Zoom Lens - too many choices too little cash!

[Jason Kravitz]

I've been taking a bird watching class (and like photographing birds) and wanted to get closer to the birdies than I can with my 75-300mm USM IS lens. I've enjoyed using the this lens but notice from far away the images are not very sharp and I still can't get as close as I'd like...

One option I was thinking about was digiscoping - using a spotting scope with a camera attached to it although the high end scopes cost about $1800 and attaching the 300D would make it an F11 and above which is not too practical...

I think I've narrowed it down and was curious to hear what other people think who may own or have used these lenses (prices based on B&H price)

- Sigma 50-500mm F4.0-6.3 $939
good: long reach less expensive
bad: optics not as good as Canon L and 6.3 is slow

- Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 $1899
good: fast lens can use 2x teleconverter with auto-focus for 600mm
bad: optics not as good and price higher than other L choices

- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS $1649 ($50 rebate)
(there is also a f/4.0 but am not considering it)
good: canon L glass, fast lens can use 2x teleconverter with auto-focus
bad: even with 2x tele is not much more reach than my current 75-300 and on high end of price

- Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS $1149.95 ($50 rebate)
(I'd love the f/2.8 but it costs $3500+)
good: canon L glass, f/4.0 faster than my 300 at 5.6 could use 1.4x tele or 2x with manual focus
bad: not a zoom lens so I lose the 75-300 range that I currently have

- Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $1389.95 ($50 rebate)
good: canon L glass, longest range, could use 1.4x tele and even 2x although it would be slow
bad: 5.6 not super fast but same as I currently have, heavy

I'm pretty set on the 100-400 right now although I'm curious if besides being twice as heavy if I will see noticeable differences in quality compared to my current lens. My 75-300 is not the fastest to focus and I'm wondering if the 100-400 will help here as well...

I talked to Lee a bit about this already and am sure he'll have some good thoughts - anyone else care to chime in??

[Suhit Gupta]

This is an excellent summary of zoom lenses that I have been looking at as well. I have been wanting a zoon lens for some time now and I was chatting with several people here on DMT about which one to get because my current lenses (50mm fixed focus which isn't bad and Canon 27-80mm which is basically crap) aren't cutting it. But there are just so many to choose from. I am currently considering several but the front runner, like yours, is the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (which is probably going to win out over the rest). The other one thought was good is the Sigma 50-500mm F4.0-6.3. I find both lenses to be horribly heavy but the Sigma seems to be faster than the Canon. I played with them both at B&H Photo Video. Anyways, have you thought of any of the Tamron lenses?

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I personally would prefer a prime lens here. A 300/4 or a 400/5.6 L. The 300/4 can be the non IS version.

Don't forget to include the cost of the teleconverter!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Tamron has a 70-200/2.8 and a 200-500/4.5-6.3 coming up.

There used to be a 200-400/5.6, but that's no longer available new. I never tried the lens before.

If you don't feel like spending so much money my other suggestion is to get a good condition 400/5.6 (any brand) and try it out first. I'm not sure how the second-hand market is like at your end, but here with a little skill and luck, I can sell used lenses at the same price I bought them for. If you can do the same I say give it a go. Alternatives include renting, or using the store's return policies.

That way you can determine if a 400/5.6 is enough, or if you need more reach, or more speed, or both (then it becomes very expensive, heh).

Another thing you might want to do is to find out ways to get closer. Sometimes the answer isn't always a bigger piece of glass. =P

[Bob12]

You may already have this covered, but if you haven't already done so, consider a monopod for added stability. If the 100-400 is like my 35-350, it'll have a pod mount on the lens which makes a very good balance point for both monopods and tripods.

[Jason Kravitz]

Lee - why do you prefer the primes? I've heard that previously the prime lenses offered the best quality but these days a zoom lens like the 100-400 will be able to do just as well.

We do have some nice options here in Atlanta for lower priced new gear, gear rental and used gear...

