I'm currently shooting a Canon XTI with a 100-400L but want more reach for birds. I'd love to purchase the 500mm f/4L but can't justify (afford?) the price, but I'm now seriously considering the 300mm f/2.8 and 2.0 TC combination. I'm nervous about making a serious financial/photographic mistake here and would love some advice. Is this lens and TC a good combination? - sharpness is a priority of course. Any autofocus or other issues? Any other options I'm not thinking of? What tripod options are appropriate here - is a Wimberly a necessity? If I purchase this lens I'm considering keeping the 1-400 for it's versatility, even with the overlap - would that be silly? OK, I'm sure I've used up my question allotment here. Thank you for any advice.
Ron, I started out photographing birds with a 300mm f 2.8 IS lens and both Canon teleconverters. I shot that rig for 3 months before I bit the bullet, sold the 300mm, and bought the 500mm f 4L IS lens. For birding, you can never have enough reach. The 300mm + tc's is fine for the larger birds like waterfowl. If, however, you want to photograph average songbirds and smaller there just ain't enough reach. I really wanted and would have bought the 600mm but it was too heavy for me to carry comfortably all day. Yes, the 500mm in my case was well worth the extra money.
The photos from the 300mm, even with the 2x II tc were very, very sharp. I even stacked the 2x and 1.4x and got some very nice images. I still wish I had the 300mm for flight shooting and the 300mm + tc's makes an excellent large game lens but I always had the 2x II tc mounted to the lens and I was always wanting more focal length.
Ron, whichever you choose, also consider adopting a feeder setup with a blind/hide six feet away. I have one set up that way, and I alternate natural perches that I place six inches farther out than my 100-400L IS minimum focus distance. Done that way, warbler-sized birds fill as much of the frame as I want (I generally want a bit of air in the direction the bird is facing, so a bird occupying two-thirds of the frame is plenty). On birds of robin size, I have to back off the zoom or my compositions crop off parts of the bird.
On small birds out in the open, 400mm is often inadequate, unless they are the tamer species. Many warblers, for example, won't allow you to approach closely enough for a 400mm, and even a 600mm with a 1.4 TC isn't always enough for the small, wary species when they know you are about.
If you don't have to give up the 100-400 to help finance your other purchases, I'd hold on to it. The only advantage a zoom has over a prime is flexibility in rapidly developing situations. There have been a number of times that I've been able to get a sudden shot of an unexpected creature while shooting the 100-400 next to other folks bound to their supertele primes.
Also, if you get a backup body, you can leave the 100-400 on it while shooting with the prime and TCs to allow that instant adaptability. I mean, the darn XT is still being sold new with full warranty for only $500, and makes a decent backup body, although without the battery grip added on it's too small for my hands.
As for tripod/head, I don't think there is such a thing as a tripod that's "TOO good" for long lenses. Something like a Gitzo 1325 would be my own minimum choice.
Nothing special here, obviously, but just as an example this is an uncropped image that shows how much of the frame a siskin (smaller than a house sparrow) fills when using the 100-400L IS and 1.6 crop sensor at a few inches beyond the lens's minimum focus distance. This was shot from my backyard blind at 400mm and f8.
Tom - You've got me seriously reconsidering the 500mm f/4L. Really! Maybe I can go without groceries for a few months....... Steve - I've already got the backyard blind setup but the bird species in my neighborhood are very limited and mostly common. I want more variety so plan on spending more time in the field. Kent - no, I hadn't considered the Sigma but will look into it. Any downsides? All this is really helpful - I'm very grateful for your input.
If I remember correctly, I don't think the older Sigma 500's are being rechipped for the current Canon digital bodies, including yours. The newer Sigma's should work fine, though.
Ron, if you can afford the 500, BUY IT! It's only my budget, not my back, that keeps me from the 500 or 600. One or the other is a valuable tool to put in the toolbox. But keep the zoom for those moments when a zoom is prime.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 7, 2007 at 12:25 AM
As far as I know, the only real downside to the Sigma is no IS. I've read reviews by two people that own one, and they said it was a tremendous value. I would email Sigma and find out about the compatibility on the first generation ones. If they are compatiblie or can be made so, I think a used one would be an outstanding value. They do have a dedicated 1.4x APO tc too. Or, how about an older non-IS Canon 500mm f4?
You know, I read the Sigma reviews, and you just might want to consider it, for the money. You will need something like a Gitzo 1325 and I would bet a Wimberly Sidekick would make a big (but mangeable) lens like this shine:
I compared the Sigma 500mm f 4.5, the Canon 500mm f 4L IS lens, and the older Canon 500mm f 4.5 lens. First off, the Sigma is OK but has to be stopped down 1 f stop to come close to either of the 2 Canon 500mm lenses. Also, the Sigma has just a tad of Chromatic Aberration around bright highlights that becomes more accented using their dedicated teleconverters. The Sigma tc's are not really that good. They create quite a bit of contrast loss, IMO. If you buy the Sigma 500mm f 4.5 lens then buy the Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 DG teleconverter. It is much better than Sigma's.
