Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Canon 400 mm F5.6 L or Sigma 150-500mm for bird photographs

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Jul 2011
    Location
    Strangways
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks

    Canon 400 mm F5.6 L or Sigma 150-500mm for bird photographs

    I have a Canon 500D with kit lenses. I live in the bush in Central Victoria surrounded by woodland birds, which I attempt to photograph with the 55-250mm kit lens. Time has come to get something better.

    I am contemplating either a Sigma 150-500mm zoom or a Canon 400 f5.6L. The birds around here are quite small and the 500mm idea appeals as does image stabilising. But I imagine that the quality of the 400 L would be much better. I am also thinking that a 1.4 converter will give me the length if I need it but with some loss of quality.

    I would be grateful for any thoughts or feedback that people might have about this choice. At present I am leaning towards the 400 L.

    Many thanks for your thoughts

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    30 May 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks
    I suspect that the loss of 1 stop of light on top of f/5.6 max will see your auto-focus disabled.

    So, other than that, if you can afford the L, go for it.
    Canon 7D : Canon EF 70-200mm f:2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 24-105 f:4 L IS USM - Canon EF 50mm f:1.8 - Canon EF-s 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6
    Sigma APO 150-500mm f:5-6.3 DG OS HSM
    - Sigma 10-20mm f:3.5 EX DC HSM
    Speedlite 580 EX II - Nissin Di866 II - Yongnuo 460-II x2 - Kenko extension tube set - Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
    Manfroto monopod - SILK 700DX Pro tripod - Remote release - Cokin Z-Pro filter box + Various filters

    Current Social Experiment: CAPRIL - Wearing a cape for the month of April to support Beyond Blue
    Visit me on Flickr

  3. #3
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    8,625
    Post Thanks
    Feral1 (Peter) uses the Sigma 150-500 on his Canon with great results.
    Eg.. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...vBForum_Thread

    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-5...g-os-hsm-sigma
    regards, Kym Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    30 May 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Kym View Post
    Feral1 (Peter) uses the Sigma 150-500 on his Canon with great results.
    Eg.. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...vBForum_Thread

    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-5...g-os-hsm-sigma
    Me too

    But, given the cash for a 400mm L prime ...

  5. #5
    user tittle Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    Mudgee
    Posts
    7,272
    Post Thanks
    I know it doesn't answer you question directly, however this is worth a read http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...On-Lens-Choice.

  6. #6
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks
    Your best bet is the Canon 100-400. It is sharper than the Sigma, and probably has more effective image stabilisation (not tested to my knowledge, just my guess), it is much lighter and easier to handle (which means sharper pictures 'cause you can't hold a heavy lens as still for as long), is faster, and focuses better. It is almost as sharp as the 400 prime, a bit shorter and fatter and not much heavier, and it has IS - and IS is an absolute must-have in a lens of this length class. The ability to shoot at a variety of focal lengths doesn't make a massive difference for birds, but it is a godsend for other wildlife - roos, wallabies, wombats, Emus, anything large. It is, in short, the best bird and wildlife lens on the market for less than about $5000.

    As you have discovered, the 55-250 just doesn't cut the mustard for wildlife. I tried using one for birds once - these birds came really close so 250mm was plenty long enough, but the glacial AF and failure to focus at all accurately was a show-stopper. I ended up using a 500 prime with two stacked close-up rings instead. I've used the 400 prime too. Sweet lens, but severly limited by its lack of AF and long minimum focus distance. See my website (in sig) for lots of sample images.

    Short answer: get the 100-400.

    PS: superb country up your way, I visit it often. Don't neglect the opportunities for landscape photography with the 100-400 either.
    Tony

    Edit and critique at will. Tokina 10-17 fish, Canon 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, TS-E 24, 35/1.4, 60 macro, 100L macro, 500/4, Wimberley, MT-24EX, 580EX-II, 1D IV, 7D, 5D II, 50D.

