying past you ont ribble.

and i can try it to see if i want to swap to one

Or a cheaper option Nikon d90(like mine)Body about £600,and the sigma 50-500 os (about £1100)

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 20th of May 2010 07:56:42 AM

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 20th of May 2010 07:57:24 AM

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 20th of May 2010 07:58:32 AM

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Thanks Paul, john, Pete, some more great points to think about, at the moment i am swaying towards a lense i did not know about?

Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM

i know the prime lens will be the best for sharpness but for the the pleasure and useabiltiy of a zoom lens with IS or with OS as on the sigma lens, the same function and idea, John Tymon uses a zoom lense and i have always enjoyed seeing his photos, just look at the osprey!!!

still not sure on the camera? still a tricky one, i like the reviews of the canon 550d and the price is good, the nikon D300s mentioned also sound great but is twice the price of the canon, i guess the krux now is two combos and which would work best? D300s and the sigma 150-500 or the canon 550d with the 50-500mm sigma

the expensive Nikon D300s with the lesser expensive Sigma lens or the cheaper Canon 550d but with the better Sigma lens, not that we can actually say any of these are cheaper as they all cost as much as a cheap car

Thank you for all your inputs so far, i am reading all posts and reviewing and reading about all lenses and cameras mentioned,

Paul Wilson · Status: Offline

Forget lenses when making a choice between Canon and Nikon. Unless you are looking to spend thousands on prime lenses then choose which camera you find sits better in your hands.

I have three lenses:
Sigma 500mm f4.5 (a bargain and a lot lighter than the Canon / Nikon 500mm),
Sigma 150mm f2.8 (probably the best macro lens around!),
Tamron 28-300mm zoom (just for ganeral shots).

I have the Nikon D300 but if I had gone down the Canon route I would still have the same three lenses as there is no way I can afford the more expensive Canon or Nikon glass!

I just like the feel of Nikon cameras more than Canon. I was going to go the Canon route (I still have my old Canon A1) but when I tried out an early model (350?) i also tried the Nikon D70 and felt more comfortable with that.

Nikon's big problem at the moment is the 80-400 zoom. If you really want a zoom in that range, the Canon is supposed to be much better. If you like Nikon bodies, then a Sigma zoom would be your best bet until Nikon upgrades the 80-400. I used to use a Tamron 200-500 which was excellent and much lighter than the Sigmas!

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

I Think also going from a small camera ,you will be amazed with something like the d300s,how much you can crop,and still get a decent shot,look at MY osprey with thw fish on the post on here,not printable ,but good record website shot,and id say that was probably a quarter of a mile away.

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Wednesday 19th of May 2010 04:28:30 PM

Pete Welch · Status: Offline

John and Adrian, good points on whether I was unlucky and had a bad copy of the lens or one that needed fine tuning - even totally locked down on a tripod with remote release it just wasn't as sharp as I wanted. Need to start saving for a 500mm F4 - should only take me three years or so!

I can also thoroughly second the recommendation for the 70-300VR I sold mine to buy the 80-400 then bought another one for the faster focus for BIF shots...

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

thanks very much John, more good advice, if i go down the sigma route then calibration sounds like a must even on a new lens, more stuff to think about, thanks...

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Adrian Dancy wrote:

I just did a long piece and seemed to have lost the lot!

Peter, I am astounded that the Sigma 120-300f2.8 was not to your liking. I use a Sigma 300f2.8 prime which is very sharp and I once tried the Sigma 120-300f2.8 and was very impressed. The Sigma test chards have their 120 -300f2.8 as being sharper on the sweet spot than the prime. The AP review of the zoom was very encouraging also. A problem with Sigma lenses is front focus or back focus issues. Perhaps your lens required calibrating? Also a pain is that the Sigma 300 prime and zoom do not have focus limiters.

I agree with Adrian,with the sigma lenses,ive had 3 different 150-500,lenses first 2 were faulty from new,one wouldn't focus at all,the other,woyuldn't give any focus due to front focus issues.My 3rd i baught second hand ,and was told it was a good copy,i found it front focused by as much as 10cm,which meant i had to use f11 all the time to get birds in focus,so i sent it for calibration,it came back and was beltin at f6.3,but now at f11 its poor and soft,so it seemes that they obviously know at sigma that they can only have it one way or the other.
Now im finding with the sigma i am getting about 1 in 4 sharp shots,so thats another factor dennis,ive never heard of those issues with the canon 400 prime.
Another one to learn with could be the d300s with a 70-300 vr,which is a good lens to learn with and later a beltin lens to use for dragonflys and flight shots,and pretty good for birds in general-don't forget a 300mm lens is 450mm actual on the Nikon d300s .Most of my shots in the gallery before may 2009 were taken with my 70-300vr .Then wait a bit while you get used to the dslr, as its much different than your small camera .then when confident that you are ready,get a bigger lens

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Wednesday 19th of May 2010 10:12:27 AM

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

-- Edited by Dennis atherton on Wednesday 19th of May 2010 07:49:08 AM

Adrian Dancy · Status: Offline

Dennis

Before you can be advised we need to know the style of photography you want to follow. Are you prepared to take or build hides or do you want to photograph off the hoof (walkabout style). Also are you prepared to use a tripod? As daft as it sounds physical fitness is a factor to consider as is your ability to hold a lens steady.

