Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 23, 2007, 9:42 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I cant make up my mind between the sigma 50-500, EF 100-400 or an EF 300 F4 (possibly non IS) and 1x4 TC. Which will give me the sharpest shot mainly for wildlife and the occasional sport shot. Will any of these match my 70-200 F4 L with 1x4 TC on sharpness wise? Not sure I could carry the bigma for too long, I like to handhold my shots
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 23, 2007, 10:32 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

EF 300 F4

if u consider this lens, please do consider sigma 100-300 f4, sharpest with a 1.4x tele at 400mm. Sharper than 400L and 100-400L too
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 10:49 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

I have and use the Bigma. Great lens, great shots (and even with the Sigma2x TC in BRIGHT sun, such as at airshows) in all venues.

But I thank God I also own a light weight tripod!!!!!!!
hgernhardtjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 8:50 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
EF 300 F4

if u consider this lens, please do consider sigma 100-300 f4, sharpest with a 1.4x tele at 400mm. Sharper than 400L and 100-400L too
I agree 100%... Actually they've re-tested the 100-400L and now it's on par - May be they should retest the Sigma DG version also just to be fair?
-> Buy the Canon if you "need" IS otherwise the longer Sigma zooms rule!




aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
Will any of these match my 70-200 F4 L with 1x4 TC on sharpness wise?
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX without any TC surpasses the 70-200 f/4L in both sharpness and speed (@ 300 vs 280, f/4 vs f/5.6)
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm


Quote:
Not sure I could carry the bigma for too long, I like to handhold my shots
Come on!

This is a 500mm and you can't compare it's weight to that of a lens less than 1/2 its focal lenght!!! Have you try to hold any other 500mm? The Bigma is really a feather weight in comparison...
Don't you want to pay for the glass (i.e. weight) rather than a barrel lenght of air or worse full of plastic elements?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 1:41 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

sigma 100-300 - around 1.44kgs

canon 100-400 - around 1.2kgs

50-500 - 1.86kgs

sigma 120-300 - 2.6kgs

and the big mama of 500's 500mm F4 IS is around 3.9kgs

from what u say, the 100-400 or the 100-300 looks like a best fit with a 1.4X tele.

But one more things to consider, the 100-300 does internal focussing while the 100-400 extends while focussing.

and 100-300 is faster than 100-400 till 300mm and is the same speed as the 400 at 400mm with a 1.4x tele.

one last option is to try the 70-200 F4 IS. u can use it with a 1.4x as well as 2X but u will lose AF(u can tape the pins though and cheat the camera) at 400mm its already down at f8 and it will be darn slow for the IS to help u in relatively low light conditions.




nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 4:28 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 23
Default

aladyforty: I got a Canon 70-200 IS (700g)and for wildlife really does the job well, I considered loads like everyone, took a hold of the sigma 2.8 but at twice the weight(1350g) too much for hiking, I use it exclusively handheld and wildlife, birds then maybe you gonna be needing a TC also not so much IS if thier in motion, but I cant fault it for my reptile photography IS is spot on, macro also maybe an issue which im about to look in to! but I can take a picture of say a still 1.5inch object from 6 meters away make it full size and the picture is sharp as a tack. Ive been playing around ill try and get some pics to post if you want.

Really will make a difference what wildlife specific or just genral, mine are all small or motion less all reptiles, birds or kangeroos at a distance will add another issue, I took some shots of birds but if they move Im relying on the IS and youll get the blur of the wings.
RichUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 6:11 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'm surprised no one recommended the Tamron 200-500 :idea:

-> IMO it'll fit aladyforty best: This zoom starts where her 70-200 ends and by not having that 50-200mm range the Tamron is also lighter

The only negative is this lens does not come with USM/HSM, but going by her posted pictures I don't believe she'll benefit much from the ultrasonic focusing...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 6:46 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:



Quote:
Not sure I could carry the bigma for too long, I like to handhold my shots
Come on!

This is a 500mm and you can't compare it's weight to that of a lens less than 1/2 its focal lenght!!! Have you try to hold any other 500mm? The Bigma is really a feather weight in comparison...
Don't you want to pay for the glass (i.e. weight) rather than a barrel lenght of air or worse full of plastic elements?
Ive never seen a 500mm up close. There are no places in my town where i can even rent to do a test run:sad:
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 6:53 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Quote:
one last option is to try the 70-200 F4 IS. u can use it with a 1.4x as well as 2X but u will lose AF(u can tape the pins though and cheat the camera) at 400mm its already down at f8 and it will be darn slow for the IS to help u in relatively low light conditions.



well I have the non IS version and the EF 1X4 TC and Im getting tack sharp shots out of it. My issue is with birds that are easily scared of humans, therefore I cant get quite close enough to get a good shot.



take this shot from about 15 metres (cropped) from the bird with the 70-200 and 1X4 combo. Had this been a 400 I could have got a much better image





yet this shot was taken from about 3 metres, handheld and is reasonably sharp






aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 6:55 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
I'm surprised no one recommended the Tamron 200-500 :idea:

-> IMO it'll fit aladyforty best: This zoom starts where her 70-200 ends and by not having that 50-200mm range the Tamron is also lighter

The only negative is this lens does not come with USM/HSM, but going by her posted pictures I don't believe she'll benefit much from the ultrasonic focusing...
I have thought of this lens but have been told it is soft
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.