Sigma 80-400 or 50-500?

[nigeldh]

Folks,

I am trying to decide between a Sigma 80-400 or 50-500 for my Canon 30D for bird, wildlife, photos. My primary camera was a Panasonic FZ-20 with OS, f 2.8, ~420mm max. My winter bird feeder shots, cloudy day, were f 2.8, 1/60, ISO 100, 420mm.
1. 420mm isn't enough at ~10 metres.
2. The Canon will allow me to shoot at ISO 400, even 800, so I still get 1/60 sec.
3. I feel the OS is worth more than the extra 100mm (at 1.6x 640mm vs 800mm). I can shoot hand held if needed.
4. I have a Gopod with Bogen 3232 monopod head,/RRS clamp, and a Velbon tripod/RRS clamp so holding either of these big glasses steady while mobile or stationary is covered.
5. Focusing speed, HSM, is less of an issue since I prefocus, use two eye technique (right eye looking through view finder, left eye picking up scene around), and shoot at high speed once the left eye sees subject coming into the frame area. For fast moving sports, HSM might be important.
6. I have a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 so the short end is covered. And when I was shooting hightschool basketball games, even from the bleachers I was under 100mm.

What are your thoughts?

thanks in advance, Nigel

[DarkPenguin]

Item #1 indicates 420mm isn't enough.  There you go.

You might want to look up these lenses at fredmiranda.com, photozone.de and slrgear.com.

[boku]

This may not be the approach you were looking for, but I would consider...

---> Canon 400mm f/5.6L
---> ISO 400
f/5.6
1/60
tripod

Just my opinion. Hope that helps.

Folks,

I am trying to decide between a Sigma 80-400 or 50-500 for my Canon 30D for bird, wildlife, photos. My primary camera was a Panasonic FZ-20 with OS, f 2.8, ~420mm max. My winter bird feeder shots, cloudy day, were f 2.8, 1/60, ISO 100, 420mm.
1. 420mm isn't enough at ~10 metres.
2. The Canon will allow me to shoot at ISO 400, even 800, so I still get 1/60 sec.
3. I feel the OS is worth more than the extra 100mm (at 1.6x 640mm vs 800mm). I can shoot hand held if needed.
4. I have a Gopod with Bogen 3232 monopod head,/RRS clamp, and a Velbon tripod/RRS clamp so holding either of these big glasses steady while mobile or stationary is covered.
5. Focusing speed, HSM, is less of an issue since I prefocus, use two eye technique (right eye looking through view finder, left eye picking up scene around), and shoot at high speed once the left eye sees subject coming into the frame area. For fast moving sports, HSM might be important.
6. I have a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 so the short end is covered. And when I was shooting hightschool basketball games, even from the bleachers I was under 100mm.

What are your thoughts?

thanks in advance, Nigel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[stever]

the Canon 400 is certainly the best long lens for the buck, particularly if you are shooting birds and small animals

i regularly use ISO on my 20d and do not have noise problems on 13x19 prints

i don't think the Sigma 80-400 stabilized lens is much different than the Canon 100-400 which i have -- capable of very good images at 400mm although it's noticebly better at f8 than wide open

i'd steer clear of the old Sigma 50-500 lens, this just isn't a very good lens, particularly at long focal lengths

i also have a 200-500 Tamron that has essentially the same resolution as the Canon 100-400 - up to 400 (but contrast is not quite as good) - but at 500 a resized crop from 400 looks better - at 500mm it may be useful for bird identification, but not very good images

if the Sigma 80-400 is as good at 400 as the Canon, i'd recommend it as being the much more generally useful lens (since the Tamron doesn't do what i'd hoped for at 500, i don't use it)

note- if you compare these lenses at Photozone, their test of the Canon 100-400 is from a bad example -- the resolution at 400 should be very close to a 300 f4 with 1.4 extender as mine is

[nigeldh]

Folks, thanks for the good insights

1. DarkPenguin - the Panasonic is a true 420mm equivalent, 12x zoom. The 30D has a 1.6x multiplier factor so a 400mm lens is actually 640mm. Thanks for mentioning fredmiranda.com, I did stop by there earlier, and I will stop by the other two sites you mentioned

2. Boku - If I wanted a prime lens, the Canon 400mm would be my choice. Plus over at newegg.com, I get 6 months to pay. But I need the flexibility of a zoom for taking landscape and flower pictures.

