Buying a long lens

[cedric_r]

I've been agonising for a while now on which lens to buy for nature photography (possibly occasionally sport). I have a budget that I can stretch up to £1000 ($1700 or so) and I've selected 3 that fit:
- The Sigma 50-500.
- The Tamron 200-500.
- The Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

For flexibility, the Sigma is more appealing because if you need to make photos of things closer (e.g. sport), you don't need to change the lens. But then 100mm isn't that far off 50mm, so the Canon is still reasonable. As far as I can tell, the Tamron is better optically than the Sigma, and cheaper. The killer appeal of the Canon is IS which I hope would mean that decent photos can be done handheld, but it's definitively more expensive than the other two (I could buy the Tamron 200-400 + Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the same price and have change left).

So I appeal to you all: put me out of misery, which would you advise me to buy?

[JDArt]

I've seen good images from the Sigma but have never used one.

The Canon is a super lens, ideal for nature except for birding, which usually requires more reach.

[Blinky]

It would be helpful to know what other lenses you already have. Those are some wide range zooms you're talking about.
Chip

[cedric_r]

Originally Posted by B

It would be helpful to know what other lenses you already have. Those are some wide range zooms you're talking about.
Chip

I have nothing decent for long reach at the moment. I have:
- Sigma 10-20 (landscapes).
- Canon 18-55 (pretty much useless except for macros, strangely).
- Tamron 28-300 (ok before 200, after it gets soft and it's pretty bad wide open at 300).

So really I'm interested in the 200+ range to get to things I can't get close to.

[cedric_r]

Originally Posted by JDArt

I've seen good images from the Sigma but have never used one.

The Canon is a super lens, ideal for nature except for birding, which usually requires more reach.

That's why I'm still considering the Sigma and the Tamron which are longer. But if necessary I can get a 1.4x of 2x extender for the Canon (except I'd lose AF, which I would have on the others without extenders). Man it's a hard choice!

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by cedric_r

I have nothing decent for long reach at the moment. I have:
- Sigma 10-20 (landscapes).
- Canon 18-55 (pretty much useless except for macros, strangely).
- Tamron 28-300 (ok before 200, after it gets soft and it's pretty bad wide open at 300).

So really I'm interested in the 200+ range to get to things I can't get close to.

That helps. Since it's nature shooting you want to get the lens for, and you want to be able to reach into long telephoto, you might want to look at primes. For years my main nature lens was a 300mm F4 with a 1.4x converter, that's a lot of reach with small digital sensors and reasonably fast. When you shoot nature with a zoom, you inevitably shoot at the long limit because you're never close enough; you can trade the zoom functionality for some speed and first quality glass.

Canon has the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Looks like your budget may allow for that plus a converter if you shop carefully. That gets you Image Stabilization which is a boon for telephoto shooting and it's Canon's better glass. Lenses like that hold there value pretty well too.

Just my two cents... A Nikon shooter's two cents at that.

Chip

[cyclohexane]

If you want to do some sports too, you might want to invest in something with a f/2.8 maximum aperture, or at the very least f/4 on the long end. You'll definitely run into nasty backgrounds, and being able to blur them is a great help.

[RobAmy]

The 100-400 lens by canon is great, but as already said its short for birds. The extenders on this lens are terrible. If you want to use extenders then go with prime 300mm f4. Good luck its never an easy decision

[FocusingOnFlorida]

I have the Canon 400mmL f/5.6 and a Tamron Pro 1.4x TC. I did lose AF when using the TC but there is a work around. If you tape over these three contacts the AF will work. If you get a TC that only has five pins on the left, your AF should work just fine or if your camera is faster than f/5.6



This setup has worked pretty good for for wildlife. It only messed me up once when I came up on a pair of deer. I was too close to get the shot. They seen me and commenced to running. I won't bother to mention what part of the deer I got. It was definitely a close up. :-\

I would really look into a faster lens for sport for the reason above, plus you can use a faster shutter in low light situations with can occur frequently in a sporting environment.

Good Luck.

[JDArt]

Thanks for the illustration. I've never known how that "taping" works.

[badpickev]

well thats a tough one. the longer the lens the slower it gets. the sigma has a lot of low reach over the tamron. the canon has is. thats the toss up in a nutschell. since i have the sigma and use it a lot. i like being able to take a decent landscale or a good tele shot without changing the lens. there is a lot of space between 50 and a 100 now adays. on a canon thats 1.6 times so for you its 80mm vs 160mm at the low end.

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by cedric_r

I've been agonising for a while now on which lens to buy for nature photography (possibly occasionally sport). I have a budget that I can stretch up to £1000 ($1700 or so) and I've selected 3 that fit:
- The Sigma 50-500.
- The Tamron 200-500.
- The Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.

For flexibility, the Sigma is more appealing because if you need to make photos of things closer (e.g. sport), you don't need to change the lens. But then 100mm isn't that far off 50mm, so the Canon is still reasonable. As far as I can tell, the Tamron is better optically than the Sigma, and cheaper. The killer appeal of the Canon is IS which I hope would mean that decent photos can be done handheld, but it's definitively more expensive than the other two (I could buy the Tamron 200-400 + Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the same price and have change left).

So I appeal to you all: put me out of misery, which would you advise me to buy?

Cedric,

I'm in the same boat. Considered the same suspects and have decided upon the Canon 100-400.
I hope to pick it up later this spring. There isn't a Lemon in this group, but alll around, the Canon is the
most versatile with the IS.

The "Push-Pull" design of the Canon also allows for quicker subject acquisition.

Some interesting links that mention the 100-400
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4is.html

Yeah, you can shoot birds with the 1-4
http://www.birdsasart.com/bn192.htm

Review of the Sigma "Bigma" and Canon 100-400

http://www.michaelfurtman.com./produ...m#Lens Reviews

A nice review of the Tamron 200-500

http://www.photofocus.com/showarchive.php?aid=224&cid=1

[cedric_r]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll go with the Canon because of the IS and possibly get an extender if needed.

[cedric_r]

Here is my first field test tonight in my street (somehow I got some strange looks from my neighbours):
Canon 350D+Canon 100-400LIS+2x entender, f/11, 800mm (1261mm 35mm equiv, woah!), 1/250s, ISO 800, handheld, sunset.


Canon 350D+Canon 100-400LIS+2x entender, f/11, 800mm, 1/320s, ISO 400, handheld, sunset.

(ignore the sensor dust I have just a few days after cleaning it)

It's going to take me a while to learn to manually focus quickly and accurately at such focal lengths and with a few kilos at the end of my arm.

[Kevin Barrett]

Cedric,

Your results look suprisingly good considering you have a 2x extender in the mix. You must have
an excellent copy of the 100-400.

Kevin

[cedric_r]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett

Your results look suprisingly good considering you have a 2x extender in the mix. You must have
an excellent copy of the 100-400.

I've been surprised by how sharp the 100-400 is. I was expecting way better than what I had until now, but there is little difference between unsharped and the usual USM on the photo. Most of the blur probably comes from the camera sensor I expect. With the 2x it's slightly less sharp, but it's not representative since I have to do the focusing manually and I have bad eyes (and a tiny viewfinder). I'll try some shots with a tripod to do a proper comparison.