Lenses Longer Than 300mm - Any Suggestions???

[mabas9395]

I have been wanting a longer lens for a while but don't think I'll use it often enough to justify spending the big, big bucks. I am a Canon shooter with a 50D and my longest lens is a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with 1.4 extender (and I love this setup btw). But one area of photography I've wanted to get into more is wildfile. I've been out on a couple eagle watching trips plus a quick trip to Alaska and the 200mm doesn't cut it. Plus as my kids get older and their soccer/football/etc fields have gotten bigger, up to full size now, I am still wanting more reach.

I have been eyeing the Canon 100-400mm but I don't know if I will use it enough to justify the $1,600 price tag. A prime like the 400mm f/5.6 would be cheaper with better IQ but not as versatile (with the fixed focal length) so I might use it even less.

That's why I've been considering the Sigma 150-500 OS. Not the "L" quality I'm used to, but not the "L" price tag either. And just like most lenses, there are a fair number of reviews/opinions on both sides saying either its a great lens or it doesn't stack up. But most reviewers say it does very well in good light (but don't most lenses when the light is right?).

So who here has a super telephoto lens? What do you use or what are you seriously considering (the canon 1200mm doesn't count)? Any other lenses that might meet my desire for low/medium cost, medium/high versatility with acceptable image quality?

Thanks.

 

[disneyboy2003]

The Canon 100-400mm lens is ideal for Alaska cruises, especially if you go on whale watching or bear watching / wildlife excursions. It's good for birds-in-flight (BIF) photography. It's also a great zoo lens, too, although you'll get lots of stares...not only from other people, but other animals, too.

You can also use this lens for air shows, daytime sports, etc.

However, there are rumors that the Canon 100-400mm lens may soon be unavailable (http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/01/ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-done/). Rumors about a new version of this lens have been around for a long time, though. As good a lens as it is, it's been long due for an overhaul: newer image stabilization system, newer zoom mechanism, etc.

You're right, though. It is a pricey lens, especially if you find that you'll rarely use it.

Here's some more information / review about the Canon 100-400mm lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.

 

[jfinke]

You may want to check out the Bird Talk forum over at: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=122

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm struggling with the same question. I rented the 100-400 last summer. I liked it, but I wasn't in love with it. I'm not a fan of the push/pull design, but I understand why they did it that way. It's a better design for BIF shooting. I found it awkward.

The 400 f/5.6 is a nice lens for the price. It's light enough for easy hand holding, but it doesn't have IS. It is also a bit long for one of my needs - kid's soccer. Both it and the 100-400 suffer from being only f/5.6, which limits the separation you'll get for birds in bushes and other shots where you want to isolate your subject. On the other hand wide apertures at long focal lengths make for really, really heavy lenses.

I actually bought a Sigma 150-500, but like an idiot, I accidentally ordered the Nikon version. I didn't shoot with, but I wasn't really thrilled with the build on it. I returned it and decided it wasn't my thing.

I lust for a 400 f/2.8, but it wouldn't be all that practical and its obscenely expensive, so I doubt that I'll ever get one.

The 400 f/4 DO is an incredibly cool lens. It suffers from being too expensive, and, while supposedly a good lens, its not a great lens. For that kind of dough, I want a great lens.

My current plan is to get a 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4. The former is frighteningly expensive, but I'm hitting my mid-40s and it is customary to do a few wild things. The latter would be the more practical choice for me. One thing I really like about the 2.8 is that I can comfortably use my 2x on it.

BTW, I've tried both the 1.4x and 2x on my 70-200 and I don't like either that much. The 2x shots are nasty. The 1.4x are acceptable, but they definitely leave me wanting a better long lens solution.

Right now, I'd rate my purchase chances at:

50% 300mm f/2.8
15% 300mm f/4
15% 100-400mm
5% 400mm f/5.6
5% Something else
10% Keep my money

I'm definitely waiting for the February round of lens announcements. I've heard rumors about the 100-400 replacement for eons. I suspect that they won't replace it until the moment after I buy it. There are also rumors of a 300mm f/2.8 DO, but I doubt that. I'd love a 200-400mm f/4 like Nikon has, but I might chicken out if Canon had one and it came time to write the check. Life would be so much easier if I could just call B&H and ask them to send me one of each.

 

[vandort]

I'd recommend that you look at the Sony Alpha thread on p.32 (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1508616&page=32). Justin (zackiedawg) has recently posted some new wildlife photos with his 200-500mm Tamron lens. They are great shots and demonstrate that this lens is great for wildlife photography. The Tamron is also much lighter that the Bigma (50-500mm Sigma).

I have a 400mm Sigma lens that I like, but I think that a zoom has definite advantages.

 

[pjacobi]

The Canon 100-400mm lens is ideal for Alaska cruises, especially if you go on whale watching or bear watching / wildlife excursions.

If you want to see wildlife, step away from the buffet table and get out in the wilderness where the animals live!

