Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses-61/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 114541] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses/111812-recovered-thread-114541-a.html)

NHL Jan 16, 2007 12:56 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Well, I've just got a 500mm f/4
... and you'll still need to carry a zoom unless you want a lot of portraits :-) :lol: :G

This is a lot of (+ dead)weight to carry about
-> When I shot with the 120-300 f/2.8, I only need 1 lens to cover 120-600!


Mark1616 Jan 16, 2007 1:41 PM

NHL do you have any examples of the Sigma 120-300 with the 2x telecon at 600mm so I can see the sort of quality we are looking at. If you could show the full shot and a 100% crop that would be very interesting.

NHL Jan 16, 2007 8:05 PM

I'm out of the country for several more days, but here are some older shots all taken with the 120-300 f/2.8 with 2xTC: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=11

If anyone think the 120-300 f/2.8 is heavy, they haven't scale a cliff with a 500mm f/4 yet(+ a 100-400L in tow)! ;)


bakaroni Jan 16, 2007 8:20 PM

I tried out both the 200-500 and the 100-400 on an XTi in a store (although mine is an XT). The Canon was certainly much faster when it came to focusing. The Tamron often had to hunt a bit, which could be an issue with wildlife, particularly birds in flight or moving animals. Have you compared the AF speed of the 100-400+1.4TC with that of the Tamron? If so, which is faster? Would the AF characteristics be any different on the XT or is it completely independent of the body?

NHL, the 120-300 f2.8 looks like a great lens, but it's well out of my budget, not to mention I don't have the muscles to carry it around for long.


djb wrote:
Quote:

If your thinking of using a 1.4X TC then the 100-400 isn't the best of choices. I've used ithat combo and can get some fairly nice shots but, I'm really not that good or fast for manual focus. If you tape the 3 pins on the TC the 10-400 hunts quite a bit. I don't know how the others fair with a TC. Most places seem to sell the 200-500 for $800+. there's a used one on ebay you can buy for $725. It's 97-98% new. current bid is $699. So at $650 it may not be a bad deal.

dennis

djb Jan 16, 2007 9:02 PM

I have never usednor seen the tamron 200-500mm So, I can't make a comment on that. what I do know about the 100-400mm Canaon is that it seems to get a bit confused in flight shots. what I mean is that, if i take a 3 to 5 frame burst then let off the shutter button for a second or 2 and then go to refocus on the flying bird I just shot, the camera/lens hunts. what it seems to do is forget where it was focusing anf decides to back down and move yil it finds the focus. i've missed shots because of this. I don't know if NHL has witnessed the same. I have a 20D and from what i understand about autofocus is that it is really the camera that focuses the lens and what makes a lens hunt is the camera, not the lens. Some lenses just don't focus fast due to slow motors. As for weight, the 100-400 is 2.5 pounds, i believe. Don't know about the others. The 500mm is 8.5 pounds and , NHL, I have never scaled a cliff with it but, what I do sometimes is have it hanging around my neck for a few hours at a time while I use t for hand held shots. It get's heavy. I've been able to hold it fairly steady for about 1 minute and then it feels like 40 or 50 pounds. Usually taking hand held shots the camera is up for only a few seconds so it is very manageble. But, the 500mm is out of your range. I've seen NHL's shots with the 120-300 sigma and some of them are exceptional. Out of all the lenses you are thinking about and aso the 120-300, if you could manage to get the 120-300, do it. I think it will be sharper with a @X TC than any of the other lenses with no TC. I really like my 100-400 as it is light and has very good optics as well as IS which can be useful but not really necessary. Can't think of anything else at this point.

dennis

NHL Jan 17, 2007 3:30 AM

1 Attachment(s)
bakaroni wrote:
Quote:

... Have you compared the AF speed of the 100-400+1.4TC with that of the Tamron? If so, which is faster? Would the AF characteristics be any different on the XT or is it completely independent of the body?

NHL, the 120-300 f2.8 looks like a great lens, but it's well out of my budget, not to mention I don't have the muscles to carry it around for long.
The 100-400L wouldn't do well with a 1.4xTC - It's not designed to AF @ f/8. You have to force it to make it work and then it'll do best on static objects...

Your best bet (in your price range) for a 500mm reach is the Tamron since it's the sharpest, next is the Sigma 50-500, which is slightly faster because of the speedier HSM drive, which is ultrasonic like Canon's USM. I would put the 100-400L next because of the shorter 400mm reach and sharpness according to Photozone:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._563/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._463/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm
-> According to Photozone's MTF the Sigma 100-300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC also outresolves the 100-400L.

IMO the 120-300 is the best compromise for a longer reach (to 600mm). At 5.75lb it's a lot lighter than an 8.5lb 500mm f/4 and a 2.5lb 100-400L zoom which you'll also need on any trip - I'll post some pictures when I come home but a prime alone won't cut it for me (like the portrait I posted earlier). You just can't predict where your subject will appear next.
I also don't use a tripod, too much weight to carry about (+ gymbal head)... and also not practical for climbing. I only carry my white ones on this trip (which add up to twice the weight of the black ones): ;)



Humrme Jan 29, 2007 10:13 PM

I wouldn't base any conclusions on Photozone data. By their own admission, they had a faulty copy of the 100-400L and thus reserved a final verdict. I've had two copies of the the Sigma 100-300 and it is an excellent lens. I replaced my first copy with an EF 300/4 IS as I found it a little sharper than the Sigma. I missed the zoom. I replaced the 300 with a 100-400 and found it to be about as sharp as the 300 (at 300) at better than the 300 + 1.4TC. Sold the 100-400 and went back to a Sigma 100-300/4 to create some cap space to help fund the purchase of a 1D2N. Have recently replaced the Sigma again with 100-400. In both cases, if have found the 100-400 (newer copies) to be sharper than the Sigma with a TC. YMMV. Here is a small collection of pics I put together using the subject lenses. No direct comparisons, just similiar subjects. The last two pics are a direct comparison of the 400/5.6 (tried it out for a day) and the 100-400L.

http://www.pbase.com/csd_5092/100400l_vs_400l

NHL Jan 30, 2007 6:22 AM

It's just not Photozone...
The 100-400L MTF's measurements from Photodo are also lower than the Sigma 100-300, so at least two sites reported similar findings using Imatest - May be there's more 'faulty' copies than not: ;)
http://www.photodo.com/topic_74.html
http://www.photodo.com/topic_157.html

But again the original poster asked for longer reach which put the Tamron at the top. Once more the Photodo results agrees with Photozone: The Tamron has the highest tested MTF's surpassing all others in the 200-500 range (which is far better than using the 100-400L with 1.4x TC)!
http://www.photodo.com/topic_49.html


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2