New Tele lens??

[wrogers]

Hi all

I have got a Sigma 100-300 F/4 and it provides a relatively good focal length, however 400-500 mm would be nice occasionally...

my problem is that all week, and also today i took some 5Gb of photos! howver the definition was poor at most F stops around the F/4 maximum... (from F/4 to F/6.3) and my iso was at 1600, however my 400D recorded poor shots that wouldnt look good even on the back of the camera!!

basically I need a lens that works well with good saturation, contrast and sharpness and must be available in canon fit.

my budget is £1000 max (assuming I can part ex my sigma)

so basically what is the best lens in the 100-500mm range with a minimum of 300mm at the top reach??

also is the Bigma any good?? (I do realise it works best at F/8)

any help would be great

Will

[NickCantle]

Have you thought about the Canon 100-400mm L IS USM? It's a favorite of many WAB members.

[glsammy]

Your Sigma 100-300 F4 is a highly regarded lens, generally considered the best and sharpest lens Sigma do. Certainly John D Uses that lens with a 1.4X TC on and gets some superb results, I recommend you have a look through his Gallery to see that set ups capabilities.
I'm not sure you'd better its performance for the amount your considering spending.

[wrogers]

thanks nick and graham

I am tempted to spend all evening trying to upload some examples so you can see my lens's IQ problems....

I am tempted to swap for a Bigma or Pump,
but maybe I will get the sigma calibrated and then buy a 400mm F/5.6

Luckily I got snowed in and school is 30miles away, so I got to shoot out of the window at the bird feeders (too cold here in Suffolk to venture outdoors)

luckily snow is natures reflector (managed to get 5 mins at ISO800!!!)

Will try to post examples

Thanks for the advice

Will

[Geoff F]

I'm in the same boat as you!

Have been researching and thinking for over a year, waiting for Canon to announce some overdue updates to their longer lens range or some substantial price reductions. As I see it now, just comparing the 'better value' lenses:

Canon 100-400 can be a bit variable between lenses and is a bit soft at 400 although this is a lot better if you stop down a bit. Will work quite well with a 1.4x converter. Some people don't like the push pull action. Rumours of dust problems are generally exagerated. All in all, a useful bit of kit but a bit pricey for what it is, and the price has increased again recently.

Canon 400mm prime, old fashioned although still produces good sharp images, but no IS and a rather long minimum focusing distance. Like all prime lenses it lacks the adaptability of a zoom but works well with converters including x2. A good choice for bird work on a tripod.

Canon 300mm, like the 400 but has IS and a shorter minimum focusing distance. Works well with converters. A good choice for a general purpose prime lens but carrying around 2 converters (1.4x & x2) and changing them as required might be a bit of a strain on the nerves. Good choice for general work.

Sigma 50-500. Relatively heavy and perhaps a little bit 'old fashioned' now and no IS but well liked by many wildlife photographers who produce excellent work with it.

Sigma 150-500. A bit of a newcomer to this scene. Earlier models appeared to have some QC problems but this seems to be OK now. Some complaints about slow frames per second burst when using AI Servo particularly on Canon cameras. Has IS (OS). Not quite as sharp as the best primes but reviews suggest this lens is about equal to the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 50-500 both in quality of build and performance. And it is cheaper, quite a lot compared with the Canon. Generally reckoned to be a successful lens but not a lot of feedback from semi pro use yet. Will take Sigma converters (probably Kenko as well) but so far I haven't seen the results.

There are a few other alternatives which, for a variety of personal reasons, I haven't considered as being suitable for me. Both the Sigma lenses considered here are available in Canon fit.

So to sum up, at the moment I am within a gnat's wotsits of ordering the Sigma 150-500 for a little under £650 which looks a very good price, if it hasn't increased yet - I suspect it might soon.

ps. If you want a reliable larger lens to work well in poor light at, say, F4 or less, expect to spend a lot more than all of these considerations.

[Richard G.]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

So to sum up, at the moment I am within a gnat's wotsits of ordering the Sigma 150-500 for a little under £650 which looks a very good price, if it hasn't increased yet - I suspect it might soon.

SigmaUser - Sigma UK price increases.
Though doesn't seem to have filtered down to some of the retailers yet, but don't think it will be long at all.

[wrogers]

Crikey

Well where to start...

Geoff... thanks for the insight into the different lenses..

looks like I have some decision making that will be hard!!

I would love the 400mm prime but costs are rising...

300mm is a safe bet and is in my final list.

100-400 has to stay in the final despite the damned price!!

50-500 is a great choice it seems despite the slow f/6.3

150-500 looks tempting but as you say, not enough reviews of later batches and semi-pro use

so looks like that is 4 good lenses to pick!! with the 400mm prime as an option

thanks richard as well

I had thought the price increases had already happened in January (canon & Nikon did)

but 40% devaluation of the pound would mean £900 for a 150-500!!
that is what the 100-400L was last year (in some shops)

Blimey!!!

looks like the lens will have to wait!!

thanks again!
Will

[John D]

Hi Will, As Graham has already said I use the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX lens and a Sigma 1.4EX TC and must say that I am very pleased with results obtained. Sure there will be a lens that is better but at a much higher cost. If I was you I'd try a Sigma EX 1.4 TC before spending near to £1000 and possibly not getting the improvement you want. With a constant F4 the 100-300mm lens is reasonably fast and it has the added advantage of being of constant length throughout it operation.
IMHO the Sigma 100-300mm and 1.4tc combination is as good a buy as you'll get for under £1000.

John D

[Geoff F]

Hold everything Will. I've done a bit of research and found your ideal lens; Sigma 200-500 F2.8 but get your order in quick before the price rises. Currently a snip at only £19,150.00.

I see that the Bigma is now quoted at £1000 so I tried to order a 150-500 for £629 plus a heafty extra £75 for a UV filter (probably worth it if it saves the lens from scratching). But the internet sale encountered a hitch and I couldn't continue.

Possibly, as this is the first time that I've used this company my credit card company thought if was suspicious; or, even more likely, I've entered something wrong in the complicated security systems. Perhaps they have realised that the price was wrong! I will have to make some phone calls tomorrow.

But your current lens 100-300 is now listed at £1,159.00 so maybe just getting a 1.4x converter might be a good option for you. It will make those low light action shots virtually impossible unless you can get away with a tripod and lower shutter speeds. But if you need to use a high shutter speed of say 1/500 to prevent camera shake the only option is going to be expensive.

[John D]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

But your current lens 100-300 is now listed at £1,159.00 so maybe just getting a 1.4x converter might be a good option for you. It will make those low light action shots virtually impossible unless you can get away with a tripod and lower shutter speeds. But if you need to use a high shutter speed of say 1/500 to prevent camera shake the only option is going to be expensive.

I never use a tripod with my Sigma 100-300mm f4 lens and 1.4tc but do use a monopod most of the time and find I get very acceptable images in all the lighting conditions I have experienced to date. I find a monopod much more flexible to use especially when surrounded by long undergrowth,bushes and when on rocky shorelines etc. The monopod I find is much quicker to set up and certainly easier to carry around.
With a Canon 40D at ISO 800 and an aperature of 5.6 (with 1.4 tc) in low light most shots are acceptable, failing that an ISO of 1600 has been used to good effect.
However maybe you are looking to operate in a much poorer light in which case I would not be trying.

John D