Canon F4, 70-200 IS?

[gojuryugodan]

I  have been using a Digital Rebel XT  with a Sigma 70-300 and trying to get clear pictures  of some of the less comon  birds  where I live in Western Washington State.
So far , not happy, I can get close enough , but the pictures just  don't please the eye..
So my question; I am thinking of the Canon F4, 70-200 IS , and adding an extender for longer telephoto.
I realize that for many this lense would be a bit short, hense my use of  the extender. Does the IS really work  for four stops?
Is this lense clear when using a doubler?
My other  lense is a Canon 50mm, 1.4f.
Thank you.
Bruce

[mahleu]

For the same money you should be able to find a 400 F5.6.

the 70-200 with a doubler will not autofocus as it will effectively become an f8.

[larryg]

For the same money you should be able to find a 400 F5.6.

the 70-200 with a doubler will not autofocus as it will effectively become an f8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have used the 70-200 with a doubler  (not too satisfied with the results) and the 500 f4  with much better results.

for the funds invested I would also recommend the 400 5.6  lens.   You will be much happier with the results and still have the option of the telextender

[Wayne Fox]

The 2x extender is not very good ... you will not be happy with the results.

The 1.7 extender is much better and I use it quite often with my 70-200 f2.8 IS.  I sold my 100-400 and use this instead.  I believe the quality is similar, unless you can handpick a 100-400.  (some of them are quite good if you can test first to make sure you get a good one).

[gojuryugodan]

Thank you for the input, I have wondered about the 70-200 2.8 IS , as an option. I might add that I am looking to hand hold mostly, as I am on a Tug Boat and even the use of a monopod would transmit vibration into the camera.
 Does anyone have any experience with any of the  70-300 IS canon Lenses?
Are they clear?  or not worth the trouble?
I just took some pictures of Purple Martins and I was close enough I just am not happy with the clarity, so, if anyone knows: is the 70-300 IS worthy of concideration.
thank you./
Bruce

[Ray]

Thank you for the input, I have wondered about the 70-200 2.8 IS , as an option. I might add that I am looking to hand hold mostly, as I am on a Tug Boat and even the use of a monopod would transmit vibration into the camera.
 Does anyone have any experience with any of the  70-300 IS canon Lenses?
Are they clear?  or not worth the trouble?
I just took some pictures of Purple Martins and I was close enough I just am not happy with the clarity, so, if anyone knows: is the 70-300 IS worthy of concideration.
thank you./
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have thought that IS might not be of much use when photographing birds that are usually twitching and never still. I think you might have to put the camera in continuous mode, use the fastest shutter speed possible, take as many shots as possible and hope for the occasional good one.

[spidermike]

I have been happy with the Canon 70-300 on a EOS30D and the images are sharp enough for my use. I don't know from your post what part of the Sigma performance you are unhappy with - is it focussing or colour rendition? Or both? If I was to be really picky, the only aspect I would like to have is a tighter depth of field so I could isolate the subject a bit more - animals are often close to bushes, trees etc and it would be nice to pick them out a bit better. But until I can afford the f4 (or maybe even the f4) then the 70-300 will suit me well.
But the 70-300 is not compatible with the Canon extenders (rumour has it that 3rd party extenders do work OK).  

I have used the IS for photographing grizzlies from a skiff (on fairly calm water) and whales on inshore waters 9albeit a bit choppy!). I would say that the IS is good for 2-3 stops (3 stops on stable ground) and maybe a bit more if you can brace yourself against a wall or post. I have got the impression that IS is best for those jerky small-scale movements you get with hand-holding and is slightly less suited to the larger and more gentle rolling motion you get on a boat.

I presume that the f5.6 of the 70-300 is sufficient for your current use? But if you are gong to do more bird photography and you want to cover more than the (relatively few) species you may well need a longer lens and lower f value so something like the 500 f4 is probably a better long-term purchase.
Is there anywhere you can hire lenses to try them out?

[spidermike]

I forgot about a website that I look at regularly - it has good commentay on a few lenses:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/juza_equipment.htm

[seanw]

Bruce, I agree with the others who recommend the 400 f5.6. It is an excellent lens wide open. Very close to my 300 f2.8 but of course no IS. It is also light and can be hand held as long as you're using a fast shutter speed. I found it works very well for those of us who cannot justify the expense of a 500 f4.
One thing to be aware of, although still quite sharp using the 1.4x, you lose autofocus.

[stever]

does the 400 f5.6 autofocus with a 1.4x and the last three pins taped?  my 100-400 will autofocus  (slowly) with a 1.4x and pins taped, but my 300 with 2x won't

although the 400 5.6 will give sharper images (particularly wide open), a decent 100-400 (and i think most of them are these days) is not that bad on a crop-frame camera and the zoom and IS make it a wonderfully useful lens, ideal for shooting handheld from a boat

[Goodlistener]

Thank you for the link. He is a very good source.