Advice please

canon400d · June 11, 2013

I have been using a Sigma 50 - 500 lens on my 7D for wildlife. I find it so heavy to use following health problems. I have also found it has its light problems forcing me to use a high ISO which results in noise.
I was thinking about a Canon 100 - 400L IS F4.5 lens. Can anyone tell me if I am doing the correct thing by getting this lens.
Also is it possible to get an extender for this lens. A quick reply would be most appreciated as I am going on hols in a couple of week.
Bob

Seymore · June 11, 2013

Bob... do you have, or have you considered using a monopod when shooting with your heavy lenses? I found my Nikon 80-200 AFS much easier to handle on long shoots, with the monopod... (just a question/thought for ya...)

Hope you get your answers, if my suggestion doesn't meet your needs...

canon400d · June 11, 2013

Seymore wrote: »

Bob... do you have, or have you considered using a monopod when shooting with your heavy lenses? I found my Nikon 80-200 AFS much easier to handle on long shoots, with the monopod... (just a question/thought for ya...)

Hope you get your answers, if my suggestion doesn't meet your needs...

Thanks ever so much Seymore for your early reply. I do have a monopod but cannot get away with it and I have been used with hand held. When in a hide it is not too bad. However, It is the other problems too I find with the 50 - 500. It is hopeless in poor light etc and hasn't got IS etc etc. I have had some good results but they are few and far between.
Cheers
Bob

cmason · June 11, 2013

The Canon lens is no brighter than the Sigma. It is theoretically 1/3 stop faster at its longest end, but I can't confirm since I don't know what the Sigma is at 400mm. The Canon will be f5.6, while the Sigma will be around that but no more that f6.3. I suspect the Sigma is f5.6 at 400mm as well, so no brighter.

The Canon is 10 oz (280 grams) lighter than the Sigma. Not sure if you have the OS version or not, but if not, you gain IS with the Canon.

Having used the Canon 100-400, I can tell you: it is no lightweight. While nearly 300 gms lighter, honestly, you are gonna complain about the Canon too. Bottomline, a big lens is heavy. That is why they come with tripod mounts.

Personally...my opinion... I don't think you will gain enough by getting the Canon to justify expense of selling the Sigma and buying the Canon. If you could do an even swap, then you might consider it, otherwise, I don't think you will gain enough to matter.

canon400d · June 11, 2013

cmason wrote: »

The Canon lens is no brighter than the Sigma. It is theoretically 1/3 stop faster at its longest end, but I can't confirm since I don't know what the Sigma is at 400mm. The Canon will be f5.6, while the Sigma will be around that but no more that f6.3. I suspect the Sigma is f5.6 at 400mm as well, so no brighter.

The Canon is 10 oz (280 grams) lighter than the Sigma. Not sure if you have the OS version or not, but if not, you gain IS with the Canon.

Having used the Canon 100-400, I can tell you: it is no lightweight. While nearly 300 gms lighter, honestly, you are gonna complain about the Canon too. Bottomline, a big lens is heavy. That is why they come with tripod mounts.

Personally...my opinion... I don't think you will gain enough by getting the Canon to justify expense of selling the Sigma and buying the Canon. If you could do an even swap, then you might consider it, otherwise, I don't think you will gain enough to matter.

Thanks for replying. I use the 50-500 on my 7D and I find that in low light not poor light I have to really bump up the ISO resulting in noise. We don't get the best of light throughout in Scotland but when the conditions have been good I have managed a few good shots.
I also have a 5DMk11 how would the 400 be on that although it is only 3 FPS. This is why I use the 7D on wildlife and rallies.

Cheers
Bob

Andy · June 11, 2013

Panasonic GH3 + their awesome 100-300mm (200-600) equivalent. Lightweight and amazing quality.

canon400d · June 11, 2013

Andy wrote: »

Panasonic GH3 + their awesome 100-300mm (200-600) equivalent. Lightweight and amazing quality.

Thanks for replying Andy. Are you saying that the 100 - 300 is better than the 100 - 400?
Cheers
Bob

ziggy53 · June 11, 2013

canon400d wrote: »

I have been using a Sigma 50 - 500 lens on my 7D for wildlife. I find it so heavy to use following health problems. I have also found it has its light problems forcing me to use a high ISO which results in noise.
I was thinking about a Canon 100 - 400L IS F4.5 lens. Can anyone tell me if I am doing the correct thing by getting this lens.
Also is it possible to get an extender for this lens. A quick reply would be most appreciated as I am going on hols in a couple of week.
Bob

The biggest difference between these two lenses is the IS capability of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM plus it "will" accept a Canon 1.4x teleconverter.

I don't recommend the teleconverter because you will lose autofocus through most of the zoom range with both of your camera bodies plus image sharpness falls off a bit too. It also adds a bit of weight and moves the center-of-gravity further forward, making hand-held more tiring.

A tripod is, IMO, the least tiring of all stabilization devices, in that you don't even have to keep it upright. It is more weight to lug around. A proper tripod strap, or a backpack with tripod strap/mount, makes a big difference.

canon400d · June 12, 2013

ziggy53 wrote: »

The biggest difference between these two lenses is the IS capability of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM plus it "will" accept a Canon 1.4x teleconverter.

I don't recommend the teleconverter because you will lose autofocus through most of the zoom range with both of your camera bodies plus image sharpness falls off a bit too. It also adds a bit of weight and moves the center-of-gravity further forward, making hand-held more tiring.

A tripod is, IMO, the least tiring of all stabilization devices, in that you don't even have to keep it upright. It is more weight to lug around. A proper tripod strap, or a backpack with tripod strap/mount, makes a big difference.

Thanks once again Ziggy for your sound advice. Am I right in saying that the 100 - 400 is a far better lens than the 50 - 500 in quality and performance. Also has it got the edge on the 100 - 300?
Cheers
Bob

puzzledpaul · June 12, 2013

canon400d wrote: »

...Am I right in saying that the 100 - 400 is a far better lens than the 50 - 500 in quality and performance. Also has it got the edge on the 100 - 300?
Cheers
Bob

No idea how this Sigma compares with the other Sigma long zooms, but I recently lent my 100 -400 to a fellow Canon snapper and he (almost immediately) said he could see the difference (better) IQ on the cam lcd compared with his Sigma (150 -500 iirc)
He also said the Canon's AF was quicker etc.
All I can say is he's now considering buying a 100 -400, in spite of losing the upper reach.

Btw, his initial lcd based comments were backed up next time we met and I queried how the frames looked on his computer.

All anecdotal and 2nd hand ...

I think Andy's talking about this ... and the 'doubling' of reach comes from the fact that the GH3 has a 2x crop factor.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_g_vario_100_300mm_f4_56_mega_ois_review/

The only 'decent' Canon 100 - 300 (f5.6) that I'm aware of is the old L series push / pull. People moan about various aspects of this, but it's pretty good optically.(yes, I have one and used to use it)

The new 70 - 300L is probably far better, tho

Re stability ... would a beanbag be worth considering for your type of shooting ... used in conjunction with existing strucures / features to rest it on ... eg walls / fence posts /gates / trees as well as gound /rocks.

(owl hovering shot at beginning of my slideshow was taken with bbag (+500f4) on gate post as didn't have tripod with me )

pp

Edit
Whilst I doubt that a 300mm top end will be any good if you're used to 500 and considering 400 ... but the 100 -300 L is again lighter (1050g v 1380g) than the 100 - 400 ...and has 4stop IS as opposed to 2 on the older lens. It's also got ring zoom. It is not compatible with canon extenders, btw. (I suspect it's sharper than the 100 - 400 too, but don't know)

ziggy53 · June 12, 2013

canon400d wrote: »

... Am I right in saying that the 100 - 400 is a far better lens than the 50 - 500 in quality and performance. ...

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM may be generally considered better than the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM, with the possibility of some sample variation for both. (There exist very good copies of the Sigma and very bad copies of the Canon.)

For handheld photography, the IS feature of the Canon would make it a consistent winner in this contest.

canon400d wrote: »

... Also has it got the edge on the 100 - 300?
...

The Panasonic LUMIX G VARIO 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 MEGA O.I.S. vs Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is somewhat more complicated.

To use the Panasonic lens you (obviously) need to also use a vastly different camera body. The smaller imager in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 (GH3 from here on) gives the 100-300mm focal lengths more effective length and narrower FOV/AOV. In very good light this can be a good combination. (Although your Canon 7D and a 100-400mm would yield an effective 160-640mm, so both a wider and a longer effective focal length.)

In lesser light, like even in heavy clouds, I believe that the Canon 7D plus 100-400mmL-IS would be faster and more accurate to focus.

Indoors and in poor light, starting at ISO 1600 and definitely by ISO 3200, your Canon 7D has the advantage, and your 5D MKII has a wonderful advantage.

The GH3 also gives up an optical viewfinder, using something more similar to "Live View" on your Canon bodies. This makes anticipating action shots more difficult.

The GH3 and 100-300mm combination is "much" lighter, and somewhat smaller, than the 7D and 100-400mm combination.

If you find yourself shooting mostly at the long end and in good light, the Canon EF 400mm, f5.6L USM is a sound choice. It lacks IS, so a monopod or tripod is indicated. It's much lighter than the Sigma 50-500mm or Canon 100-400mmL, and image quality at 400mm is slightly better (both with ideal physical support, aka a really good tripod/head). Obviously, the 400mm, f5.6L lacks the zoom flexibility of the 100-400mmL.

Bottom line and recommendation:

It's obvious that you are not happy with the Sigma 50-500mm. The Canon 100-400mmL lens will probably yield better image quality, most certainly for handheld applications (because of the IS).

The Panasonic system, while optically very good and physically lighter, means purchasing and learning a whole new system, and the body is not as suitable for your typical shooting conditions (which include overcast/dark skies).

I suggest that, considering your total needs, the addition of the Canon 100-400mmL to your current system gives you the most likely means to better images. The addition of a suitable physical stabilization device, aka a monopod/tripod, etc., is also highly indicated and recommended.

The use of an appropriate strap or backpack would make management and transport of a monopod/tripod much easier.

canon400d · June 12, 2013

ziggy53 wrote: »

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM may be generally considered better than the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM, with the possibility of some sample variation for both. (There exist very good copies of the Sigma and very bad copies of the Canon.)

For handheld photography, the IS feature of the Canon would make it a consistent winner in this contest.

The Panasonic LUMIX G VARIO 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 MEGA O.I.S. vs Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is somewhat more complicated.

To use the Panasonic lens you (obviously) need to also use a vastly different camera body. The smaller imager in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 (GH3 from here on) gives the 100-300mm focal lengths more effective length and narrower FOV/AOV. In very good light this can be a good combination. (Although your Canon 7D and a 100-400mm would yield an effective 160-640mm, so both a wider and a longer effective focal length.)

In lesser light, like even in heavy clouds, I believe that the Canon 7D plus 100-400mmL-IS would be faster and more accurate to focus.

Indoors and in poor light, starting at ISO 1600 and definitely by ISO 3200, your Canon 7D has the advantage, and your 5D MKII has a wonderful advantage.

The GH3 also gives up an optical viewfinder, using something more similar to "Live View" on your Canon bodies. This makes anticipating action shots more difficult.

The GH3 and 100-300mm combination is "much" lighter, and somewhat smaller, than the 7D and 100-400mm combination.

If you find yourself shooting mostly at the long end and in good light, the Canon EF 400mm, f5.6L USM is a sound choice. It lacks IS, so a monopod or tripod is indicated. It's much lighter than the Sigma 50-500mm or Canon 100-400mmL, and image quality at 400mm is slightly better (both with ideal physical support, aka a really good tripod/head). Obviously, the 400mm, f5.6L lacks the zoom flexibility of the 100-400mmL.

Bottom line and recommendation:

It's obvious that you are not happy with the Sigma 50-500mm. The Canon 100-400mmL lens will probably yield better image quality, most certainly for handheld applications (because of the IS).

The Panasonic system, while optically very good and physically lighter, means purchasing and learning a whole new system, and the body is not as suitable for your typical shooting conditions (which include overcast/dark skies).

I suggest that, considering your total needs, the addition of the Canon 100-400mmL to your current system gives you the most likely means to better images. The addition of a suitable physical stabilization device, aka a monopod/tripod, etc., is also highly indicated and recommended.

The use of an appropriate strap or backpack would make management and transport of a monopod/tripod much easier.

Thanks Paul and Ziggy from what you have both told me I have made my mind up and I have ordered 100 - 400L IS and it should be in my hands on Friday.
As always Ziggy I appreciate everything you tell me and I certainly wouldn't do anything without liaising with you first.
Thanks again
Bob

Brett1000 · June 13, 2013

canon400d wrote: »

Thanks Paul and Ziggy from what you have both told me I have made my mind up and I have ordered 100 - 400L IS and it should be in my hands on Friday.
As always Ziggy I appreciate everything you tell me and I certainly wouldn't do anything without liaising with you first.
Thanks again
Bob

the 100-400 is a nice sharp zoom with good image quality but it is heavy like all the longer telephoto zooms. If you're primarily shooting at 400mm you might also consider the 400 prime - considerably lighter but longer and without IS

canon400d · June 13, 2013

Brett1000 wrote: »

the 100-400 is a nice sharp zoom with good image quality but it is heavy like all the longer telephoto zooms. If you're primarily shooting at 400mm you might also consider the 400 prime - considerably lighter but longer and without IS

Thanks Brett. My 100 - 400L IS has arrived and this is one fantastic lens. The AF is really fast with a very sharp zoom and the image quality hand held at 400 with IS is unbelievable, something I have never been used with the 50 - 500. Although it is quite heavy. I find it a light weight after using the 50 - 500.
I have tried it on my 5D Mk 11 in the living room and using an ISO of 6400 and the images just could not be better. Not a sign of any noise.
I can't wait to get to a rally or motocross venue to try it out for real on the 7D.
Thanks everyone for all the advice which I truly appreciate.
Bob

Advice please

Comments