wildlife lens choice

[richardwebb]

I am in a predicament that I have been trying to get out of now for quite a few months; what do i upgrade my current lens to??

I currently use:

Canon 5D MK1 (full frame sensor!)
Tokina AT-X 80-400 f4.5-5.6
Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS

I want to upgrade the Tokina lens for my primary usage which is wildlife. My current 2 choices are:

1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM with Canon Extender EF 1.4x II

The first choice has the same f stop as my current lens, but a far superior quality! Would this make that much difference, I do struggle with available light!

I know the second choice will decrease my current maximum by 120mm, but will that really matter that much!! I would have the added benefit of f2.8 (although what will this actually be with the extender?)

Help, help, help!!!

PS How about the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM ?!?!?!

[Caroline B]

That is the problem when so much is available on the market, you just get spoilt for choice

I was bought the Canon 100-400 L series lens for my birthday and I am extremely pleased with the quality of the pictures. The only down side I have found is that it is a quite big old lump and does get rather heavy, especially at the end of the day.

The thought of having a lens which can do 2.8 is also very appealing. So to assist you with your decision making, there is nothing else for it, I suggest you buy them both

[Lancashire Lad]

One thing to consider with your second choice, is that you would lose 1 stop of light whenever you are using the 1.4 extender. Therefore your 70-200 f2.8 would effectively become f4 max. when used with the extender.

Regards
Mike.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by richardwebb

I know the second choice will decrease my current maximum by 120mm, but will that really matter that much!!

I would say an emphatic "yes, it will matter"! I'm a Nikon owner and use their 80-400 for birds and am almost always wishing I had more length. (Stop tittering at the back there! ) I have found a couple of places locally where I can get close enough for decent frame-filling portraits but most places I go, even with purpose built hides, the wildlife is still too far away. If I was buying today I'd almost certainly go for the Bigma (the Sigma 50-500) unless I won the lottery in which case I'd opt for the Nikon 200-400 with a 1.4 converter. You can get the Sigma in Canon mount and I bet that Canon do an equivalent of the 200-400 if you win the lottery!

Dave P.

[richardwebb]

ok, so i'm discounting the 70-200mm, not enough length.

i now have 3 choices i am still mlling over:

1. canon 100-400 L. Excelent choice, but am i gaining much over my Tokina 80-400, still concerned about the aperture at low light with moving targets!

2. canon 300 f4. Another excellent choice, but i would lose the versatility of the zoom, and only gain a small amount of aperture over the 100-400

3. sigma 50-500 or 150-500mm f/5-6.3 (has image stabilization). Another two excellent choices, cheaper, but arguably not as good quality as the Canons.

[Richard G.]

I'm not a Canon shooter, so can't really comment specifically on their lens range, but I decided to go with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4TC rather than the 80-400 mentioned above.

My reasoning was that the IQ would be superior with the better lens, even when using the TC. The only issue being the ability to get close enough to the subject, but that will depend on what and where I'm shooting. I know that it'll be perfectly good for places like the Farnes or a wildlife park like the BWC. The rest is up to me to learn good enough fieldcraft to give me other opportunities.

Course like David, I'd love to have a Nikon 200-400 f4 and maybe if/when the next generation 80-400mm comes along with AFS, I'll think about changing, but seriously good pictures require serious amounts of cash it seems.

It also really depends on what you're doing with the final images. I don't make a lot of large prints, so might be happier to crop more significantly than others?

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by richardwebb

1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM with Canon Extender EF 1.4x II

For me its a no-brainer.

Wildlife needs 400mm, especially on a full frame body.

extenders degrade quality - OK the L series not so much
as some.

No 1. wins hand-down. there are lots of us on WAB who
have one and no one complains !!!!!!!!!

[GaryB]

What about the Canon 400/5.6? My copy is *much* sharper than my 100-400. Also it seems to be about 1/3 of a stop brighter and is a true 400mm (the 100-400 is actually only about 380mm)

The only downside is that you do need to use a tripod.

Also what about a second hand Sigma 500/4.5 - you should be able to get one within your budget and they are more reach and brighter.....

Gary

[galanthus]

Originally Posted by GaryB

What about the Canon 400/5.6? My copy is *much* sharper than my 100-400. Also it seems to be about 1/3 of a stop brighter and is a true 400mm (the 100-400 is actually only about 380mm)

The only downside is that you do need to use a tripod.

Also what about a second hand Sigma 500/4.5 - you should be able to get one within your budget and they are more reach and brighter.....

Gary

I'd agree with the 400/5.6 as a great option, am considering it myself. I currently use canon 70-300mm 4.0/5.6 IS lens and love it to bits, never regretted buying it and is my main walk around lens for wildlife, however, I'd love the 400/5.6 as it's replacement.

[big bill]

Hello Richard I have the sigma 170-500mm lens and it takes great pics and there are quite a few other members have the 50-500 mm lens by Sigma,Graham (Glsammy ) is but one of themhave a look at the Gallery for evidence of its potential.
I have never regretted buying this lens and would happily go with your choice of either the
sigma 50-500 or 150-500mm f/5-6.3 (has image stabilization).
The 50-500 you would not need to keep changing lens with all the time