OK, if you add a 1.4x tc to either the Sigma or the Canon 500mm f 4.5 lenses then you will lose autofocus with Canon 1.6x crop bodies (Rebels and XXD-series) and with the 5D. The Canon 500mm f 4.5L lens is nearly as sharp as the newer 500mm f 4L IS lens but the IS lens is a tad definitely sharper. The drawback to the older f 4.5L lens is that repair parts are no longer available. The f 4.5L lens uses an older style USM motor and the "manual" focusing isn't really manual. You are just manually inputting how far the focus motor turns when you turn the focus ring on the f 4.5L lens. If the focus motor fails there are no replacement parts to fix it and you cannot manually focus the lens. You might find a repair center that has salvaged some of the older USM motors but you don't know how reliable those will be and they are getting scarce and expensive.
I decide on the 500mm f 4L IS lens because it is sharp wide open and the IS is a definite advantage. I have slight tremors from nerve damage due to diabetes. If an IS lens weren't available I would not be photographing birds today. For the amount of money a person spends on a "supertelephoto" lens, I feel the 500mm f 4L IS lens is the best bang for the buck. One other consideration, too, is that if you stack a Canon 1.4x II tc and a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 DG tc on the 500mm f 4L IS lens you can retain autofocus and achieve images that are nearly the equal of using the Canon 2x tc by itself. Of course, with the Canon 2x II tc you lose autofocus on the XXD and 5d bodies. Stacking the 2, 1.4x tc's has been a real advantage for me shooting small birds with my 30D.
Whew, that's the 500mm lenses in a nut shell. For support, the sidekick with an adequate ball head is just fine. I am buying a Jobu Black Widow Heavy Duty head. It should arrive Friday. I think this head will be more versatile than the Wimberley Sidekick and more versatile than the full Wimberley head. The full Jobu head weighs just 5 ounces more than the new Wimberley II and has the swing-arm just like the Wimberley II. What is interesting about the Jobu Black Widow head is that the swing arm can be taken off the upper pivot, the quick release plate taken off the swing arm, and the quick release plate can be attached directly to the upper pivot bearing. This creates a head like the Sidekick but does not require mounting in a ball head. In this configuration (which Jobu sells as the Light weight Black Widow head) the head only weighs 2.5 pounds and should support the 500mm lens just fine. I will make an article about this on my web site after I've played with the Jobu head this weekend.
As for tripods, the Gitzo 1325 and it's newer equivalent model is ideal, IMO. I have my 500 on a 1325 with the 1321 leveling base and I have no desire for any other tripod.
OK, that's my rig and why I bought what I did. I hope this helps you make a better educated choice, Ron.
Thank you all!!! The info you have provided is exactly what I need to make a decision not based on ignorance. Your experience, expertise and efforts on my behalf have been incredibly helpful and are deeply appreciated.
Tom - I also have the shakes - from a condition called "essential tremors", which is aggravated by the excitement of a sudden potential bird opportunity. Without IS I wouldn't be shooting birds either.
OK, now I've got a little more research to do, then a decision to make. Time for me to put up or shut up. Thank you all again! NPN is a fantastic resource thanks to folks like you.
The lens and TC you are considering is a perfect combination.
I have the 300 f2.8L IS and both TCs. With regard to sharpness it is a superb lens. I can't tell the difference in sharpness with or without the 2.0xTC. I have on occasion thought that I noticed a slight reduction of autofocus speed using the 2.0xTC with my old 10D body.
I shoot mostly large birds but with my 1.6 crop factor camera, I seldom wish for more focal length. If 600mm at f5.6 on your XTi will give you the reach you need, you will have no complaints regarding sharpness.
Hey, Ron,
I'd like to second what Kent said above about considering a Wimberley Sidekick for your bigger lenses. My biggest is only a 300mm but I use an extension on it a lot. I struggled to get it stable enough, though, on a couple different tripods with a regular ball type head. No success at all. The Sidekick relieved all my troubles and added some great benefits like being able to pan more smoothly & adjust to rapidly changing subjects and situations. The Sidekick balances the lens for you and with the bigger tripods as suggested, the effort of handling these monster lenses is almost completely taken away. And I would go for more range, too, if I were more serious about bird photography. Good luck with your strategizing.
Discussion
15 repliesThe photos from the 300mm, even with the 2x II tc were very, very sharp. I even stacked the 2x and 1.4x and got some very nice images. I still wish I had the 300mm for flight shooting and the 300mm + tc's makes an excellent large game lens but I always had the 2x II tc mounted to the lens and I was always wanting more focal length.