There is a $850 used 400mm f/5.6L at Showcase Camera and Video
www.showcaseinc.com

which is literally around the corner from my house. Their prices on new stuff is pretty decent as well all though B&H is usually about $100-$200 cheaper and I have to pay tax if I buy local.

$850 is good price for the 400 5.6... my only concern about the prime is that I am limited to having to move around to get a shot as opposed to having the ability to zoom in/out... Now that you mention it though it is starting to look more appealing... I already have the 75-300 if I need a zoom and if I want pure distance the 400 5.6 could be easy to swap on.

Do you think not having IS is a big deal - I figure I'll be using that lens on a tripod or monopod for the best shots anyway so IS is less of an issue...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Primes tend to be cheaper and lighter, on top of being better. That 400/5.6 seems to be a decent price.

I don't think you'll need the zoom much, since most of the time you are struggling to get closer.

Some say the IS helps to reduce mirror slap. I'm not sure on this claim. Once again, test it out. Set the lens and camera on a sturdy tripod and head, then set the shutter speeds to 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30 and 1/60, and something like 1/500 as the test frame. Use a remote cable release to trigger the shutter, or the self timer. Examine your photos to see if there's significant blur (I'm guessing there shouldn't be).

Ah, you know, another cost will probably be a tripod and head combination. So do take care in what you spend.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I just gave it some thought again. The mirror slap test is to be done only if you're feeling ultra anal. I don't recall having much of a problem with my mirror lockup-less camera. Long lens techniques plays a bigger part than any fancy technology, hehe.

[Jason Kravitz]

OK - I bought the used 400 f/5.6L this morning - I'll send a link to some pics after I take it out this weekend...

Bob12 - I've been thinking aboug the monopod route - any suggestions on brand/model?

I've got an older tripod my Dad loaned me with quick release head - I forget the brand, starts with "V". It is mid range quality and gets the job done ok - I'm thinking about the Bogen 3021Pro eventually, not sure which head I want...

Thanks guys for your suggestions - this is my first L lens and I'm excited!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Velbon. Heh. Cheap metal thing? Most Velbons in the market aren't their good ones.

Monopods, I'd take the Manfrottos. I think the 679B is cheap and works well.

For tripods the Manfrotto 190 or 055 is good enough, depending on your height.

Heh, now, the problem starts with the head... :twisted:

[Suhit Gupta]

For monopods, I would go for the Gitzo brand. They are always very good.

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

1 Gitzo = 2 Manfrottos and the quality certainly isn't double. =P

Plus it also depends if you can live with the leg locks of the Gitzos. I hate them with a passion.

[Jason Kravitz]

I checked my current tripod and it is a Vivitar - probably 10-20 years old. It's farily light and has a quick release built-in head (pan/tilt) so it should keep me going for at least a month or two before I get the urge to upgrade hehe

Thanks for the monopod suggestions - I guess if I get a manfrotto tripod or monopod I can use the same head on both??

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Yes you can, the standard mounting screw on a tripod or monopod is a 3/8" screw thread. Manfrotto (and others I'm sure) have a little widget that fits over the 1/4" screw thread for tripods that don't conform to this (Slik comes to mind).

Oh, and I don't use a head on a monopod. The most I'll do is add a quick release plate of the current quick release system I'm using. Unfortunately I also happen to be using a very expensive one, so I just take my time to attach the monopod to the tripod collar.

[Jason Kravitz]

So when do you use the monopod and when do you use the tripod? Also can't you use your tripod with the legs folded in as a mock monopod?

what brand do you have?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, the monopod is used for long lenses and during times when I have to move around a lot.

The tripod is used when maximum stability is required. Normally for birding a tripod is used.

[Suhit Gupta]

I find that anything that requires long exposure shots needs a tripod. Though, for general stability, a monopod is quite useful.

