Light 600mm: Sigma 150-600 vs 300/2.8LIIx2 vs 400/4DOIIx1.4
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:10 pm
Hi,
I now am the happy owner of a 1DX as my one and only bird photography body (I had to sell both my D3S and D810 for that ... please don't argue).
For the moment I use it with the 400/5.6L for fast, close birds in flight such as swallows. Very happy with this combination that is all about speed (AF, fps).
When I need more reach for more distant, less fast moving birds, I can use my 1.4x TC, which yields a 560/8 with pretty good IQ (no better stopped down, tested).
The downside is that AF is restricted to the central point, so no zone AF, etc., and AF reactivity is a step down, too.
Moreover, a common problem with TCs, when a fast bird comes by, I am stuck with the TC mounted, even though I would be better with the bare lens for a short series of shot.
Finally, 560mm as a maximal FL is a bit short also at times.
I wonder if there is a lens that would provide more reach than 400mm, WITH excellent, fully functional AF, WITHOUT compromising the light, excellent handling that I experience with the small 400L (I do everything handholding). A lens with a strong focus on BIF, but with some ability to provide longer reach also when needed.
From my experience I know that this lens should weigh less than 3 kg (Since 2008 I re-sold three 500/4s, either Nikon or Canon, because of that: clumsiness in the field), preferably 2kg. I see 3 options, with each having pros and cons:
- Canon 300/2.8L II with 2x TC.
Pros: fully functional AF at 600/5.6, IQ on par or better than the 400L.
Cons: Need to switch TCs for getting back to 420mm, on the heavy side (2.5 kg), pretty expensive.
- Sigma 150-600mm C
Pros: fully functional AF at 600/6.3, Very practical zoom to switch from 600 to 400 or even 300mm when needed, light, cheap.
Cons: AF reliability and IQ a step down from option 1 (but to what extent I don't know), AFMA mess (see thread in the digital section)
- Canon 400mm DO II with 1.4x TC
Pros: same as option 1 except that it is a 560mm and maybe 300g lighter.
Cons: TC switch again, even pricier than option 1, and a lack of feedback on the potential bokeh issue with specular highlights (I often shoot on shore).
What would be your choice if you were in this situation ? I know some will point the 200-400, but it is a bit over my 3kg limit, and way over my wallet limit ;o)
Thanks for reading,
Manu.
I now am the happy owner of a 1DX as my one and only bird photography body (I had to sell both my D3S and D810 for that ... please don't argue).
For the moment I use it with the 400/5.6L for fast, close birds in flight such as swallows. Very happy with this combination that is all about speed (AF, fps).
When I need more reach for more distant, less fast moving birds, I can use my 1.4x TC, which yields a 560/8 with pretty good IQ (no better stopped down, tested).
The downside is that AF is restricted to the central point, so no zone AF, etc., and AF reactivity is a step down, too.
Moreover, a common problem with TCs, when a fast bird comes by, I am stuck with the TC mounted, even though I would be better with the bare lens for a short series of shot.
Finally, 560mm as a maximal FL is a bit short also at times.
I wonder if there is a lens that would provide more reach than 400mm, WITH excellent, fully functional AF, WITHOUT compromising the light, excellent handling that I experience with the small 400L (I do everything handholding). A lens with a strong focus on BIF, but with some ability to provide longer reach also when needed.
From my experience I know that this lens should weigh less than 3 kg (Since 2008 I re-sold three 500/4s, either Nikon or Canon, because of that: clumsiness in the field), preferably 2kg. I see 3 options, with each having pros and cons:
- Canon 300/2.8L II with 2x TC.
Pros: fully functional AF at 600/5.6, IQ on par or better than the 400L.
Cons: Need to switch TCs for getting back to 420mm, on the heavy side (2.5 kg), pretty expensive.
- Sigma 150-600mm C
Pros: fully functional AF at 600/6.3, Very practical zoom to switch from 600 to 400 or even 300mm when needed, light, cheap.
Cons: AF reliability and IQ a step down from option 1 (but to what extent I don't know), AFMA mess (see thread in the digital section)
- Canon 400mm DO II with 1.4x TC
Pros: same as option 1 except that it is a 560mm and maybe 300g lighter.
Cons: TC switch again, even pricier than option 1, and a lack of feedback on the potential bokeh issue with specular highlights (I often shoot on shore).
What would be your choice if you were in this situation ? I know some will point the 200-400, but it is a bit over my 3kg limit, and way over my wallet limit ;o)
Thanks for reading,
Manu.