On small birds out in the open, 400mm is often inadequate, unless they are the tamer species. Many warblers, for example, won't allow you to approach closely enough for a 400mm, and even a 600mm with a 1.4 TC isn't always enough for the small, wary species when they know you are about.
If you don't have to give up the 100-400 to help finance your other purchases, I'd hold on to it. The only advantage a zoom has over a prime is flexibility in rapidly developing situations. There have been a number of times that I've been able to get a sudden shot of an unexpected creature while shooting the 100-400 next to other folks bound to their supertele primes.
Also, if you get a backup body, you can leave the 100-400 on it while shooting with the prime and TCs to allow that instant adaptability. I mean, the darn XT is still being sold new with full warranty for only $500, and makes a decent backup body, although without the battery grip added on it's too small for my hands.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/380701-USA/Sigma_184101_Telephoto_500mm_f_4_5_EX.html
As for tripod/head, I don't think there is such a thing as a tripod that's "TOO good" for long lenses. Something like a Gitzo 1325 would be my own minimum choice.
Kent in SD
Moved to the 500mm within six months - & still attach the 1.4xTC most of the time.
I kept the 400mm for handheld flight shots.
The 600 was tempting, but got cold feet because of the size & weight.
(If that is wrong, someone PLEASE correct me!!!)
You know, I read the Sigma reviews, and you just might want to consider it, for the money. You will need something like a Gitzo 1325 and I would bet a Wimberly Sidekick would make a big (but mangeable) lens like this shine:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=131&sort=7&cat=38&page=1
http://www.digiscoped.com/Sigma500.html
Kent in SD
OK, if you add a 1.4x tc to either the Sigma or the Canon 500mm f 4.5 lenses then you will lose autofocus with Canon 1.6x crop bodies (Rebels and XXD-series) and with the 5D. The Canon 500mm f 4.5L lens is nearly as sharp as the newer 500mm f 4L IS lens but the IS lens is a tad definitely sharper. The drawback to the older f 4.5L lens is that repair parts are no longer available. The f 4.5L lens uses an older style USM motor and the "manual" focusing isn't really manual. You are just manually inputting how far the focus motor turns when you turn the focus ring on the f 4.5L lens. If the focus motor fails there are no replacement parts to fix it and you cannot manually focus the lens. You might find a repair center that has salvaged some of the older USM motors but you don't know how reliable those will be and they are getting scarce and expensive.
I decide on the 500mm f 4L IS lens because it is sharp wide open and the IS is a definite advantage. I have slight tremors from nerve damage due to diabetes. If an IS lens weren't available I would not be photographing birds today. For the amount of money a person spends on a "supertelephoto" lens, I feel the 500mm f 4L IS lens is the best bang for the buck. One other consideration, too, is that if you stack a Canon 1.4x II tc and a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 DG tc on the 500mm f 4L IS lens you can retain autofocus and achieve images that are nearly the equal of using the Canon 2x tc by itself. Of course, with the Canon 2x II tc you lose autofocus on the XXD and 5d bodies. Stacking the 2, 1.4x tc's has been a real advantage for me shooting small birds with my 30D.
Whew, that's the 500mm lenses in a nut shell.
As for tripods, the Gitzo 1325 and it's newer equivalent model is ideal, IMO. I have my 500 on a 1325 with the 1321 leveling base and I have no desire for any other tripod.
OK, that's my rig and why I bought what I did. I hope this helps you make a better educated choice, Ron.
Tom - I also have the shakes - from a condition called "essential tremors", which is aggravated by the excitement of a sudden potential bird opportunity. Without IS I wouldn't be shooting birds either.
OK, now I've got a little more research to do, then a decision to make. Time for me to put up or shut up. Thank you all again! NPN is a fantastic resource thanks to folks like you.
The lens and TC you are considering is a perfect combination.
I have the 300 f2.8L IS and both TCs. With regard to sharpness it is a superb lens. I can't tell the difference in sharpness with or without the 2.0xTC. I have on occasion thought that I noticed a slight reduction of autofocus speed using the 2.0xTC with my old 10D body.
I shoot mostly large birds but with my 1.6 crop factor camera, I seldom wish for more focal length. If 600mm at f5.6 on your XTi will give you the reach you need, you will have no complaints regarding sharpness.
I'd like to second what Kent said above about considering a Wimberley Sidekick for your bigger lenses. My biggest is only a 300mm but I use an extension on it a lot. I struggled to get it stable enough, though, on a couple different tripods with a regular ball type head. No success at all. The Sidekick relieved all my troubles and added some great benefits like being able to pan more smoothly & adjust to rapidly changing subjects and situations. The Sidekick balances the lens for you and with the bigger tripods as suggested, the effort of handling these monster lenses is almost completely taken away. And I would go for more range, too, if I were more serious about bird photography. Good luck with your strategizing.