# Made the switch to FF - new lenses required...



## tayassu (Jul 21, 2015)

So, I got a 5DIII : 
My 24-70, 70-300 and 90 will work perfectly well on this body, for the WA FL's I'm pulling the trigger on a 16-35/4L today (really good deal here in Germany, around 780€ with rebates). After getting some ND filters and maybe a new tripod head, the next big investition will be a supertele, as I love to shoot birds and other wildlife. I would indeed like to use the 5DIII for this, as a few of my recent shots with the 7D weren't really usable because of noise performance :-\
I need something in the 500-600mm range, budget up to 2k, handholding not a must, as I'd be fine using a monopod for anything but BIF.
Thanks for any recommendations.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 21, 2015)

Congrats on the 5D3. I'm sure you'll be as thrilled with it as I am 

For a €2K budget, the 2.8L/4L Big White's are out of the question.
Your 70-300mm seems to be f/5.6 in the long end, so putting a 2x extender won't work 
I see three options:
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sports
Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3
Canon 300mm f/4L + 2x TC III.
The 150-600mm's will probably be more versatile, and from the-digital-picture they seems to have superior image quality over the 300/4L+2x combination.

Seems like the Sigma is just around your €2K target too.


----------



## tayassu (Jul 21, 2015)

Thanks, kaihp!  
Yes, first impressions are great, I love the bokeh :
Mhm, the Sigma is also #1 on my list...


----------



## NancyP (Jul 21, 2015)

Sigma Sports is heavier than Tamron, if that matters.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2015)

You might want to read some reviews and if possible rent the lenses. 

From what I've read, there is not a whole lot of difference in image quality between the Sigma Sport and Sigma Contemporary -- mainly weight and build. I've also had this dilemma, but to further complicate this, I've thrown in the 100-400 L II (I own the original version) along with a 1.4 teleconverter. Again, from what I've read, the 100-400 plus teleconverter isn't really any better than the 150-600 zooms, but isn't any worse either.


----------



## vlim (Jul 21, 2015)

it depends also of the king of wildlife photography you're doing... 150-600 Sigma Sport is ideal for Hide but not for hiking... Have you think about the 100-400 II and the 1.4 III extender ? more compact, lighter and very good for close up photography.


----------



## monkey44 (Jul 21, 2015)

vlim said:


> it depends also of the king of wildlife photography you're doing... 150-600 Sigma Sport is ideal for Hide but not for hiking... Have you think about the 100-400 II and the 1.4 III extender ? more compact, lighter and very good for close up photography.
> 
> 
> > X2 on the 5D3 and 100/400 11 ... very nice combo ... and 1.4x works well with it. Not the lightest set-up around, but not too heavy either, and great versatility. Works well with 7D2 as well ...


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 21, 2015)

I can't really help you much with a long lens that is within your budget "tayassu" other than to suggest a second hand Canon 400 F5.6 L. Then put the money you have saved to one side and start saving like mad for a Big White!
Whilst a bit on the short side the IQ of the 400 F5.6 is excellent and coupled with your 5D3 will allow a LOT of cropping before the image falls apart. Note you can also use a 1.4 extender if the light is good.
If you are after small birds then you will need the longest lens you can get. I use the Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS and frequently find it too short - I rarely shoot over 15 meters on small birds. However, if larger species are what you are after, then something between 300 and 500mm may be just the job. As a general rule with birds it is far better to get close with a shorter lens than shoot with a long lens at a greater distance. The longer lenses, however, do give you a lot more opportunities!

A bit off topic but you are going to love your new 16-35 F4, for the price it is simply stunning and is an excellent lens at any price - simply delighted with mine.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 21, 2015)

I can highly recommend a 100-400mm II. It's a great lens.
As others have your other options then are Sigma , Tamron or 500 f5.6.
With the lens you have the 100mm L macro is a great lens and would make a great addition..


----------



## tayassu (Jul 22, 2015)

First of all, thanks for all the comments!
About the big whites... I've just graduated from highschool and will go to university this fall, so that is not anywhere near my price range. :-\ And I made a promise to myself not to buy any tele lens without IS, so the 400/5.6 is also out of the competition.
Hector1970, the 100 L is a great lens, I tested it intensely before I got the 90/2.8 VC from Tamron. It is half the price here in Germany and I could not see (despite TDP saying sonething else) any difference in IQ, maybe the Tamron was even better in the corners. The only thing where the Canon bests the Tamron is IS, but I do all of my macro photography on a tripod, so I don't really care about that.
I actually had the 100-400 II in my hands two days ago and I liked it a lot, but there are three things about it. I actually don't like extender solutions a lot, because they are cutting light and I have two thirds of a stop less than with e.g. the Sigma. Also, I'm worried about AF performance with the extender behind (How many of the focus points of the 5DIII work with f/8? And, how fast is the AF then?). And last but not least the price... I can get a Sigma S around here for 1800€, whereas a 100-400 plus 1.4x will cost 600€ more.
Thanks for everything again, I'll probably end up with the Sigma.

And yeah, my mouth is watered in expectation of the 16-35 :


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 22, 2015)

tayassu said:


> About the big whites... I've just graduated from highschool and will go to university this fall, so that is not anywhere near my price range. :-\ And I made a promise to myself not to buy any tele lens without IS, so the 400/5.6 is also out of the competition.



Why would you promise yourself not to get a telephoto lens without IS?
For what it's worth my 2 long lenses are the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 (usually used with extenders) and the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and I haven't used IS since early January 2014. The result is that my "Hit Rate" has significantly improved. You camera is quite capable of giving excellent results at some pretty high ISO settings which will allow you to keep your shutter speeds up. Also you mention BIF, at the shutter speeds required for this sort of thing IS is a hindrance not an asset. 

There is no denying that IS can be handy - I just have no use for it. If I cannot get the required shutter speed within the usable ISO range of my camera then I have found (from experience) that the picture wasn't worth having anyway. Naturally this will depend on your personal requirements/uses but, from my Birding point of view, I have no use for IS. Admittedly my camera is better at high ISO than the 5D3 but my most used lens is also double the focal length which far outweighs the 1DX ISO advantage. The lack of IS is one of the main reasons that the Canon 400 F5.6 L is noted for it's fast focusing - this is FAR more important than IS. Speeding up the AF + improved subject tracking is the reason the IS on my lenses is firmly set to OFF.
Good luck with your lens decisions, we all have different priorities, but I would suggest you try the 400 F5.6 L before you make you final decision.


----------



## RGF (Jul 23, 2015)

At your price point, you might consider the new 100-400 II. Great lens. Not quite as long as you would like, perhaps euros more than your budget.

Will work with 1.4 extender to get you to 560. On 7D M2, it is a real great combo.


----------



## candc (Jul 23, 2015)

I recommend the tamron. I bought one when they first came out and use it lot. If you get one make sure it has the latest firmware. There have been 2 updates since it was introduced the first one improved af and the 2nd adds automatic panning mode "is" functionality.

The iq is very good and its a good price.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2015)

I'd read the reviews, particularly on the Fred Miranda site. The Sigma Contemporary seems to have the edge in performance for price. It has the advantage that you can purchase the Sigma Dock and fine tune it to your camera. They will be fine for birds and wildlife. I bought the 100-400mm MK II for use with my 5D MK III, but at less than 1/2 the price, the Sigma + dock is hard to beat.

Customer service near where you live might be a deciding factor.


----------



## tayassu (Jul 23, 2015)

Thanks again! 
johnf3f, I think that depends on your shooting style. I'm not as advanced as you most likely are and I simply would be angry with myself if I missed handheld shots because of the lack of IS.
RGF, I neither have a 7D2 nor do I have the intention of buying a 100-400II, as you could have read two posts earlier.
candc, I thought about that, but there are too many reviews saying the Sigma's are better at 600mm, where it counts for me.
Mt Spokane, thanks for the Fred Miranda and the Contemporary tip, I'll definitely check that out. Seems to be between the two Sigma's now.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Jul 23, 2015)

tayassu said:


> Thanks again!
> johnf3f, I think that depends on your shooting style. I'm not as advanced as you most likely are and I simply would be angry with myself if I missed handheld shots because of the lack of IS.
> RGF, I neither have a 7D2 nor do I have the intention of buying a 100-400II, as you could have read two posts earlier.
> candc, I thought about that, but there are too many reviews saying the Sigma's are better at 600mm, where it counts for me.
> Mt Spokane, thanks for the Fred Miranda and the Contemporary tip, I'll definitely check that out. Seems to be between the two Sigma's now.


Dear tayassu,
I got the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary about two months ago and i'm more than happy; i'm supersuperhappy! I've tried the 100-400 II with 1.4xTC on my 5d Mk3 and my ex-7d Mk2 (which i sold within two months at a ridiculous low price due to the usual, crappy AF with Single Point) and was extremely good until the moment i put the TC on. It then became mediocre; also don't forget that it's actually about 365mm at the longest end so it's very very short for bird and nature photography! I've also tried the Tamron 150-600 on my 5d Mk3 but the AF is extreeeeeeeeeeeeemely slow at 6.3 (on flying birds it's awful) and after 450mm the image is soft! So, go with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary as the differences in image quality from 150-600 sport are practically non-existent (i've tried the sport too) but the price is almost the half and the weight is so so much more comfortable! Congratulations on the 5D Mk3 decision, it will be one of the " best ever" DSLRs...forever! Also congrats on the 16-35 f4 decision, i've got it and it's perfect too!

Have a nice afternoon, best of wishes for you and all those you love!

Yiannis
Athens, Greece.


----------



## tayassu (Jul 23, 2015)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again!
> ...



Thanks a lot, Yiannis! 
Spokane gave me the idea and you confirmed it... I'm more and more attracted to the C version.
I'm gonna wait and save a little bit more, let's see then.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 23, 2015)

tayassu said:


> Thanks again!
> johnf3f, I think that depends on your shooting style. I'm not as advanced as you most likely are and I simply would be angry with myself if I missed handheld shots because of the lack of IS.



Without IS you will miss hand held shots at very low shutter speeds but your subjects will need fairly high shutter speeds to get them sharp. If you are shooting birds (even perched) 1/500 sec is often too slow and IS/OS/VR is pretty much ineffective at this and higher shutter speeds. With my Canon 800mm I can get sharp images of stationery objects at 1/125 sec hand held with IS, unfortunately that is not really of any use as my subjects are rarely still enough for low shutter speeds.. On birds I generally need 1/1000 sec or higher where the IS is of no benefit and merely serves to hamper (slightly) the AF performance. 
I am not saying that IS/OS/VR is useless, far from it, it is just that I find it useless for Bird photography and haven't yet found a use for it on other wildlife. In some other forms of photography it may prove very useful - I am just not doing them!


----------