  7. #7
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    8,625
    Post Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MARK L View Post
    I know it doesn't answer you question directly, however this is worth a read http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...On-Lens-Choice.
    One of our all time classic threads! Andrew's use of the Sigma 10-20mm for birds was the 'right' answer, just hone your stalking skills

  8. #8
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Kym View Post
    the Sigma 10-20mm for birds was the 'right' answer
    Nonsense! It has soft corners. The Tokina 11-16 beats it hollow!

    - but seriously now, yes, a top thread and well worth reading. I was too lazy to dredge it up. Thankyou Kym.

  9. #9
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,209
    Post Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    ...I've used the 400 prime too. Sweet lens, but severly limited by its lack of AF ...
    Eh?
    All constructive criticism accepted with gratitude.


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Dec 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    266
    Post Thanks
    I agree with Tannin that the Cannon 100-400 is a better choice than the Sigma 150 - 500.
    Started off with the Sigma but changed quickly to the Cannon which is noticebly better

    Regards
    Bodies : Canon 450D, Canon 7D
    Lenses : Canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 100mm F2.8 Makro USM, Canon 24-70 L F2.8 USM, Canon 70-200 L F4, Canon 100-400 L F4.5-5.6L IS USM
    Editing : Photoshop CS5

  11. #11
    Member philiph's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 2010
    Location
    Huon Valley
    Posts
    269
    Post Thanks
    It would seem that vote goes to the Canon. I have a Sigma 150-500 and get mixed results though if I had the choice now I would go for the Canon. With the smaller birds i find you have to get really really close to get good results, a trait which birds in generally, and small ones in particular, don't like. Practice and perservenance does help though.

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Jul 2011
    Location
    Strangways
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks
    Thanks all for your help. I finally decided that I would become disenchanted with photos using my kit 55-250 zoom once I got some quality glass and that the new lens would therefore need to be for more than birds. So I ended up spending about twice what I'd originally planned for the Sigma, but I think I will be well satisfied and the lens will get a lot of good use for many years.

    Now it's just a few days wait...

  13. #13
    Member dannat's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2010
    Location
    WOODEND
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks
    Patrick can I ask what the % cost diff is between the 2 ie is sigma 70% of price
    Oly e500 zd14-54 zd70-300
    35-70/4 70-210/4 (leftover from old camera )

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Jul 2011
    Location
    Strangways
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks
    Must be Dan from IIS - Hi!

    Sigma 150-500 was 869, Canon 100-400 was 1529, so about 76% more.

  15. #15
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker Bennymiata's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,555
    Post Thanks
    You'll ove the 100-400 Patrick.
    It's a gorgeous lens and well worth the money.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  16. #16
    Amor fati! ving's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,265
    Post Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick K View Post
    Must be Dan from IIS - Hi!

    Sigma 150-500 was 869, Canon 100-400 was 1529, so about 76% more.
    ving from IIS here
    I have thousand of posts there

    anyhow if i had a canon rather than nikon then the 100-400L would be what i would get. however being a nikon user i am using the 150-500 siggy. a fine lens but not as sharp as the canon 100-400L

  17. #17
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks
    "Lack of AF" .... I meant lack of IS on the 400 prime, of course. My braincell went outside for a smoke. Haven't seen it since, though I did hear some brakes squeal. Please check the front of your cars, people. Let me know if you find any ... er ... leftovers.
    Last edited by Tannin; 06-07-2011 at 1:18pm.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Dec 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    266
    Post Thanks
    Shame Tannin that is a sad way to go

    Regards

  19. #19
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    1,879
    Post Thanks
    Sorry. What was the question?

  20. #20
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Jul 2011
    Location
    Strangways
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks
    Hi Ving,

    I recognise your distinct handle. I suspect there are a lot of IISers here - it all feels quite familiar as a result. And thanks for the thumbs up - I feel very confident with my purchase

    Quote Originally Posted by ving View Post
    ving from IIS here
    I have thousand of posts there

    anyhow if i had a canon rather than nikon then the 100-400L would be what i would get. however being a nikon user i am using the 150-500 siggy. a fine lens but not as sharp as the canon 100-400L

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •