Planning for a new lens for birding...

[jedirunner]

Well, as much fun as we had out watching birds this weekend, as I cropped all my photos I became distinctly aware that 70-300 is not much range for handling birds.

So... I have a few options and wanted to get thoughts from anyone on the various lenses (Been reading reviews and looking at sample images online, but wanted to get additional thoughts from you all, as I know some of you have experience with one or more of these lenses):

• Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x extender. Lens is $1250 - $2100 depending on model. Plus additional cost for the 2x converter. Would give me added reach over current 70-300, and have flexibility as a fast lens when the 2x converter (and 400mm reach) isn't needed
• Sigma 50-500 f/4.5 - 6.3. Around $1500 on amazon.
• Sigma 150-500 f/5 - 6.3. Around $1020 on amazon.
• Tamron 200-500 f/5 - 6.3. Around $950 on amazon.
• Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with 2x extender. Around $2600 on amazon for the lens. Plus additional cost for whatever extender is needed. Would give me up to 600mm reach at 5.6, and much faster 120-300 range than the other lenses. Obviously more expensive. Will a canon 2x extender work with this lens? Or would I need some other brand of extender?

No matter which lens I opt for, it will be a little while of saving up some extra pennies. But it's eating at me a little bit, so I can see myself setting the pennies aside rather rapidly ... after all, the kids don't really need to eat *every single day*, right???

Would *love* to get comments, thoughts, suggestions, alternatives from any of you on these lenses or other alternatives.

Thanks!

Kevin

 

[matthewo]

100-400?

 

[Tony S]

Skip the 2x extender on any of those lenses with the only exception being the newer 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 2x TC II (no dicernable image quality loss if you use the 1.4 TCII). Put the 2xTC on any of those other lenses you loose too much light and the quality of the image when you do have light will suffer from softness with the other combos. While you look at a lot of those combos and think "ohh, that gives me a useable aperture of 5.6", the quality for that given aperture using some of the combos really sucks.

If you are looking for some reach, the 100-400 is a good choice on a tripod and it does pair up well with the 1.4TC to gain a bit more reach.

 

[Aloicious]

+1 on what has been said, get a lens that you won't need the 2x on, I only have a 1.4 and 1.7x and there is only 1 lens that I have that the 1.7x does adequately on (which is the 300 2.8), I haven't been overly happy with the results on any of the other lenses I have used it on including the 70-200, and a 2x would be even worse. out of the lenses you've listed, I'd look at the tamron 200-500 or sigma 150-500? the 100-400 might be an optino too.

if you're just wondering what to save up for, depending on your situation, it may be worthwile to just save up a bit longer and get something higher end, maybe a 300 2.8 or 400 f4? pair those with a 1.4x and you'd have a great setup, although it'd be quite a bit more expensive, so it just depends on what your financial situation is.

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts to consider:

1) 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII - this is the only 70-200mm (for Canon) that you can put a 2*TC on and get good results. The older versions of this lens are good lenses, but not good enough for the image quality hit that 2*TC results in. I owned a M1 IS lens and used a 2*TC only a handful of times; good enough for a record shot but not for a good shot. I upgraded to the MII and I can happily say that whenever I need to I can and will use the 2*TC without worries.
The image quality is about equal to the 100-400mm (the 100-400mm has the edge in tests, but post editing its very hard to tell results apart at all in all but the most extreme of situations). So its a very respectable performance; plus you have a fantastic 70-200mm f2.8 lens to use the rest of the time.


2) Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS (the price you quote fits the newer OS edition of this lens). This is actually my other long lens at present and is one of the other few zooms you can put a 2*TC on and get good results (though generally you'll want to stop down a stop from wide open - same as with the 100-400mm and 70-200mm+2*TC combo if you can). It's a great lens and a very good zoom.
However - be warned that it is not only big but also heavy - very heavy - in fact its heavier than a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS L (which you can get second hand and is a fantastic lens even with a 2*TC).
It will not physically fit a canon teleconveter, you will need Sigma teleconverteres which are very good so no worries there (the sigma TC is about in line with the canon 2*TC MII - which isn't that far behind their MIII where most of the advance with AF chipping and communication than optical resolution).

A lot of this is going to depend on what budget you set yourself and how long you can starve the ki... er I mean save up for. The higher cost options will beat the lower cost; although they'll generally also be bigger and heavier as the quality improves. The costs are worth it as you will see real world gain between these lenses - it just depends how much quality is "enough" for you and how much cost is your limit.

Also keep in mind the primes. Canon has a 400mm f5.6 L lens which is the best you'll get optically until you start hitting the supertelephoto primes (300mm f2.8 MII and 400mm f2.8 etc....). There is also the 300mm f4 IS L which has IS and whilst its a shorter focal length will take a 1.4TC very well and give you a good quality 420mm prime.

 

[Overread]

Some 70-200mm test shots (see each photo for details_
70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 test - a set on Flickr

120-300mm test shot (I really need to get out more!)
IMG_1110 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[David444]

.

 

[SCraig]

I have the Sigma 150-500 and love it, however others have not been so lucky. Mine gives excellent results but my understanding is that their QC is hit or miss.

 

[coastalconn]

I'd vote for the 400 f5.6 if I shot Canon..

 

[WesternGuy]

If you can afford it, I would opt for the 100-400mm. I have had one for about 5 years and it is just great. It has been to Africa twice, Florida 3 times and a few other places. It will take both the 1.4X and the 2.0X with fairly decent results, although it is pushing it a bit with the 2X. I am quite happy with the results. Some will say that the "push-pull" action will give you a lot of dust on your sensor, but I have never had any problems with dust with the one that I have. If you want some idea of the quality, you can go to my Flickr site, shown in my signature and look at the African images, most of which have been cropped, and my Florida 2012 bird shots. A lot of these images in both sets were taken with the 100-400mm at or close to 400mm. You may be able to find a used one or a refurbished one. My 0.02¢ FWIW.

WesternGuy

 

[jedirunner]

Wanted to thank everyone for the great advice, comments, suggestions and opinions.

I think that I have chosen the 70-200mm II IS as what I will purchase. It will be fantastic general purpose zoom telephoto. Then I'll add the 2x teleconverter for when I want more reach. It should perform as well as my current 70-300L in nearly all cases, and will perform far better in the 70-200 range. The 2x will slow it down and cut down on the light. It's unfortunate, but right now, I can't get a dedicated birding lens. About all I can do is get a general purpose lens and then a converter.

Thanks again. I've spent the last few days reading a *lot* of reviews and getting a bit self-contemplative and with-the-wife-contemplative, and the 70-200 is the choice.

Now, to just make it work in the budget. Given that I have her approval, it should be sooner rather than later.

Kevin

 

[Aloicious]

nice! I've got the nikon version of that lens and its great and a very useful length for a lot of things, it should work pretty well for birding as long as you understand the compromises that come with a teleconverter, try to research out which 2x version is best from canon, and don't discount the kenko ones in your research too...