Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 20 posts | 
by nimajneb3 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:45 pm
nimajneb3
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Hi all,

I'm looking to purchase my first actual lens, mainly to be used for photographing birds. (I'm getting a Canon XSi.) I'm by no means a professional, but I enjoy birding and want to extend that to photography. The Canon EF 300m f/4L lens was recommended to me, but I think $1200 is a bit much to spend on a first lens considering I'm an amateur. But on the other end of the spectrum, the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS ($300) is nowhere near as sharp. If anyone has any suggestions, they'd be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Benjamin
 

by foxbat on Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:58 pm
foxbat
Forum Contributor
Posts: 810
Joined: 3 Jan 2006
Location: Essex, UK
300mm is a little short to be honest. I'd recommend the 400mm f/5.6L as a starter birding lens. Even years later after acquiring much more expensive and longer lenses I still return time and again to my trusty 400L.
Andy Brown, south-east England.
http://www.foxbat.me.uk
 

by jsmith on Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:24 pm
jsmith
Forum Contributor
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Yea, in that price range, I'd get either the 400mm f/5.6 or the 100-400mm. And between those two, I would go with the 400 5.6.
Some people love the 100-400mm, but the quality is SO inconsistent between different lenses of that model that it's often more trouble than it's worth.

I wouldn't at all suggest the 55-250 or anything like that, unless it is your only option. If you are in the position to get one of the lenses that we are suggesting, it will serve you FAR better than the more inexpensive lenses, and you will learn much more quickly and have a much better time with it too.

Best,
John
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:30 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
For under $900 you can get the Sigma 150-500 and get much more reach than the other's suggested and get image stabilization. The Canon 300 is too short. the 400 while optically being awesome isn't stabilized. as stated the 100-400 has consistency issues. the Sigma optically is about as good as a middle of the road 100-400 but you get significantly more magnification.
 

by jnadler on Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:40 pm
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6926
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
Agree with E.J. Unless you live in the south where larger wading birds are very approachable, 300 and often 400 is just not enough for typical songbirds. You will only get frustrated.
 

by nimajneb3 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:03 pm
nimajneb3
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Yea, good point jnadler. I live in New York, and I do plan on taking pictures of songbirds. The Sigma 150-500 looks like a good possibility, but at 4lb does it get tough to take pictures handheld? And since it is a 3rd party lens will there be compatibility issues?

The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L is another choice, but, considering the comments, is it safe to say that because it is not IS and only 400mm that it is not a good one? I understand that it is a great lens, but which would be a better choice to start out with? (Not that I'm limiting it to those two.)

Edit: Oh, and I just noticed the Sigma has a range of F5-6.3 - does that mean that when it's zoomed out all the way I can't autofocus?

Thanks
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:41 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The lens still autofocuses because it is reporting f/5.6 to the body. A tripod is recommended for any of the lenses you are considering for everything except flight shooting. Compatibility won't be an issue.
 

by KK Hui on Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:39 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
I'd go for the EF400/5.6L in your circumstances. IS is not that critical for the focal length anyway. Adding a 1.4x yields acceptable image as well for static subjects. On itself it's a fast flight shot lens that is both portable and handholdable in every sense.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536


Last edited by KK Hui on Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 

by jsmith on Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:51 pm
jsmith
Forum Contributor
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
ah yes, I actually haven't looked at Sigma's website in a long time, but I just did (upon reading E.J.'s response) and I agree with him that the 150-500 is a great choice too. I still wouldn't rule out the 400 5.6 though... It all depends on what you think you will be shooting.

Smaller birds = 150-500.
Larger birds + lots of flight shots = 400 5.6

Best,
John
 

by Joseph Martines on Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:06 am
Joseph Martines
Forum Contributor
Posts: 282
Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
My vote is for the Canon 400 mm 5.6.

Yes, it doesn't have image stabilization however, most of your images will be shot at faster then 1/200. Actually, 1/400 is an optimum minimum speed (= to the size of lens).