Suhit

[Jason Kravitz]

I got a recommendation for the Manfrotto 3021Pro tripod - anyone have any experience with that one? Still not sure which head

I lugged my vivitar tripod around this weekend and the legs kept slipping even with the tabs locked down - I don't think this tripod is meant to hold the weight of my new lens hehe

looks like the money I saved on the lens is going into a tripod!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

After a little hunting, the Bogen 3021 is the Manfrotto 055 in the rest of the world (hate special marketing codes, hate them!). The 055 Pro is what I'm using myself, and it's a solid tripod. It will hold your 400/5.6 very nicely, with the right head. It's also a good height, unless you're extremely tall, or under 5'6"

Now, as for the head.. it just might be the start of a long and expensive journey. I myself went through 3 ballheads before I settled on my current one (over US$270 including shipping and tax). I'm not sure what would be a good US$100 ballhead, because I'm still trying to find one. I'll let you guys know when I've found it. =P

If you're looking at pan and tilts, however, I think the choice is much easier, since they don't have the annoyances associated with ballheads, and are more stable for the price you pay.

[Jason Kravitz]

seems like the "pros" prefer a ballhead - what are the advantages? Why did you go through three of them? I'm used to pan/tilt now but would switch to ballhead if there was a compelling reason to do so (since I am starting fresh)

I'm 6'2" so the 3021 (055) should be OK

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Because in a ballhead, one control is needed to lock and unlock two axis of movement. It's faster and easier.

However a good ballhead isn't that easy to design, for some reason, and I went through 3 because the cheap ones just weren't satisfactory. I'm still looking for a good mid priced ballhead though.. can't be asking everyone to buy expensive ballheads!

[Bob12]

I have a Bogen branded Manfrotto 222 ballhead and it holds my Canon DSLR and 35-350 lens quite solidly. It did require some adjustment though to be able to do so. I've had it several years and don't recall the price.

[Jason Kravitz]

Thanks Bob - I was looking at the 322RC2 on the Bogen site - The grip action ball looks quicker to adjust (have not really tried one so I can't say for sure) and I like that one because it lays horizontal as opposed to the other vertical grips

Bogen/Manfrotto doesn't make it easy to pick a model - they've got so many and I don't see the distinction between them really by the description. I only mentioned the 3021pro because a photographer friend of mine has one and recommended it...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I don't like the 222.. the high CG gives it less stability, and Manfrotto knows it, giving it a lower load rating.

A note about load ratings, I find them to be inaccurate. I believe most of them refer to the camera and lens attached to the head, perfectly level, and the head is on some concrete platform (instead of a tripod). This ignores things like the setup pointed down or up, or little things, like ballhead slip. The ballheads from Manfrotto, for example, are infamous for their ability to slip, that is, when you lock down the ballhead and relax your grip on the camera, the setup will shift due to the ballhead not gripping properly. When you're using telephotos this is an absolute killer, because it can result in a totally different photo. They cheap Manfrottos were especially terrible (I'm not sure about their new ones, they released a new line last year); I had a 308 that lasted all of 8 months before becoming unusable.

Back to the 222, Manfrotto has replaced it with the 322, which does look more stable. Slik has a similar offering, but I can't remember the model number, sorry.

The main differences between tripods are simple! Cost, weight, and height. And the 3 of them will affect stability in some way in the end. After that there'll be the little things like the type of leg locks it uses, the ability to set the angle which you open the legs to (larger opening = lower height+greater stability), if there is a centre column, number of sections it has (which affects the length when the tripod is closed), etc.

[Bob12]

So far, I've not had any trouble with the 222. My Canon EOS D60 with the 35-350 lens and 550ex flash weighed about eight pounds and, after some tension adjustment, it's never failed to hold the camera solidly. But, as Lee says, it is a rather tall head. But, since I'm fairly short, the center tube on my Canon tripod is seldom raised more than about an inch or two above its lowest position. I'd say if the new line of Manfrotto ballheads are shorter, they'd make it even better.