I'm thinking about buying a new lens for bird and wildlife photography. I currently use a Sigma 170-500mm f/5.6. I am looking at either the Canon 400 f/5.6 or the Canon 300 f/4 IS. I would probably be using a 1.4x on the 400mm and a 2x on the 300mm. What is the better combo? Will the converters degrade the image quality considerably? I appreciate your help. Thanks!
Without knowing your camera and what extender you are considering, this sounds a bit like a lateral move in some ways. I would think that a prime with an extender is probably not going to be any better than the 170-500. Each lens w/out converter will easily blow away the 170-500. But there are only a handful of 300 mm lenses whose performance is not seriously degraded by putting on a 2x extender. The old Tamron 300mm 2.8 with a Kenko or Tamron extender, the current Sigma equivalent with Sigma's extender come to mind. As far as what you are considering, you will be trying to manually focus and compose through a relatively dark viewfinder, at F8, which can be a challenge in less than perfect light.
While the 170-500 is not an outstanding performer, it does offer acceptable performance. Stopping down to F8 will improve things a bit. However, it is important to consider that the principal cause of loss of sharpness at 500mm is camera motion blur. Ideally, with a 500mm lens, especially on a cropped sensor (equivalent to a 750mm in 35mm) will require a Gitzo Series 5 tripod and some sort of gimbal mount such as a Wimberley. The bad news is that this can cost you $1600 US new, but you will never need to consider upgrading the platform, since it really doesn't get any better. The good news is that you can come acceptably close to this combination by using the Bogen/Manfrotto gimbal head ($200) and a Feisol 3472 ($520 when ordered directly from China) which would equivalent in performance to a Gitzo Series 4 if they made one.
I use a Sigma 50-500 - I've had it readjusted at Sigma to bring its performance into spec and it is pretty sharp without a converter. What makes this a decent choice for wildlife photography is the HSM motor which provides good focusing speed in good light, it's comparatively small size, and the ability to find a target zoomed, out, then zoom in. Also, its close focus capability is maximized at around 300mm, where it gives a 1:4 image magnification ratio. My platform is the lower cost option above, and I did return a Gitzo Series 3 carbon fiber pod because it was not stable enough with my lens zoomed out to 500mm. I am very happy with the combination, and for the most part any image softness is my own fault, not due to the gear. I have shot eagles and other large birds in flight, smaller birds like chickadees and hummingbirds up close, dragonflies, and everything in between.
Since you are looking at wildlife photography as a focus, the right camera platform is not an option, it is a necessity. If money were no object, Gitzo, Wimberley, Canon 500/4 or even the Sigma 300-800mm is the system of choice. We hobbyists must figure out a way to do with less and make the best of it.
Both of your proposed lenses are on the slow end to consider adding any converter. Based on these choices, I'm going to assume that you are using either one of the Rebels or a body in the "D" series (20D, 30D, 40D, 50D). In either case you have a 1.6 crop factor so my advice would be to not use any converter. The 1.4x costs you one stop of light and the 2x two stops. Either one is going to make the viewfinder dark as already pointed out and also the 2x will cause you to lose autofocus, probably the 1.4x will too on those slow lenses. Point is, the 400 on your camera will be like a 640mm and that should be plenty without a converter of any kind. You're losing reach compared to the 170-500 but you're stepping way up in quality. I too had a Sigma 170-500 and was very disappointed. Through heavy use it got loose and sloppy. Pointing down or up required a second hand to hold it at the desired zoom setting. It was my last Sigma. If you find yourself really longing for 500 reach or more, simply start saving your money and get a fast 400 or 500 from Canon. I know they require a second mortgage it seems, but I saved for years using that Sigma before I finally had enough for the 500 f/4 and my shooting is now so much more fun and higher quality too. You could watch for a good buy on a used one too. I wanted new so waited until I had the moola. One last thing to think about would be the Canon 100-400 I/S. It's 5.6-6.3 so not fast either but you still have the zoom capability as opposed to the fixed 400. It is a sweetheart of a lens, very versatile and killer for flight shots.