Adrian Dancy · Status: Offline

I just did a long piece and seemed to have lost the lot!

Peter, I am astounded that the Sigma 120-300f2.8 was not to your liking. I use a Sigma 300f2.8 prime which is very sharp and I once tried the Sigma 120-300f2.8 and was very impressed. The Sigma test chards have their 120 -300f2.8 as being sharper on the sweet spot than the prime. The AP review of the zoom was very encouraging also. A problem with Sigma lenses is front focus or back focus issues. Perhaps your lens required calibrating? Also a pain is that the Sigma 300 prime and zoom do not have focus limiters.

Pete Welch · Status: Offline

JOHN TYMON wrote:

Dennis atherton wrote:

cheers pete,

the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D AF VR Lens must be a firm competitor to the canon 100-400 lens, both around the same price too???

more questions

nikon 80-400 would frustrate a beginner ,at this game,and is a very old lens now ,first made over 10 years ago,The vr on it is fairly awful towards the modern lenses,and is due for replacement soon,its also too slow focus ,and not a patch on the sigma,for focus,and stableisation.i would steer clear of that one,unless you get a good second hand one,but they still cost £900 second hand.

Yep it is slow and I wish I could afford better [paid £750 for a mint unused boxed example] - but in many ways its far, far better than a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 which I also owned. Mind you I have toyed with a change to Canon as the primes seem to be better value

-- Edited by Pete Welch on Tuesday 18th of May 2010 10:40:17 PM

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

thanks David, John,

yep sounds like the canon, sigma route are the best lens options, still pondering the camera, the canon Vs nikon is a tricky one, anymore opinions welcome

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Dennis atherton wrote:

cheers pete,

the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D AF VR Lens must be a firm competitor to the canon 100-400 lens, both around the same price too???

more questions

nikon 80-400 would frustrate a beginner ,at this game,and is a very old lens now ,first made over 10 years ago,The vr on it is fairly awful towards the modern lenses,and is due for replacement soon,its also too slow focus ,and not a patch on the sigma,for focus,and stableisation.i would steer clear of that one,unless you get a good second hand one,but they still cost £900 second hand.

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

cheers pete,

the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 D AF VR Lens must be a firm competitor to the canon 100-400 lens, both around the same price too???

more questions

David Winnard · Status: Offline

or get the canon 7D, or as its known to most...the Nikon D300 killer ;).

As for lenses, the prime is sharper, but you have more flexability with the 100-400 to be more creative...it depends on what style of photography you want to do.

Dave

Pete Welch · Status: Offline

Another vote for the Nikon D300s from me - amazing bit of kit and I use a second hand 80-400 VR Nikon lens which is a tad slow to focus but is capable of superb shots [when I concentrate]...

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

Cheers John,

if i get any more spanners in the works i will have a full toolkit,

the nikon 300s does sound like an excellent camera, twice as much as the canon 550d so i guess it should be , as you know i have been struggling with this issue for weeks now, i keep on looking for the answers but just keep getting more and more questions???

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

To throw a spanner in the works of what i have told you before-my choice for the same price would be NIKON D300S,AND THE SIGMA 150-500,Its not that bad a lens,just look at the osprey pics,all mine were with the sigma.The sigma is at least as good as the canon 100-400,and the Nikon 300s is the best consumer DSLR ever made.
Now if you go to the darkside

,and get Canon id say the 400mm would be far the best bet as you can stick a convertor on that one,were the others,are pretty poor with convertors.But remember whichever you go with Nikon/Canon,your stuck with it unless you want to lose a lot of money

Dennis atherton · Status: Offline

I am just at the end stages of purchasing a new lense for a canon 550d camera, after all my pondering and picking the other photographers brains on here, i seem to be still stuck with the issue of which lense is best????

To me these seem to be the best two lenses without having to sell my house, or i could go for the sigma 150-500 lense, something tells me that the original Canon lenses even though only 400mm would be better? they are certainly more expensive,

Is there anyone out there that has used both these lenses and is there a large drop in qualtiy with the zoom lense? this review below is very interesting and with a high crop it shows a very big difference in the two lenses in the sharpness area, Thoughts please???

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml