Budget lens for birding ?

[crasher8]

I would like to comment on my dust hog comment. True my post was from a limited experience. One lens. Used during a semester at school. However even with a filter I had many issues. Enough to make me sell the glass and not want to gamble with another copy. You say what you know, what you experience, it doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong' if you do not have that same experience.

 

[AlanF]

I don't "bird". But I can't imagine going out with a prime lens. Especially to capture a bird in flight. I'd want to start wide to find the bird in the sky, and then zoom in to actually get the bird up close.

And I love primes... so don't get me wrong about simply having a zoom bias. And I know sharpness and picture quality is important, but I'd almost sacrifice a little of that for length and hope to sharpen it up a touch in lightroom.

So if I had a suggestion, I'd say go with the long sigma (500mm) shoot the bird in the middle of the frame where the lens is always sharpest, and then compose the shot later in LR. Edges edges edges... I contend that wouldn't be as important since the bokeh at 500mm usually blurs the surrounding anyway... and the focus of the image will be the bird...

As you don't actually do "bird", let me tell you that the guys who get the best bird photos use primes, be they birds in flight or static. Sharpness in LR can't sharpen what isn't there. The zooms tend to lose the fine detail. I use the 100-400mm only as a travel lens for birding. On safari, however, I would recommend a zoom.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Vikram, I used to have EF 100-400L IS, which is a great lens but I sold it and got Sigma 150-500 OS for better reach and I found the push pull to be a bit awkward ... my copy of the Sigma 150-500 OS is just as good as my earlier 100-400L IS lens if not better.
The Sigma 150-500 OS sells for about $1000 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html) which is well within your budget, giving you enough money left over to buy:
1. a good quality filter
2. a Lens Coat Lens cover (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652524-REG/LensCoat_LCS150500M4_Sigma_Lens_Cover_Realtree.html)
3. an external flash
4. a Better Beamer flash extender (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=better+beamer&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=) this will come in handy to illuminate the birds so your images get a nice separation and pop
Here are a couple images made last week with the Sigma 150-500 OS (using an external flash + better beamer)

Nice pics. I like the catchlight in the eyes.

Thanks for your kind words. Cheers

 

[jcoz]

Those are some great bird pics

I'll give my two cents on the Sigma 120-400. I used to have one until I decided to sell it and buy the Canon 70-300L (and then decided to get the 400 L to have more reach).

While a good bargain at half the price of the Canon lenses and a great lens for me as a beginner, it was soft above 300mm and really soft at 400mm wide open, I had to step down to f/7.1 to get sharp images at 400mm which really decreased the quality of the background. It is also very heavy (1.7 kg) and the OS was not nearly as good as the Canon 70-300 (and remember it is heavier...), but may be close to the 100-400 IS that I was never able to test myself.

I've owned two Sigma lenses, I've had problems with both while some other people seem to have no problem whatsoever. Sigma is famous for spotty Quality Control (and as a quality engineer I don't appreciate it too much ^^). On top of that when I tried to sell both Sigmas I took a big loss - sold for 50% of the price after owning them for 1 year and 2 months respectively.

I've never tried or even researched about the Sigma 150-500 and the results look good, so it might be a good choice but be aware their lenses can be inconsistent.

 

[JumboShrimp]

This is rad thinking, but ... why not consider a superzoom? I have been using the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 for birding shots (as well as general photography) and am very pleased with it. The big plus in its favor is a Leica lens with an equivalent focal length of 25mm-600mm - and at a CONSTANT f/2.8 aperture. Birds are tiny little critters, and the 600mm crops them pretty tight. It has a 12MP sensor and shoots RAW. It currently sells for about $500-$550 or so, but have seen it less. It is also my go-to wallkabout camera whenever I can't (don't want to) carry my big Canon stuff. Look it up when you can. Cheers and good luck.

 

[RGF]

The OP already has a 55-250mm, which is too short, so it would seem a bit pointless just going up to a 300mm zoom, which is also too short. The issue of 100-400mm vs 400mm f/5.6 has been argued over for years. The prime was originally greatly championed by Arthur Morris, who described it as his favourite toy lens. But, even he has now discarded it in favour of the 100-400mm - see http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html

I have become so fed up with people stating that the 400mm f/5.6 is much better than the 100-400mm zoom that I started a thread http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14296.0 with the numbers that both lenses are of similar sharpness. The 400mm L is now 20 years old and should have been updated years ago. In my opinion, the advantages of zoom and 2 good stops of IS make the 100-400mm a much more versatile and useful lens. It also packs away nicely.

You can argue which is better, the 100-400 zoom or the fixed 400. Both are maxed out at 400, only the 100-400 has IS, the 400 fixed is lighter.

In the end, if you pick a Canon lens you have the choice of 2 good, but rather short lens, without going for a Great White which costs at least 5x more and weighs 5x more.

No clear winner, compromise on all fronts, but both respectively good lens.

 

[jcoz]

You can argue which is better, the 100-400 zoom or the fixed 400. Both are maxed out at 400, only the 100-400 has IS, the 400 fixed is lighter.

In the end, if you pick a Canon lens you have the choice of 2 good, but rather short lens, without going for a Great White which costs at least 5x more and weighs 5x more.

No clear winner, compromise on all fronts, but both respectively good lens.

This pretty much sums up everything I read before buying mine.

 

[ReedZ]

Hi

While I can't say much on Sigma because I dont owned one, I recommend either the Canon EF100-400mm L IS USM or Canon EF400mm f/5.6 L. If you want flexibility go for zoom 100-400mm because of the zoom, IS and weathersealing, where is the prime 400mm will give you slightly sharper image and better bokeh and cheaper compare to the first. I used tripod for most of my bird photo when I used the prime.

But at the end of the day, which ever lens you use, you must learn to familiar your self with the lens. As for me, since I have both, the lens selection is very much depends when and where either lens will give me a better images.

Attached is sample photo using the Canon EF400mm f/5.6 (1/80, f/10, ISO 640) using Canon EOS 7D.

 

[Eimajm]

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.
I shoot with this combination and it is a stella performer, up to 800iso, with some clean up work needed at higher iso, 1600 is still perfectly useable with a well exposed shot. Things i miss with this set up are IS, which the 100-400 has, however I have no need for a zoom and always prefer primes for the image quality you get, which is not a diss at the 100-400 as the quality of this glass is very good to.
Either one will suit your needs for starting out bird photography and can produce exceptional results.

 

[ereka]

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.

I'm confused - I'll be grateful if you'll explain why it's a poor shot as it looks great to me (I was just about to comment to that effect when I saw your post). I'm probably showing my ignorance but hey ho! if you don't ask you don't learn anything!

 

[jdramirez]

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.

I'm confused - I'll be grateful if you'll explain why it's a poor shot as it looks great to me (I was just about to comment to that effect when I saw your post). I'm probably showing my ignorance but hey ho! if you don't ask you don't learn anything!

I think the brights could be brought down a little, but it seems fine otherwise. the tail might be a little soft... but I'm also looking at it on my phone.

 

[JPAZ]

FWIW, I don't' think that is a "poor shot" per se. I'd crop it a little tighter and different. I do find the Bokeh to be a bit distracting, especially to the left of the bird.....kind of like streaks to me. Might do something with a blur of that background in PP.

 

[vikram1988]

thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?

You won't get Christmas Pricing this time of the year. The CR front page has a price search engine. Buy using the link, and CR gets a few dollars to help pay the cost of running the site.

http://www.canonrumors.com/lenses/price-watch-zoom-lenses/

 

[CarlTN]

Hey AlanF, I don't own the 300 f/4L (I only tried it for a short time), and apparent it's a good thing. I guess we should all just sell our DSLR's and buy an SX50...you know, since it is superior to $8k worth of camera and lens!!

 

[bwfishing]

You also may want to consider waiting for a sale on Canon's refurbished website

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_282320_-1


The dust comment posted by: crasher8 is not a myth I had a copy with this issue as well. Some of the lenses also reported issues being soft. I hope you get a good one and enjoy it! I'm not posting to trying change your mind as I believe you posted that you wanted the 100-400 and already enjoy the 55-250 zoom. I have the 550d (t2i) body as well and my 2 cents is the 550d (t2i) is not the greatest for wildlife (low fps). The 7D would be a upgrade to consider as the af and fps are more better suited for wildlife.

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!

 

[Eimajm]

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.

I'm confused - I'll be grateful if you'll explain why it's a poor shot as it looks great to me (I was just about to comment to that effect when I saw your post). I'm probably showing my ignorance but hey ho! if you don't ask you don't learn anything!

It's lacks sharpness, suffers from from camera shake and has been heavily cropped showing a great amount of noise, I also expect it has been brightened up to bring up detail in the shadows exaggerating noise too. The has resulted in poor image quality. It does not reflect the photos you can get with this setup at that iso. Here are a couple of photos at various iso so you see the the appearance of noise. Notice the barn owl which is shot at 3200 iso which is not that noiser than the image I commented on.

ISO 1000

Sedge Warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) perched, singing. by Jamie Medford, on Flickr

ISO 200

Herring Gull (Larus Argentatus) diving. by Jamie Medford, on Flickr

ISO 3200

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) by Jamie Medford, on Flickr

 

[jdramirez]

thanks guys for all the replies . I'm gonna go with 100-400 . so whats the lowest price you've seen on them ? If i remember , last time during christmas time it was 1350 $'s ?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sid=used-9139179&is=USE&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=800944750

1200 for a refurb at B&H.

 

[AlanF]

Re the photo above with the 400 f5.6 and 7D, please don't think that photos taken with this setup are reflective of that picture, which is a very poor shot.

I'm confused - I'll be grateful if you'll explain why it's a poor shot as it looks great to me (I was just about to comment to that effect when I saw your post). I'm probably showing my ignorance but hey ho! if you don't ask you don't learn anything!

It's lacks sharpness, suffers from from camera shake and has been heavily cropped showing a great amount of noise, I also expect it has been brightened up to bring up detail in the shadows exaggerating noise too. The has resulted in poor image quality. It does not reflect the photos you can get with this setup at that iso. Here are a couple of photos at various iso so you see the the appearance of noise. Notice the barn owl which is shot at 3200 iso which is not that noiser than the image I commented on.

Jamie, they are truly excellent, especially considering the iso. Here is a crop to emphasize what you wrote about the noise etc. All the fine structure of the plumage has been lost, so only the coarse details remain with horrendous noise. It was also taken at f/10, which spoiled what bokeh there could have been.

 

[rumorzmonger]

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).