Wildlife lens recommendations

squishy · #1 (**permalink**) 07-10-2010, 07:33 PM

I'm currently looking into the options for my first 'wildlife' lens.

It'll get used mainly for birds, handheld sometimes, but I'll also use a monopod as well. I'll also want to use it as a 'pseudo macro' for bigger insects like dragonflies.

I've already got a list of possible lenses:

sigma 120-400 or 150-500
pros: both cheaper than the other options. Nice zoom range, popular first wildlife lenses.
cons: Sigma's slightly iffy quality control. Soft wide open (And the 150-500 is slow, only f/6.3).

Canon 100-400L
pros: Sharper than the sigmas wide open, still has the flexibility of a zoom, faster than the 150-500
cons: More expensive (probably looking at a used lens), it's white (though I doubt this really has any effect), some say it sucks dust badly (some people say it's fine). Some soft copies around.
I had a look at one a few weeks ago, and I don't mind the pump action zoom.

Canon 300 f/4L IS (+1.4x)
pros: sharper and faster as a 300mm. Still good as a 420mm

cons: It's a prime, so less flexible. Possibly isn't any sharper than a 100-400 with the 1.4x, and adding in the cost of a 1.4 means it's more expensive, even If I buy used. slower AF with the 1.4.

I would also consider a used 400/5.6L, but it doesn't have IS, which I would value on a lens this long, and the MFD isn't close enough for dragonflies.

Does anyone have any recommendations out of those lenses, or any other lenses I should consider?

nigel_b · #2 (**permalink**) 07-10-2010, 10:36 PM

I wouldn't necessarily say the 100-400 is sharper than the sigma wide open.

I dont use Canon but my Nikon 300 + 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the 300 by itself so dont assume you will lose sharpness. I have noticed a drop in depth of focus with mine though.

I think you'll get three people who'll give you 3 different answers.

It feels like you're asking us which solution you'll like best!

Personally I like to stick to the makes so if it was me I would go for one of the Canon solutions BUT I think for birds you need all the mils you can get so if makes don't float your boat like they do for me I'd go for the Sigma.

I tried a sigma bigma on my Sony alpha and the results were very, very good. You'll like the extra bit of reach and image size on the sensor the 500mm will give you.

I had a 500mm reflex for the Sony and most of my photos on the wall were taken with that. It doesnt sound that much more reach, but it makes a lot of difference. This is really only significant because you want to take birds.

Jim Ford · #3 (**permalink**) 07-10-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigel_b

I had a 500mm reflex for the Sony and most of my photos on the wall were taken with that. It doesnt sound that much more reach, but it makes a lot of difference. This is really only significant because you want to take birds.

Everyone is tempted by a mirror lens at some time - and they usually end up on Ebay!

I had a Russian MTO 500 many years ago, but can't remember much about it except that it was slower than the claimed f8.

Until this year I had a Tamron SP 350mm f5.6, which is very highly regarded and fetches high prices. I didn't think much of it - it was nowhere near as sharp and contrasty as the modest Zuiko 70-300mm. The nicest thing about it was that it was around the size of a cooking apple. The buyer on Ebay was very pleased with it though.

nigel_b · #4 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 06:20 AM

What I was saying was it's the 500mm reach aspect of the lens that made it successful for me, not that I was suggesting a mirror lens as an alternative.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you need 500mm minimum for bird photography.

NicolaB · #5 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 07:02 AM

I agree with Nigel on the 500mm as a minimum for bird photography, and even that isn't long enough for me sometimes!

I can thoroughly recommend the Sigma 150-500mm or Bigma as well. I've been really impressed with my Bigma over the two years I've owned it, and pretty much all of my bird shots were taken with this lens. As you said in the first post, there is a bit of variation in quality control with Sigma lenses, but if you get a good one they're absolutely cracking

Most people I know who've owned one seem very happy with them, I just wouldn't get one secondhand so you've got the option of a replacement if you're unlucky enough to get one that's not up to scratch.

They can be a little bit soft wide open, but mine personally isn't too bad, especially if the light is good. My successful snowy kite shot was actually taken at 500mm and f6.3

Jim Ford · #6 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 08:28 AM

I haven'y got a 'Bigma' myself, but have seen several comments that at 500mm the sharpness is nowhere near as good as just a bit shorter, IIRC at around 450mm.

Jim

Ollie · #7 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

I haven'y got a 'Bigma' myself, but have seen several comments that at 500mm the sharpness is nowhere near as good as just a bit shorter, IIRC at around 450mm.

Jim

You are right Jim.

I have a Bigma and it's a little on the soft side at 500mm. Keep it a 450mm or below and it's fine. It also makes a very decent dragonfly or butterfly lens as well if you don't mind the weight.

squishy · #8 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 10:06 AM

I have to admit I was quite put off from the sigma when I saw this comparison:

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

I don't put that much faith in test charts, small differences in sharpness seem to become exaggerated on a comparison like that, but the difference there looks very noticeable.

However in that comparison, the 100-400 is also sharper than the 300/4L x1.4, which I wasn't expecting.

NicolaB · #9 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

I haven'y got a 'Bigma' myself, but have seen several comments that at 500mm the sharpness is nowhere near as good as just a bit shorter, IIRC at around 450mm.

Yes, mine performs best at about 470mm and f8, which on a DX sensor camera is still a very long range.

I can't really advise on the Canon lenses unfortunately, being a Nikon user, but I'm sure there are others on here with experience of them

slimrbp · #10 (**permalink**) 08-10-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squishy

I have to admit I was quite put off from the sigma when I saw this comparison:

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

I don't put that much faith in test charts, small differences in sharpness seem to become exaggerated on a comparison like that, but the difference there looks very noticeable.

However in that comparison, the 100-400 is also sharper than the 300/4L x1.4, which I wasn't expecting.

It is all relative though, I found the 100-400 to be a little sharper than the 300mm + 1.4x converter IMO the sharpness of the 300 + 1.4x is still plenty good enough

I did some home made tests when I was considering getting a 100-400.

Richard Parker's Photography Blog: Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L Static tests

Richard Parker's Photography Blog: Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L Field Test

In the end I have decided to stick with the 300mm F4 and 1.4x converter (I tried it recently with a 2x converter and it was surprisingly effective!)

Canon 2x Extender

Although the prime is less verstile the low MFD makes it a good lens for butterflies and the like and I have only had a few occasions where I have been too close. I have used it with a 400D, 40D and now a 7D and really like it.

This was taken with the 300mm

And this with the 300 + 1.4x