Minimum focusing distance (lens debate)

[Words]

I know there are loads of posts about this, but I still can't quite work out where my next spend is going. I've currently got the Canon 100-400 pump. Great lens (rarely off the camera), but it has an annoying tendency for the zoom ring to loosen. I've had it repaired once, but after about a year it's beginning to go again and will have to go in for a fix. No problem with that (apart from being without a lens for a couple of weeks).

Anyway, I've decided that I need a second long lens. I've got the 70-300 DO lens but I prefer that for town or indoor work, or sometimes night photography. It's not ideal as a wildlife lens. The options are the Canon 400 f/5.6, either the Bigma or 150-500 Sigma, or (at a push the Canon 300 f/4 plus extender).

The downsides of the 400 f/5.6 seem to me to be (a) lack of IS, and (b) long minimum focusing distance (3.5m). But the promise of improved sharpness is tempting. Very.

The Bigma also lacks IS, but has an absolutely stunning minimum focus distance (300mm). So presumably outstanding for small creatures if you can get close (even if you don't push it all the way to 500mm. Tempting.

The Sigma 150-500 has an even better minimum focusing distance (200mm), plus IS. Plus it saves me enough to consider adding other kit.

The Canon 300 f/4 has IS (but would need an extender and the minimum focusing distance isn't great).

I saw the thread where GSlammy kind of proved the sharpness factor of the prime (and the very marginal imapct of extra reach). That pushes the prime. But I'm intrigued by the focusing distance issue. The differences are significant and the close-up capability of the Sigma's would seem to open up new avenues for work not possible with the Canons.

Help me spend my money. It's good for the economy

[glsammy]

I've owned most of these options.

I decided to get the 300mm F4 with a 1.4x TC instead of the 400mm F5.6. My reasoning being the better minimum focusing distance. There's little if any difference in the optical qualities of these two, both are spot on. The Bigma can't compete optically with either of them. I can really see the difference in detail.

After struggling with the 300mm for a couple of months I've changed to the 400mm F5.6. I'm very happy now with that choice, even though I've lost the close focusing. The problem with the 300mm was its slow AF performance, both with and without the TC. The IS to me was a waste of time. All it did was slow the camera down too much!

It all depends on your priorities which would be more suitable. If your not bothered by poor AF performance, then the 300mm f4 is a good option, even if you lose the zoom. If you want a lens that will give you superb sharp images and one that will focus accurately and fast then the 400mm is the one to go for.

I do miss the zoom flexibility of the Bigma, but I certainly appreciate the quality of the images I get with the Canon lens.

[Words]

Graham, thanks for such a comprehensive response. Appreciated, especially in knocking out the 300. You're definitely edging me towards the prime. I doubt it will be my last lens, but probably the only one this year Fast AF is fairly crucial given how I tend to work,

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Words

Graham, thanks for such a comprehensive response. Appreciated, especially in knocking out the 300. You're definitely edging me towards the prime. I doubt it will be my last lens, but probably the only one this year Fast AF is fairly crucial given how I tend to work,

I can definitely confirm what Graham has said about the AF capabilities of the 400mm prime. Although as you said it lacks the image stabilisation of the 100-400mm it still in my opinion has the ege over the 100-400mm in terms of image quality as well. I must say there have been a few occasions when the minimum focussing distance has made me wish it were a little clloser but only a few

It is also again my opinion only one of the best lenses for in flight work as it's a fair bit lighter than the 100-400mm making it asier to hand hold.

I always used to use my 400mm prime on a tripod for normal shots but have just recently switched to a monopod and as far as I can see I'm getting as good reults as with the tripod so if you can hand hold the 100-400mm I can't see it being a problem hand holding the 400mm prime even without the image stabilistion

As for the Sigma 50-500mm, again a great lens as Graham said but not quite as good optically at 500mm as the 400mm prime but great for dragonflies and butterflies although it can struggle at times with the smaller damselflies. I often use the bigma for the more shy species of dragonly, BT Skimmers for example that don't allow a close approach.

I have never used the 150-500mm so won't comment on that one.

[Words]

Ollie thnaks for that. I tend not to lug a tripod about, but often go out with a monopod. I can see where this is heading

[Geoff F]

It was the long minimum focusing distance and lack of IS which finally made me decide against the 400 mm. I kept waiting for Canon do do something about this lens which is crying out for a revamp but finally went for the Sigma 150-500. Possibly a bit slow and F6.3 minimum has some limitation but I like the flexibility of a zoom.

But if you are mostly using the lens at 400 with a tripod etc then it makes a good choice, especially with the converter option. Most of the bigger lenses have a correspondingly large price tag.

I have done some experimentation with the Sigma 150-500 plus an extension tube for macro work Macro photography with Sigma 150-500?

In my opinion, not quite as good as a special macro lens but could be useful for nervous insects and an extension tube easily fits into the pocket.

[Words]

Thanks Geoff. I've got the Sigma 105 macro lens which I tend to take with me when insects are around. Works well with an extender/teleconverter if I need extra reach, so I probably have that end covered most of the time. No doubt I'll end up with a kestrel inside the min range of the 400 prime but I'll still have the 100-400 zoom for days when I think I need that kind of flexibility. Hmmmm.... decisions decisions....

[MeadsMan]

I have not used any of the lenses mentioned,but do use the 400mm prime,and can not praise it enough.