I got within 50 feet of a bear in Katmai National Park. I could have used a 50mm lens! Luckily, I was standing next to a forest ranger with his hand on about a 45 caliber.

Katmai NP is only accessible by seaplane. You will have to share your experience with a few billion mosquitoes. My 75-300 was long enough for bears in the water. I saw lots of people with fancy longer lens, but the bears we too close!

Spend your money getting closer to the animals, not on fancy lenses that you hope to shoot from the comfort of a cruise ship.


-Paul

 

[disneyboy2003]

If you want to see wildlife, step away from the buffet table and get out in the wilderness where the animals live!

I got within 50 feet of a bear in Katmai National Park. I could have used a 50mm lens! Luckily, I was standing next to a forest ranger with his hand on about a 45 caliber.

Katmai NP is only accessible by seaplane. You will have to share your experience with a few billion mosquitoes. My 75-300 was long enough for bears in the water. I saw lots of people with fancy longer lens, but the bears we too close!

Spend your money getting closer to the animals, not on fancy lenses that you hope to shoot from the comfort of a cruise ship.


-Paul

Hmmm...if you read my statement a little more carefully, you'd see that I mentioned using this lens on excursions. You even quoted the exact sentence where I said this! I never said to do wildlife photography from the cruise ship or from the buffet.

Well, apparently there are laws preventing whale watching boats from getting too close to whales. By law, boats must be no closer than 100 yards from whales. As much as I tried to beg / bribe my boat's captain, he wouldn't budge on the 100-yard rule, so unfortunately, I had to put my 50mm lens away and "settle" for the telephoto lens. *sarcasm*

Juneau also has a lot of bald eagles flying around everywhere. I'm not sure how else to photograph bald eagles in-flight. Your seaplane certainly isn't going to go out of the way to get 50 feet from a bald eagle.

​

 

[Parmcat]

I have used a very reliable outfit called Lens Pro to Go

http://www.lensprotogo.com

Very very good rates, with lots to choose from

The prices can included insurance, everything is shipped in Pelican cases, and included shipping both ways.

This is what I do on vacation, as I cant affort 3000.00 for a lens, but like to treat myself every so often.

They also ship right to where ever you might be staying!

Parm

 

[giantstu]

I have the 100-400 to go alongside my 70-200 2.8L IS, i honestly think i wasted alot of money, it doesnt justify spending almost double over Sigma 120-400 or 150-500, i have used both these as friends have them, and the image quality is marginally less sharp, but only noticable when really zooming in.
It isnt worth another £550 over the 120-400.


The 100-400 isnt upto the quality and sharpness of other L series lenses, i am selling mine to help fund my 400 2.8 purchase

 

[pjacobi]

Hmmm...if you read my statement a little more carefully, you'd see that I mentioned using this lens on excursions.

Unfortuantely, even the cruise ship excursions don't go far enough. They usually last only four hours which doesn't provide enough time to get out in the wilderness. My trip into Denali took an 8 hour bus ride into the National Park just to get to the Kantisna lodge.

Spend you efforts planning excusions, not on photography equipment. No photograph, even with an L lens, can ever replace the experience of being in the wilderness and close to wildlife.


-Paul

 

[pointandshoot]

My 100-400mm is plenty sharp. The lens needs light though and will struggle in low light, dusk, etc. I have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS as well but I use the 100-400mm a ton more. Built well.

I considered the 400mm 5.6 but I got the lens for zoos, airshows, and birds in flight. Been very pleased. I need some zoom capability and IS in those situations.

Thought about the 400mm 2.8 at some point but if I make that type of plunge the 500mm or 600mm will get a look.

Canon is updating lenses. If not in a hurry, wait and see and either pick up a used 100-400mm. I suspect a new one will not be cheaper than $1600.

Chuck

 

[mabas9395]

I did the same bus ride in Denali but the only bear was several hundred yards away but we saw plenty of moose though. However, I got closer to a moose at a parlking lot in Wasilla than I ever did at Denali.

 

[pointandshoot]

Hmmm...if you read my statement a little more carefully, you'd see that I mentioned using this lens on excursions. You even quoted the exact sentence where I said this! I never said to do wildlife photography from the cruise ship or from the buffet.

Well, apparently there are laws preventing whale watching boats from getting too close to whales. By law, boats must be no closer than 100 yards from whales. As much as I tried to beg / bribe my boat's captain, he wouldn't budge on the 100-yard rule, so unfortunately, I had to put my 50mm lens away and "settle" for the telephoto lens. *sarcasm*

Juneau also has a lot of bald eagles flying around everywhere. I'm not sure how else to photograph bald eagles in-flight. Your seaplane certainly isn't going to go out of the way to get 50 feet from a bald eagle. [/CENTER]

Nice shots! In Alaska, I saw more eagles over the cannery in Ketchikan than on the Chilcat river. Seen more bears roadside this year than anytime before. Seems like I see more wildlife when I am not looking for it than when I do.

Anyway, my goal in life is not to be the buffet

 

[C&B Young]

This is an incredible picture! Well done!!