I get absolutely razor sharp images with this lens more so then the 100 - 400 mm.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:20 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Joseph Martines wrote: Yes, it doesn't have image stabilization however, most of your images will be shot at faster then 1/200. Actually, 1/400 is an optimum minimum speed (= to the size of lens).
1/400 is not optimum speed. 1/focal length or 1/400 is the SLOWEST speed you should use for handholding and even the very best handholders will still get a sharper shot with a tripod at 1/400. You would have to go totwice as fast as 1/focal length before you absolutelycan't tell a difference for most people.
 

by nimajneb3 on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:53 am
nimajneb3
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
If I put a 1.4x extender on the 400mm f/5.6 I lose a stop and therefore can't autofocus?
 

by ursus80 on Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:06 am
User avatar
ursus80
Forum Contributor
Posts: 459
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Location: Lanexa, VA
Member #:00683
When I was in the same boat I was very happy with the Sigma 500/4.5.
Cheers,

Mundy
http://mundyhackett.com
 

by Paul Skoczylas on Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:56 pm
User avatar
Paul Skoczylas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13873
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Member #:00284
Way back when, I bought the Sigma 50-500 as a budget long lens that still has good quality. I never regretted that decision, and even now I have a much more expensive 300/2.8IS (and converters), I've still kept the 50-500.

Today you have the option of the 150-500 with OS, which wasn't available to me at the time. To me that lens is ideal as an entry-level birding lens.

-Paul
[url=http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/]Paul's Website[/url] [url=http://paulsnaturephotos.blogspot.com/]Paul's Blog[/url]
[b]NSN 0284[/b]
 

by LouBuonomo on Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:04 pm
LouBuonomo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5093
Joined: 8 Aug 2004
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Oh what a slippery slope... Where in NY are you ??
For song birds you are always going to want more reach, if you want sharp images like you see on this site then invest in a good tripod... not a junkie aluminum one but a real tripod and a decent ballhead.
Handholding a 400-500mm lens takes a great deal of practice and for tiny song birds it ain't easy.
I have heard good things about the Sigma also.

Lou
[url=http://www.nwpli.com]NWPLI Member[/url] http://www.westhighland-imaging.com - Member of NANPA
NSN #353
 

by bobbyz on Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:14 pm
bobbyz
Forum Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
I would look at 400mm f5.6, super sharp, much better AF for birds in flight and you can buy used ones for < $900. Stick cheap tamron 1.4xTC and you get 560mm f8 though AF slows down quite a lot on non 1 series. I wouldn't worry about IS that much (I have 500mm f4 IS and 300mmf 2.8 IS and have used both 100-400L IS and 400mm f5.6). Get cheap bogen < $100 tripod with 3 little legs and you set to go even where you need very low ss. Look at Daniella on dpr. She use to use same setup and her images are very good.
 

by DOglesby on Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:18 am
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
I've shot with the 100-400, Sigma 150-500 and 400 f/5.6. The Sigma was the worst of all of them, by a huge margin. The 100-400 was my favorite for its versatility. I'm a sharpness nut and I found the sharpness quite acceptable. The 400 is a great lens and super sharp but, as said earlier, it isn't stabilized. The 100-400 will give you much more flexibility with the stabilization and zoom (so you can even do landscapes with it). But, it costs more than the 300 f/4 if I remember correctly. And, the 400 is around $1100 too. So, if you aren't comfortable with that outlay then perhaps the Sigma is the way to go. Just be prepared to sacrifice sharpness for reach. My 100-400 trounced the Sigma. Wasn't even close. One thing to keep in mind is that if you are shooting birds-in-flight a zoom is a heck of a lot easier to use than a prime. The field of view at 400mm can be tough to locate a flying bird. Pulling back to 100mm then zooming in is MUCH easier and will certainly help a new bird shooter get more shots. Just remember, with glass you get what you pay for.
Cheers,
Doug
 

by milmoejoe on Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:01 am
User avatar
milmoejoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 866
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Location: Washington, D.C.
I agree with the 400/5.6, hands down.

