Upgrade Advice

[dashabout]

I'm currently using a Rebel XT and a Tamron 200-500mm zoom to shoot wildlife, especially flying raptors. I've had good luck with this setup, even hand held,  but I'm now looking to upgrade both camera and lens.

It seems that the lens of choice is the Canon 100-400mm L zoom but I really like the reach of the 200-500. Do you feel the improved image quality of the L lens along with the image stabilization will offset the loss of focal length? Are there any other choices? I need to be able to shoot hand held and need fast, accurate auto focus.

I'm also looking at the EOS 50D for a camera upgrade. I like the improved features of the 50D but will I see a significant improvement in image quality?

[Bob Atkins]

If you want image stabilization, fast AF and a zoom, the EF100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM is probably your best bet. I reviewed it HERE The only thing better would be a telephoto prime, but the 400/5.6L doesn't have IS, so you're looking at $3000+ for a lens 400mm or longer, plus handholding them for long can be tiring.

At larger print sizes (say above 11x14 maybe?), you should see improved image quality from the EOS 50D over the Rebel XT, plus it's a nicer camera to use and has quite a few more features. However if you're only printing 8x10s or smaller, you may not see any visible improvement.

[KeithB]

Bob, will the Canon 1.3X teleconverter work on the 100-400?  That would get him the reach of the 200 - 500.

[Bob Atkins]

Yes, the Canon 1.4x fits the 100-400, but you lose AF unless you are using one of the 1D series bodies because the maximum aperture drops from 5.6 without the TC to f8 with the TC and the consumer and prosumer DSLRs (and the 5D/5D mkII) require a lens that's f5.6 or faster for AF.

There are some tricks such as taping over some of the connector pins between the lens and TC which will enabale AF again, but it may not be reliable.

You can also use a Tamron 1.4x which doesn't report the reduced aperture to the camera and again you may get AF, but again it may not be reliable.

[dashabout]

Thanks for the info.

I've already considered using a TC  on the100-400L ( I already own the Tamron 1.4)  but friom what I've read the AF isn't going to work very well. I have the Canon 70-300 IS lens  the TC frequently hunts during focusing and the IQ is  not all that good.

Since many of my shots need to be cropped, wouldn't the increased resolution of the 50D over the XT help more than the slightly better optics in the 100-400L?  I  get a high percentage of keepers with the Tamron using careful technique and it seems I'm always zoomed out to 500mm.  Many times my subjects are moving rapidly so IS is of limited value.

 It's looking like I'll only be able to upgrade either the body or the lens and right now i'm thinking the 50D body, with the additional features and resolution would be a beter choice. Does that make sense?

[Canonian]

I have the 50D and a recent 100-400 and 1.4 TC, and upgraded from an XTi. I have have a Tamron 200-400 in inventory, the earlier, trombone, zoom a generation before the 100-500. IMO the Canon is much better. At the price it should be... the Tamron cost me $50 used as I recall. If it is  raining I will use the Tamron every time (BTW it is a very well made lens, although a bit awkward to handle, and neither it or the Canon are weatherproof). 

My advice is that the 50D may be a better upgrade, as it has much more resolution and a higher ISO... which will allow you a higher shutter speed, which IMO is better for good long tele shots than image stabilization because it freezes the subject. Cropping would give you 8 mpx using 2/3rds of the 50D frame without the speed loss of an extender. I do not know how the Tamron would do with a 1.4X. The Canon does OK...
However, it is quite possible to handhold the 100-400 at 400mm using IS. I have not had much luck handholding heavy lenses over 300mm without IS unless it is high noon and sunny. Plus lenses become obsolete much more slowly than digital SLRs. Note that the Canon MTF charts indicate that the 100-400 may falll off optically with full frame sensors. I do not know about that, but it may account for some of the negative comments on the older models. Mine is terrific on a 1.6X.

As far as TCs are concerned, if you are going to use a tripod/monopod/beanbag, which you probably should use over 400mm at a 1.6X multiplier, using manual focus may not be much of an issue with many subjects. Handholding at that range is possible with IS (the 1.4x barely increases the size of the lens), but the field of view is so small that finding a moving subject is hard. Autofocus is not very smart, and cannot tell critters from the branches and leaves that they usually surround themselves with, much less eyes from ears. I usually find that tweaking the autofocus with manual is necessary. But you need USM to do that easily.

Have you considered getting a good old manual focus 400mm and putting an adapter and TC on it... say a Nikon EDIF. Stop down metering is not a problem when the lens is wide open all the time anyway, you could save $600 or so, the pictures would probably be at least as good optically (and better mechanically) than a midlevel modern zoom, and the lens might be faster and flare less (it would have many fewer elements). Or perhaps a 500mm mirror lens (no CA). Then again, to be complete, there is a new Sigma with IS and FTM focus and 100-500, that I have never seen, that is cheaper than the Canon that will give you autofocus at 500mm without tape... do homework on Sigma before you buy it: it will likely depreciate.

You may find that the technique involved in using super-telephotos is less fun than it sounds. A camera upgrade, on the other hand, is more generic. The 50D, for example is better at low light, fixes vignetting in camera with Canon lenses, etc. A 100-400 could become a dust collector. It is far too big to be a good 100mm plus carryaround.

In the end this devolves into a specialized topic that should be defined by your subject, not a generic answer on the "best"  equipment.