Gear to grow on?

[Overread]

Aye image quality does take a hit, but it already starts with such a high starting point that the quality hit is (for most people) still very usable eg:
70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Also using a 1.4TC on a 100-400mm is always a hit and miss affair - the auto focus is lost and if you use the trick to tape pins to keep AF functioning its very erratic and unreliable excepting in the brightest of light. Image quality also takes a hit so it remains a combo that divides people - some consider it worth the loss whilst others don't - in general though most people don't use this combo that often from what I have researched.

On the macro lens front the Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm are going to be very similar to the canon 100mm in terms of image quality - even in test conditions any difference would be minor and more the result of sample variation than inherant design advantages/disadvantages. What is different is the features - how the lenses focus; their focusing speed; internal or extension based focusing etc.... Research the surrounding features of each macro lens and then see which offers you the most for your budget

 

[SHaller]

Aye image quality does take a hit, but it already starts with such a high starting point that the quality hit is (for most people) still very usable eg:
70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Also using a 1.4TC on a 100-400mm is always a hit and miss affair - the auto focus is lost and if you use the trick to tape pins to keep AF functioning its very erratic and unreliable excepting in the brightest of light. Image quality also takes a hit so it remains a combo that divides people - some consider it worth the loss whilst others don't - in general though most people don't use this combo that often from what I have researched.

On the macro lens front the Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm are going to be very similar to the canon 100mm in terms of image quality - even in test conditions any difference would be minor and more the result of sample variation than inherant design advantages/disadvantages. What is different is the features - how the lenses focus; their focusing speed; internal or extension based focusing etc.... Research the surrounding features of each macro lens and then see which offers you the most for your budget

Thanks for the input! Do you know of any way that i can get a 500mm+reach while retaining af and keeping a good iq. I am more concerned on the iq than the af.

 

[SHaller]

Forgot to mention that it should be somewhat affordable in the last post

 

[Overread]

Well there are the sigma 150-500mm OS and 50-500mm options, however they are generally only around 450ish at the long end when used long distance for birding. Outside of that you can try the 400mm f5.6 and a 1.4TC which would be more reliable than either the 100-400mm +1.4TC or the 70-200mm + 1.4 and 2*TCs.

Otherwise if you want to go longer you've got to either look for an older manual focus 500mm lens (not a mirror lens; they are an option but come with their own properties that make them often unpopular for many) or up your budget and start looking at the options such as the 300mm f2.8 IS L +2*TC (600mm) 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4.

Personally I would say go for the 400mm type range lenses and then start up a bank account and start saving long term for one of the super expensive lenses to get a longer reach with good image quality.

 

[PatrickCheung]

OH GOD THOSE 100-400mm PHOTOS LOOK GOOD. I stand corrected

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

OH GOD THOSE 100-400mm PHOTOS LOOK GOOD. I stand corrected

Thanks Patrick!
It suits my style.
Coincidentally, everyone recommends the 50mm, I have it and I think I used it twice.

Suggesting lenses for someone is a tough game. For the casual shooter, I think you can go with some standards. But for the more serious, they should learn fairly quickly what they "need" by the direction their photography takes.

 

[syphlix]

Just to be contrary, my 100-400mm is my walk around lens.

Creepo...

J/k.

Also, holy crap those are sharp

they look like they've been high-passed in post... correct me if i'm wrong...

the 135mm/2.0 is a nice lens for the price too if you're looking for length + speed...

 

[SHaller]

Well there are the sigma 150-500mm OS and 50-500mm options, however they are generally only around 450ish at the long end when used long distance for birding. Outside of that you can try the 400mm f5.6 and a 1.4TC which would be more reliable than either the 100-400mm +1.4TC or the 70-200mm + 1.4 and 2*TCs.

Otherwise if you want to go longer you've got to either look for an older manual focus 500mm lens (not a mirror lens; they are an option but come with their own properties that make them often unpopular for many) or up your budget and start looking at the options such as the 300mm f2.8 IS L +2*TC (600mm) 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4.

Personally I would say go for the 400mm type range lenses and then start up a bank account and start saving long term for one of the super expensive lenses to get a longer reach with good image quality.

I was considering the bigma, but i hear it can be quite cumbersome as a walk around zoom. My best option is probably to get the 400mm 5.6 to stack tcs on for the 500-600mm+ range and get the canon 100-400 or the sigma 100-300 for my walk around zoom. I would probably keep a 1.4x around if i had the sigma so i can get a little extra reach when needed.

Another long range option I had was getting a 500mm fd mount and geting an ef converter. Has anyone ever heard of anyone doing this. Its a little bit of a crazy idea, but it could be good.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Just to be contrary, my 100-400mm is my walk around lens.

Creepo...

J/k.

Also, holy crap those are sharp

they look like they've been high-passed in post... correct me if i'm wrong...

You would be wrong.