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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 24, 2007, 9:12 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
With this group, when was the last time that happened :G
One can't argue with theses numbers:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS
@ 300mm F/5.6 F/8
Center 1251,5 1182
Border 1243 1111

Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM APO

@ 300mm F/4 F/5.6 F/8
Center 1919,5 1951 1827
Border 1715 1791,5 1777


-> This is like night and day
PS. Notice how the EF 28-300 L's MTF also trails the Sigma (@ 1-stop slower!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 1:03 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

NHL,

how big is the IQ diff between a 70-200+1.4 and 100-300 at f/5.6 ot f/8 ? 200mm is a bit short for some of the shots i'm taking. is it worth getting the 100-300 when i have the 70-200 already? maybe i should jump to the 120-300 ot 300 and keep the 70-200?

btw i love the idea of oly + bigma
gaida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 2:28 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It depends on which one you have:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L
@ 280mm F/5.6 F/8 F11
Center 1805 1740 1662,5
Border 1617 1638,5 1593

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L
@ 280mm F/4 F/5.6 F/8
Center 1728 1909,5 1920,5
Border 1652 1739,5 1769,5

-> With the EF 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) the IQ is quite similar but you're 1-stop down (and @280mm) from the Sigma's better performance wide open f/4 but @ 300mm.
With the 70-200 f/4L (or the 70-200 f/2.8L IS), their IQ look to be less than the Sigma according to the above MTF's from Photozone with a 1.4x

Most of us here who have the 120-300 f/2.8 also own the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 since we can use the difference for not getting the more costly 70-200 f/2.8L IS and apply to the 120-300 instead... We need the f/2.8 more than IS!




Quote:
btw i love the idea of oly + bigma
It makes perfect sense to me to replace the 100-400L
(if you have to lug around a 500 f/4 all day)!

I shoot birds in action a lot, but most bird shots are static... Imagine a small object among dense foliage or branches
-> All you need is just 1 AF point centered on the subject the size of a tennis ball. more focus points just go toward the unwanted background, and for that an Oly with a high power lens will do just fine...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 5:35 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

NHL,

sorry mate i didn't make myself clear, i though i knew i had the sigma 70-200.

I'm not a IS guy anyway i care mostly about 2.8 but thought if the 100-300 at f/8 is better than the 70-200 + 1.4 i might go for that one.The step to 120-300 is a bit too steep at the moment
gaida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2007, 6:48 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

gaida wrote:
Quote:
sorry mate i didn't make myself clear, i though i knew i had the sigma 70-200.
Excellent!

-> My point is since the Sigma 70-200 is so reasonable in price one can afford to keep both. After you have used the 120-300, the 70-200 becomes less critical and is only needed for indoor or when you require something lighter.

IMO it doesn't make sense to keep two equally pricey lenses when they overlap too much even if one can afford the combo. Most of us end up with an extra 100-400L for example for the same outlay, it's just a matter of aligning your asset wisely...



Quote:
I'm not a IS guy anyway i care mostly about 2.8 but thought if the 100-300 at f/8 is better than the 70-200 + 1.4 i might go for that one.The step to 120-300 is a bit too steep at the moment
According to the MTF's it is indeed better and starting from f/4, not f/8
The 100-300 is sharper than any 70-200+1.4 for sure and you gain an additional 2-stops for that IQ!!!

-> If you can live with f/4 then go for it, since this lens is like JohnG said, is also sharper, than the 120-300 f/2.8 @ 1/2 the price...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2007, 3:04 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks everyone for your input. Despite the consensus, I'd like to throw in one more lens for your comments. I'm very interested in getting L glass. So, here it is - the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. What do you think? That or the Sigma 100-300 f/4 paired with the Canon 24-105L?:-)
pointandshootguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2007, 3:46 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I have the 100-400 as well. It's a very nice wildlife lens but IMO a very poor field sport lens. The reasons I say it's poor is because it's only 5.6 and it costs $1400. That's a very poor combination IMO. Even in good light, 5.6 gives you less subject isolation. For motor sports it could be OK, and I love it for major league baseball games (since you're forced to shoot down on the players, subject isolation isn't as much of an issue). But as a field sport lens it's a poor investment, IMO.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2007, 6:11 PM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Same here I have the 100-400L as well...

However if you check the MTF @ photozone, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX with a 1.4x TC (i.e. 140-420mm @ f/5.6) is as good as the 100-400L
(BTW this is with their new tests, their previous results with the 100-400L were terrible!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 8:53 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Default

What about a fixed focal length like the Canon EF 300 f/2.8L or 4L - on an image quality/performance basis; price aside for the moment. Just want to be sure I consider all the options and get your input...Thanks, you guys are great!:!:
pointandshootguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2007, 9:55 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The EF 300 f/2.8 is on a different league altogether!

Except for the IS, according to its MTF's the Sigma 100-300 f/4 can give the EF 300 f/4L a run for the money... The question is can you live with your current zoom taped tight @ the 300mm position all day?
(which may explain why some of us opt for the 120-300 f/2.8 instead)
NHL 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 12:22 PM.