Can my Rebel XS handle big glass?

Eclipsed

So, I've recently got myself a Canon Digital Rebel XS. It is a great camera so far, but I have only used it with the kit lens and a junky Tamron 75-300mm (will probably sell it). I am into bird photography now that I got a taste of DSLR, but my question is, will my XS handle a Canon 400mm f5.6? It seems like the best lens under $1200 for bird photography. (Just an off-topic, anyone have any opinions on the Tamron 200-500mm?)

I want to be able to photograph birds in flight too, is the focus tracking ability entirely the responsibility of the camera? Or, will a good lens be able to track and keep focus well? Currently with my Tamron, if the center AF point leaves the subject, the focus goes screwy. Will this be the case with a better lens or not?

My choice is basically between getting a 40D or a 50D or a lens. If I get a new body, I won't be able to get a lens for a while. If I should be getting a new body, are there any recommendations for choosing between the 40D and 50D?

craig_d

I don't see why a Rebel XS wouldn't be able to handle any Canon EF or EF-S lens you might put on it. I've used some fairly big, heavy lenses on a Rebel XSi, including the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

The Tamron 200-500 has the same issue that other third-party super-telephoto zooms have: it's only f/6.3 at the long end, so auto-focus will be unreliable. Canon DSLRs, except for the 1D and 1Ds pro models, require f/5.6 for reliable AF. Most of these lenses aren't all that sharp at the long end either, and the long end is really the main reason to buy them.

Auto-focus responsibility is shared between the camera and the lens. The camera decides what needs to be done and the lens does it. So the accuracy of the camera's calculations and the speed and precision of the lens' AF motor are both involved.

Since you already have the XS, I'd suggest going for the lens now, and if the results of the lens on that camera are in some way not satisfactory, you can consider upgrading the camera in the future.

The main reason to buy a 40D at this point in time is that they're less expensive used. If the price difference isn't significant to you, then buy a 50D. They're both very good cameras, but the 50D has ultrasonic sensor cleaning and higher resolution.

Eclipsed

Thanks for the input! You helped clarify my situation.

I might rent the lens from borrowlenses.com to see how it works. I suspect it will, anyway, I will probably have more fun with a new lens instead of a new body. I might get the body later, by then, who knows, the 50D could be a good bit cheaper.


You have basically the same camera as me, so how well does it perform with big lenses and autofocus tracking capabilities?

craig_d

I still have the XSi, but I use a 5D Mark II most of the time these days.

The biggest, heaviest lens I used on the XSi was the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. When you're shooting a big lens like this, you either mount the lens (not the camea) on a tripod, or you hold the lens with your left hand and the camera with your right. The camera was totally happy with that lens. AF was fast and accurate.

Renting is a good idea. Borrowlenses.com has a great reputation.

Eclipsed

Hmm... Sounds like I should have fun!

One more dilemma popped into my head though. I am now wondering whether I should get the 400mm f5.6 or the 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter. From what you said, if I put a teleconverter on the 400mm the focus will lose its accuracy because of the aperture increase. With the 300mm not only do I get IS, but I can use a teleconverter to achieve 420mm. That package almost seems like a better deal. What do you think? I am in no way going for big prints and am not a professional, so if you need to use a 100% crop to start picking out problems I don't care. Most of my photos are for viewing on computer screens at 1/4 resolution or less.

BigAl

craig_d wrote:

The Tamron 200-500 has the same issue that other third-party super-telephoto zooms have: it's only f/6.3 at the long end, so auto-focus will be unreliable. Canon DSLRs, except for the 1D and 1Ds pro models, require f/5.6 for reliable AF. Most of these lenses aren't all that sharp at the long end either, and the long end is really the main reason to buy them.

erm... No...

The lens reports that it's f/5.6 to the camera, so there's no problem with AF.

To the OP: I've had a 500 f/4 with 1.4 on my 350d (xt) and it worked flawlessly. From lenses I've had on my cameras, the Sigma 50-500 has better IQ than the Tamron 200-500.

Eclipsed

Ok, if you can have that lens setup on an XT I can do whatever I want.

Still wondering if anyone has any opinions between the 300mm f4 with 1.4x or 400mm f5.6. I am leaning towards the 300mm. I don't think I want a zoom, primes just seem much better unless anyone can enlighten me on a good zoom that ends up on 400mm or 500mm under $1200.

craig_d

The current EF 300mm f/4L lens has IS, whereas the EF 400mm f/5.6L does not. If you plan on using a tripod all the time, that may not be a big issue, but for shooting hand-held it makes a big difference.

If all you care about is viewing on-screen and perhaps making small prints, then I doubt you'll see much difference between the 300mm with 1.4x TC and the 400mm with no TC. The TC introduces a bit of barrel distortion and some mild chromatic aberrations, but nothing worse than what most zoom lenses do at their wide ends. It also produces a less sharp image than the 300mm or 400mm prime lenses do by themselves, but you probably won't see that on screen without zooming in.

craig_d

BigAl wrote:

erm... No...

The lens reports that it's f/5.6 to the camera, so there's no problem with AF.

AF can be made to work with slow lenses by lying to the camera like that, but it will be slow, less precise, and more easily confused than it would be with a real f/5.6 lens. Canon actually does have reasons for disabling AF with slow lenses; they don't do it just to make life difficult for you.

Eclipsed

The 400mm is actually cheaper when you count in the teleconverter on the 300mm. I might stick with the 400mm. Anyway, I can still get a 1.4 on the 400mm. There are some that will allow the AF to work so if I am desperate I could buy and use it. I have seen great shots with just the 400mm without anything extra. No matter what, any of these lenses will be terrific compared to my Tamron.

Can someone also give me a perspective on the difference between 400mm and 420mm? I suspect that difference is easy to make up by cropping.

craig_d

Eclipsed wrote:

Can someone also give me a perspective on the difference between 400mm and 420mm? I suspect that difference is easy to make up by cropping.

The difference is less than 0.25 degrees of angle. You might not even notice.

tjstrider

I know you are thinking of using the 400 for birding but I would suggest the 300 and the teleconvertor.

If you are going to need the 300 for anything else at all such as portraits or antyhing indoors ever having the better aperture will be paramount. You can shoot indoors at a college level arena with f/4.0 but good luck with 5.6 that would be impossible.

I always stray toward more options than less. I would rather have a 70-200 than a 200... same with a 300 and 420 rather than just a 400

that's my opinion on the matter. Happy choosing. When you do though i recommend apart from posting samples for us to see you don't keep looking at lenses or used prices at all since that will just drive you crazy.

ts

Eclipsed wrote:

The 400mm is actually cheaper when you count in the teleconverter on the 300mm. I might stick with the 400mm. Anyway, I can still get a 1.4 on the 400mm. There are some that will allow the AF to work so if I am desperate I could buy and use it. I have seen great shots with just the 400mm without anything extra. No matter what, any of these lenses will be terrific compared to my Tamron.

Can someone also give me a perspective on the difference between 400mm and 420mm? I suspect that difference is easy to make up by cropping.

Eclipsed

I don't tend to do any indoor shooting. The IS probably would be useless for me because I am a bright light photographer. I think the 400mm looks like a good deal and when I am ready to buy it, there are plenty of deals around.

Thanks guys for the input. I will let you know how it goes.

[Deleted User]

Take a look at the www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ site. He often writes about things like the 300+1.4 vs the 400 (or 17-40L vs EF-S 17-55 2.8) in his reviews.

Eclipsed

I made up my mind, I am going to rent the Sigma 150-500mm lens from one of the rental places suggested by ziggy. If I am satisfied with it for my needs, I will go with that lens. I see a lot of good reviews, and for amateur photography it seems like a good deal. If I am not satisfied with it, I will go Canon. with my tight budget, the less I spend the better.

ABphoto

The 400 will work great on the XT, they're designed to accept all EF-S lenses though you may loose some functionallity. Don't forget though you will get an aditional 1.6x zoom on any lens due to the smaller sensor size making the 400mm more like a 600mm

ABphoto

... sorry 1.4x

ziggy53

ABphoto wrote:

... sorry 1.4x

The 1.6x is the correct "crop factor" for the Canon APS-C camera bodies. I would not use the term "zoom" because to most folks that means an ability for variable focal length.

Eclipsed

The 400 will work great on the XT

I use the XS. If the XT works, there is no way that an XS wouldn't.

BigAl

craig_d wrote:

AF can be made to work with slow lenses by lying to the camera like that, but it will be slow, less precise, and more easily confused than it would be with a real f/5.6 lens. Canon actually does have reasons for disabling AF with slow lenses; they don't do it just to make life difficult for you.

My Sigma 50-500 is marginally (very marginally) slower than the Canon 100-400 in focussing, and locks on very quickly and accurately. Here a pic of a rapidly moving leopard, not shown for IQ, but rather for a tricky focus situation, under *very* poor lighting conditions (Sigma 50-500 @ 500mm, handheld, 1/200s, f/7.1, ISO 640).



My BiL's picture of the same animal taken with a 5d2 and a 100-400L (supported on a vehicle window mount) are no better...

Eclipsed

I will definitely try a Sigma to see how it works. I have only seen bad reviews from pros with expensive Canon lenses they are comparing the Sigmas to. From people that just bought their first telephoto, everyone seems to love them.

Mitchell

Whenever I use big glass, I always think of it as mounting my camera onto the lens and not just putting a lens on the camera.

Be cognizant of the weight differential and alway hold your gear by the lens. My biggest concern about a heavy lens on you consumer grade body would be that the body mount would crack under the weight of the lens. Even on my pro bodies, I never carry the gear by the body with anything larger than my 180mm.

Eclipsed

Ya, I saw a video about lenses with a guy saying that. I will be holding my camera by the glass and not the body. Don't want to rip anything The Sigma is 4 1/4lbs.