I use a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with a Kenko 2x tele frequently, and this combo serves me well.
I have great AF, even in not-so-perfect light..Of course, less light tends to slow the AF slightly.
Even with a 3x or stacked 2x & 1.4 x teles I can gain AF in decent light.
If you want to maintain consistent AF, AND have good sharpness, you need to spring for an F/2.8 lens.
Hi Patrick, the reason I asked which camera body you are using is that neither one of those lens and teleconverter combos that you listed will autofocus with the 30,40,50D series lenses. They will af with the pro series bodies. Assuming that you were going to either manually focus with a 40D series body or autofocus with the pro series body, I would vote for the 400 F5.6 with the 1.4X. The reasons for that are twofold. First of all, I find I just lose too much image quality using a 2.0X teleconverter, compared to a 1.4, secondly if you do have a pro series body, the af will work much faster with a 1.4X than with a 2.0x. However, if you said compare the 400 F5.6 without a TC with the 300+1.4X, I think that would be a much more difficult call as to which is better given the IS advantage of the 300F4. I haven't used the Sigma 170-500 but I would think that Gene's suggesting this is more of a lateral move probably has some merit and to really get a big difference in IQ and Af performance you would need to step up to a 300 F2.8 or a 500 F4 lens.
Patrick, if there is any way you can afford it get the 500mm f/4 IS or the 300mm f/2.8 IS. If you pair the 500 with a 1.4x it is still extremely sharp and AFs ok if you have decent light. If you pair the 300 with a 1.4x you can't even notice a decrease in image quality for all practical purposes. That is an amazing combo and the 300 2.8 is one of the sharpest lens you can get. I just do not like the canon 2.0x on anything that I have tried it on. It might work well with a full frame sensor, but with the 1.6 crop factor on my 50D it does not provide good image sharpness very often. At least for me. Good luck in your quest for a new lens.
John, Nate, I agree that the Sigma 170-500 is a bit of a dog. It is slow to focus, soft at anything over 400, regardless of what support you use, and in general, poorly constructed. My Sigma 50-500 is a different lens. First off, it is an EX lens which is manufactured to a higher standard of quality for construction and optical performance. It is a bit more substantial, and outside of the finish, which looks great when new but does not wear well, you can give that lens quite a knocking around. I have a 6 yr old copy which gets lots of use, especially out in the frigid days of winter when I go out to take eagle pictures here in the Hudson Valley near NYC. The focus performance is quick enough to catch birds in flight, and that thing is crisp even when used wide open. I often go out with a friend who is using a Nikon 200-400 F4 - one of the sharpest lenses made by Nikon - with a 1.4x - and my images often compare favorably to the ones he takes. If he takes off his extender, then there is no contest, but he doesn't get in as close. But that lens costs $6300 compared to the $1000 you spend for the 50-500.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Patrick's budget is modest, since both of his proposed lens/extender combinations are under $1400, and he seems to be looking for a bit more reach to around 600mm. I am afraid that given these criteria, the combination that will maximize his optical quality, focus performance and not break the bank might very well be the tried and tested 50-500. I faced the same dilemma a couple of years ago when I got my 50-500, and took the trouble to rent the other options available for Nikon - the 400 2.8 which is probably Nikon's sharpest lens, the 500 F4, 300 2.8 with a 1.4 and 2.0, which wasn't bad but required stopping down to get consistently good pictures, and I borrowed the 170-500 which I did not like at all, and a Sigma 400 5.6 which was actually surprisingly good and very inexpensive - but all things considered, I found the 50-500 to offer the best bang for my buck - and lucked out by finding a clean copy on ebay for $600.
You can visit my flickr pages to get a sense of what that lens can do - many of the small birds and all of the larger birds in flight were taken with the 50-500.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/page2/
There are also several groups dedicated to images taken with that lens - the Bigma Group and the Sigma 50-500 group - you can get a better idea.