3. Stever - thanks for your input on the Tamron. An other option was the Tamron 70-300mm and the Tamron 200-500mm. Over at FM, the user reviews implied that was a good option. You experience says the opposite on the 200-500mm. Mike on this site says the push/pull of the Canon 100-400 zoom isn't good with digital cameras - bellows effect.

Nigel

[John Sheehy]

Mike on this site says the push/pull of the Canon 100-400 zoom isn't good with digital cameras - bellows effect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether or not the push-pull zoom pushes dust into the chamber depends on the relative air resistance through th body and through the lens itself.  I have the 100-400, and I really didn't get any extra dust when I was using the zoom.  I use a TC all the time now with the 100-400, and I get as much or more dust than when I used the zoom without a TC.

Anyway, if there is significant resistance in the body to air leakage, the lens isn't going to be pumping dust into the chamber.

[stever]

all of the external zooms (as opposed to the internal like the Canon 70-200)  will pull some dust into the camera - if you're in a dusty environment you need to clean the sensor more often -- fact of life with digital cameras

The Canon 100-400 will be no better or worse in terms of dust than the Sigma 80-400 or other long zoom lenses and this should not be a consideration in lens selection

Cost not an object, the Canon 100-400 is the safe choice, cost considered, i think the Sigma 80-400 will be more useful with stabilization given the fall-off in performance of the Tamron beyond 400mm.  The rule of thumb is hand-held shutter speed should be the inverse of focal length (and i interpret that as effective focal length) so a 400mm lens (effective 640 on a 20 or 30d) is 1/600 sec -- a stabilized lens brings that down to 1/150 -- big difference if the subject will sit still for you -- and you'll find that the stabilized lens offers early morning and late afternoon landscape opportunies -- the 100-400 is an extremely useful lens for me

[jani]

2. Boku - If I wanted a prime lens, the Canon 400mm would be my choice. Plus over at newegg.com, I get 6 months to pay. But I need the flexibility of a zoom for taking landscape and flower pictures.

Will you be taking landscape and flower pictures at the same time as you're photographing wildlife?

If not, then you could consider getting prime lenses or other zoom lenses for that purpose.

To be specific, try the 400mm f/5.6 for wildlife, and get e.g. the 70-200 f/4 as a multi-purpose medium-telezoom lens or consider the 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

[nigeldh]

Thanks for all the info folks. I decided to go with the Canon 100-400. It works well for nature and sports photography. I even get nice close-ups of insects and flowers by standing at 1.8m and zooming in. With butterflies, when you move too close, they fly away.

See www.luminousnature.com for some photos I tooks with the Canon 100-400 (hosted on smugmug). Loons, Moose Cow, Vacation has a couple of insect shots take at 400mm zoom and also shots of a loon feed its chick a fish.

I am going to add a 1.4x teleconverter and extension tubes, maybe even a 2x tc, now that I have a couple of months experience working with this lens.

nigel

[stever]

i may have to eat some humble pie on the 1.4x with the 100-400 (yes, John) -- my original tests indicated it was pretty bad, but  a number of people have found it acceptable so i decided to try again on real waterbirds instead of a test tableau

as long as you've got light, it works -- best to stop down to f10 or 11 (i think this is where i went wrong on my original tests at f8 - the lens isn't that great wide open, and it isn't good wide open with an extender) which generally means ISO 400 or 800 (not a problem with a 20 or 30D)

 -- and with the three right-most pins (viewing the back of the lens) taped, it autofocuses pretty well on center spot

the 300 f4 with 2x is slightly better (to about the same degree as the 300 +1.4x compared to the 100-400 at 400) but i cannot get it to autofocus

i'd still be a bit sceptical on the 2x, but it might work at f16 on a tripod

depending on the subject, you might want to consider the 500d closeup lens (which can be combined with the 1.4x) - it's expensive and heavy, but gets closer without loss of light - Canon may be discontinuing it at least in 77mm

i think you made the right choice and will be very satisfied with the versatility and quality of the 100-400