Last week, one of our workshop attendees had the 150-500 (nikon mount) on the d300 and this lens was far less than ideal. The mount is very poorly designed. She was on her second copy, given an extremely loose mount and stuck aperture blade the first time around. Furthermore, images- even at 1/1000 sec on a tripod, were not anywhere near usable. Finally, the sigma lenses have an unpleasant warm color that (IMO) does not work well with the canon line, it does compliment the nikon a bit better. I was not aware this lens existed until last week, but could not recommend it to you!
 

by rbaumhauer on Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:09 am
User avatar
rbaumhauer
Forum Contributor
Posts: 792
Joined: 8 Jan 2004
Location: West Haven, CT, USA
If you are okay working from a tripod, I'd try either the Sigma 50-500 or the Canon 400 5.6L. The 50-500 is generally considered to be sharper at the long end than the newer 150-500, but lacks stabilization - definitely an issue with a 4lb lens, though some do shoot handheld with it.

The Sigma 150-500 OS and 50-500 are a lot of lens for the money, but my gut feeling is that the marginal increase in reach (most 500mm zooms aren't really 500mm, but somewhere in the 470-490mm range) vs the 400 5.6L is not worth the decrease in quality. With the zooms, you'd need to stop down to f/8 to get better sharpness, and I think you'd find the quality of the 400 5.6, paired with a non-reporting teleconverter to maintain autofocus (I have the Tamron), to be equal to or better than the zooms in quality, and a bit longer at 560mm. If you get a decent, lightweight tripod for shooting in lower light (Gitzo or Bogen-Manfrotto), it should take care of camera shake in those circumstances. Also, I think you'll find the 400 5.6L much easier to handle for flight shots, though, as Doug mentioned, there is a learning curve to finding subjects with the prime.

As you may have discovered, this question comes up a lot, and there probably is no "right" answer - it all depends on what you enjoy shooting with and gets you the results you're looking for. The nice thing, particularly with the Canon L lenses, is that you can always try them and resell them if they don't work out for you while taking a fairly minimal economic hit. You can also keep an eye on the buy/sell forums at www.fredmiranda.com or the used equipment sections at bhphotovideo.com, adorama.com, or keh.com to save some money on the initial investment.
Rick Baumhauer
Photographer/Consultant
http://www.baumhauerphoto.com
 

by Steven Major on Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:03 am
Steven Major
Forum Contributor
Posts: 324
Joined: 5 May 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ
Thinking Out loud
Opportunities for great and good bird images are fleeting moments of brief duration, thus the preponderance of average images on the web and else ware that for me, have a record keeping quality about them. The difficulties inherent in bird photography are unimaginable until you try to do it, hats off to those who persevere. For myself, bird photography is best done hand held, using a tripod for a subject that is constantly on the move (and moving) is self-defeating. The ability and need to quickly change composition by moving the camera one step to the right or left, up and down is highly advantageous. Slowly sneaking up on a bird on two legs is very difficult, doing it with five legs (including tripod) is usually impossible.
Hand holding requires two things. One, a camera that performs well at high ISOs and has a good auto focus ability, and two, a lens that CAN be hand held. High ISO is needed because hand holding a telephoto requires high shutter speeds to avoid lens motion blur and using high ISO will help gain depth of field, a challenging aspect of telephoto lenses. High ISOs add noise to the file, noise-canceling software greatly improve image quality. I use the Canon 400 5.6L because it is the lightest/longest telephoto I can handle. I attach a 2” X 6” flat plate to the tripod collar that sits in the palm of my left hand when shooting.
Most often I use a 5dMark II w/ grip, Raw, ISO 1000, shutter priority 1/000 sec, spot auto focus, the above-mentioned 400mm, DDP, Photoshop, and Noise Ninja software. I prefer high clouds of the type that diffuse though don’t greatly lesson the amount of light, and shooting in the spring when things warm up and birds start coming into an area and before leaves are fully out on trees…without leaves, it’s easier to see our so fine feathered friends. In southern Arizona spring is starting now. I encourage you to rent a lens before buying to see how it works for you. Good Luck
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
20 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group