I am not saying that this lens is a panacea - it does have its shortcomings - it is a 6.3 lens, the zoom will creep when pointed up or down, it has a huge front element and filters are expensive, the lens collar could be stiffer, and so on. But on the key features of optical and focusing performance it is more than adequate for the price paid - and compared to even a great prime with an extender, it is noticeably sharper.
Discussion
7 repliesWhile the 170-500 is not an outstanding performer, it does offer acceptable performance. Stopping down to F8 will improve things a bit. However, it is important to consider that the principal cause of loss of sharpness at 500mm is camera motion blur. Ideally, with a 500mm lens, especially on a cropped sensor (equivalent to a 750mm in 35mm) will require a Gitzo Series 5 tripod and some sort of gimbal mount such as a Wimberley. The bad news is that this can cost you $1600 US new, but you will never need to consider upgrading the platform, since it really doesn't get any better. The good news is that you can come acceptably close to this combination by using the Bogen/Manfrotto gimbal head ($200) and a Feisol 3472 ($520 when ordered directly from China) which would equivalent in performance to a Gitzo Series 4 if they made one.
I use a Sigma 50-500 - I've had it readjusted at Sigma to bring its performance into spec and it is pretty sharp without a converter. What makes this a decent choice for wildlife photography is the HSM motor which provides good focusing speed in good light, it's comparatively small size, and the ability to find a target zoomed, out, then zoom in. Also, its close focus capability is maximized at around 300mm, where it gives a 1:4 image magnification ratio. My platform is the lower cost option above, and I did return a Gitzo Series 3 carbon fiber pod because it was not stable enough with my lens zoomed out to 500mm. I am very happy with the combination, and for the most part any image softness is my own fault, not due to the gear. I have shot eagles and other large birds in flight, smaller birds like chickadees and hummingbirds up close, dragonflies, and everything in between.
Since you are looking at wildlife photography as a focus, the right camera platform is not an option, it is a necessity. If money were no object, Gitzo, Wimberley, Canon 500/4 or even the Sigma 300-800mm is the system of choice. We hobbyists must figure out a way to do with less and make the best of it.
I have great AF, even in not-so-perfect light..Of course, less light tends to slow the AF slightly.
Even with a 3x or stacked 2x & 1.4 x teles I can gain AF in decent light.
If you want to maintain consistent AF, AND have good sharpness, you need to spring for an F/2.8 lens.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Patrick's budget is modest, since both of his proposed lens/extender combinations are under $1400, and he seems to be looking for a bit more reach to around 600mm. I am afraid that given these criteria, the combination that will maximize his optical quality, focus performance and not break the bank might very well be the tried and tested 50-500. I faced the same dilemma a couple of years ago when I got my 50-500, and took the trouble to rent the other options available for Nikon - the 400 2.8 which is probably Nikon's sharpest lens, the 500 F4, 300 2.8 with a 1.4 and 2.0, which wasn't bad but required stopping down to get consistently good pictures, and I borrowed the 170-500 which I did not like at all, and a Sigma 400 5.6 which was actually surprisingly good and very inexpensive - but all things considered, I found the 50-500 to offer the best bang for my buck - and lucked out by finding a clean copy on ebay for $600.
You can visit my flickr pages to get a sense of what that lens can do - many of the small birds and all of the larger birds in flight were taken with the 50-500.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/page2/
There are also several groups dedicated to images taken with that lens - the Bigma Group and the Sigma 50-500 group - you can get a better idea.
I am not saying that this lens is a panacea - it does have its shortcomings - it is a 6.3 lens, the zoom will creep when pointed up or down, it has a huge front element and filters are expensive, the lens collar could be stiffer, and so on. But on the key features of optical and focusing performance it is more than adequate for the price paid - and compared to even a great prime with an extender, it is noticeably sharper.