So lately I've been frustrated with my current equipment (Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS) for two reasons:
1. I would like a new camera that offers better low light shooting (less noise at high ISOs) and higher resolution that would be a better match for my 70-200's quality.
2. Secondly (and probably more importantly), I need a longer focal length. Although I own a 28-300, I hate the slow focus, and have become spoiled by the "L" quality of my 70-200.
Of course the best option would be to buy both a new camera, and a super-telephoto lens, but unfortunately as a student I am unable to do so! So, I am stuck.
For a new camera I am fairly set on a 7D because I think all the features (8fps, 18 megapixels, better low light than XTi) would be perfect for my nature photography. Unless you recommend a different camera, this would be the camera I'd get if I decide to go for a new camera.
For a lens I am looking for something with a lot more reach than I currently have. I was originally thinking about getting a 2x teleconverter for my 70-200, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the results of this combination are mediocre at best. So, I was looking at some of the Sigma lenses, in particular the 150-500. I know this lens will never offer "L" quality, but can you get sharp shots when used properly? If not, what other options do I have that would afford me something in the 400-600mm range without breaking the bank. Or, would it be better to just wait a year and save up for the 300 f/2.8 with teleconverters?
Thanks in advance for the help! Just to clarify, I am not a complete novice. Although I am a student, I have two art shows right now, and am making a large portion of my current income from photography, it is simply that my income is not sufficient!
I have both 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8. I also have both 1.4 and 2.0 tele-converters. I never use either of the tele-converters with the 70-200 - the image quality suffers. Both tele-converters are excellent on the 300. I have no experience with the Sigma 150-500. For longer reach, the 300 f2.8 is superior to the 70-200 with 1.4. It also is quite expensive.
As a general rule, IMHO, getting a good quality lens is a better move than upgrading a camera, unless your present camera is simply not getting the job done. The most fun is getting both. Good luck with your choice.
There are many excellent choices for longer tele-lenses by Canon, but two that you might consider are the 100-400mm f4-5.6 L IS and the 400mm f5.6L. They are both L series lenses but still within the roof ( a high roof though). I have used both and they are very good lenses. be aware though, that attaching any tele-converter to these lenses reduces the effective max aperture below 5.6, thus loosing auto focus on non 1D bodies.
Cam,,,,,have you thought about the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x converter? The nice thing about the 300mmf4 is that coupled with a set of extension tubes, it makes a fantastic close up lens with lots of working distance. The 1.4x does not degrade image quality very much on this lens and would give you 420mm f5.6 which will still autofocus on the XTi.
One rule of thumb is that higher pixel density, while offering bigger images with greater resolution, will generally result in more sensor noise and poorer low light performance. The 7D seems like an attractive package, but you might find that the 50D image quality might be more to your liking, and if you must have the 18 mpx then the Rebel T2i will give you identical resolution and improved IQ over the 7D at half the price. Then you can spend the money on better glass.
The Sigma 50-500 or the 150-500 are pretty decent when stopped down to F8. I've been using a 50-500 on a NIkon for a few years with more than acceptable results. I also have the 80-200 2.8 which mates nicely with a 1.4x (Kenko) with barely perceptible loss in image quality. I have also used it with a 2x but was not that happy with the loss of quality and slower focusing, but it was still good enough to capture the action at my son's lacrosse games.
I used to own the Sigma 50-500. Given the price I think it produces decent results. My wife uses it now and gets a lot of shots I miss out on with my 500 f/4 simply due to the versatile zoom. The Canon 100-400 is probably a better option (slightly better image quality, light enough to hand-hold), but if you can't afford it I think you'll be fine with a Sigma lens.
btw- I think there was a recall recently on some Sigma lenses (including the new 50-500, which now has stabilization), so you may want to check the details of that before you buy.
I'm shooting with a 50D, and primarily the 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS. The lens is really nice, but I too am looking for that extra reach. I own both the 1.4x & 2x teleconverters, image quality is pretty good when using them, but the loss of fstops forces you to shoot at slower shutter speeds and you loose the autofocus (a bad combination). These factors create less than awesome pics, but still pretty good as long as you don't try to crop too much. My next long range lens will be the 300 f2.8 L IS, as everything I've researched points me towards it. I've seen in more than one place that this could be the best telephoto lens that Canon has produced, great sharpness with the teleconverters, and you keep the autofocus. It won't quite get to the range of the 100-400 with a 2x teleconverter, but I'm hoping the results will be better at the 600mm range when using the 2x. The only thing holding me back, is the $$$. I agree with the other guys tho, spend the money on the glass first and if you still feel the need, then upgrade the camera. The 7D is very pricey, I think you can find something close for a lot less $$$.
Doug
Posted by Kurt Bowman on September 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM
I have to second David Caufin's suggestion Cam. I used to regularly shoot with that setup of the 300 f/4 IS w/1.4 tc and it is an excellent choice for about the same dollars. While I think the image quality of the Sigma (either 50-500 or 150-500) and Canon 100-400 is acceptable, IMO, it just doesn't compare to that set-up.
Discussion
7 repliesSo lately I've been frustrated with my current equipment (Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS) for two reasons:
1. I would like a new camera that offers better low light shooting (less noise at high ISOs) and higher resolution that would be a better match for my 70-200's quality.
2. Secondly (and probably more importantly), I need a longer focal length. Although I own a 28-300, I hate the slow focus, and have become spoiled by the "L" quality of my 70-200.
Of course the best option would be to buy both a new camera, and a super-telephoto lens, but unfortunately as a student I am unable to do so!
For a new camera I am fairly set on a 7D because I think all the features (8fps, 18 megapixels, better low light than XTi) would be perfect for my nature photography. Unless you recommend a different camera, this would be the camera I'd get if I decide to go for a new camera.
For a lens I am looking for something with a lot more reach than I currently have. I was originally thinking about getting a 2x teleconverter for my 70-200, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the results of this combination are mediocre at best. So, I was looking at some of the Sigma lenses, in particular the 150-500. I know this lens will never offer "L" quality, but can you get sharp shots when used properly? If not, what other options do I have that would afford me something in the 400-600mm range without breaking the bank. Or, would it be better to just wait a year and save up for the 300 f/2.8 with teleconverters?
Thanks in advance for the help! Just to clarify, I am not a complete novice. Although I am a student, I have two art shows right now, and am making a large portion of my current income from photography, it is simply that my income is not sufficient!
So, thanks again!
-Cam
As a general rule, IMHO, getting a good quality lens is a better move than upgrading a camera, unless your present camera is simply not getting the job done. The most fun is getting both. Good luck with your choice.
The Sigma 50-500 or the 150-500 are pretty decent when stopped down to F8. I've been using a 50-500 on a NIkon for a few years with more than acceptable results. I also have the 80-200 2.8 which mates nicely with a 1.4x (Kenko) with barely perceptible loss in image quality. I have also used it with a 2x but was not that happy with the loss of quality and slower focusing, but it was still good enough to capture the action at my son's lacrosse games.
btw- I think there was a recall recently on some Sigma lenses (including the new 50-500, which now has stabilization), so you may want to check the details of that before you buy.
Max
I'm shooting with a 50D, and primarily the 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS. The lens is really nice, but I too am looking for that extra reach. I own both the 1.4x & 2x teleconverters, image quality is pretty good when using them, but the loss of fstops forces you to shoot at slower shutter speeds and you loose the autofocus (a bad combination). These factors create less than awesome pics, but still pretty good as long as you don't try to crop too much. My next long range lens will be the 300 f2.8 L IS, as everything I've researched points me towards it. I've seen in more than one place that this could be the best telephoto lens that Canon has produced, great sharpness with the teleconverters, and you keep the autofocus. It won't quite get to the range of the 100-400 with a 2x teleconverter, but I'm hoping the results will be better at the 600mm range when using the 2x. The only thing holding me back, is the $$$. I agree with the other guys tho, spend the money on the glass first and if you still feel the need, then upgrade the camera. The 7D is very pricey, I think you can find something close for a lot less $$$.
Doug