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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 8, 2008, 11:21 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

i have used the bigma and the tamron. i felt the bigma to be more useable with its fast hsm and the range.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"50mm to 500mm is quite a great range. A 17-55 and 50-500 would be a great combo for long tiring treks. And except in really bad light condition the 50-500 is all worth the money in the entire range..may be not at 500mm(still greatly acceptable).

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"As NHL threw one more option, i would say vote 2 for 50-500 Bigma.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Now the AW Lens Trekker is proving more than just a lens bag.. Great for trekking with the mark III, 500mm, 24-105 and a flash. And heck, i can add side lens cases to the trekker and it doesnt really feel heavy. I totally recomment the lens trekker for those who want a compact carrying case for a tele and bunch of lens.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 7:43 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

still tossing up weather to sell the two Ls, the 70-200 and the 400 L and just get the sigma 100-300 F4 and perhaps a 1X4 TC for it. or maybe the canon TC would fit it. Not sure. anyway, my biggest fear is not getting the sharpenss I gety from the canons
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 10:39 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
anyway, my biggest fear is not getting the sharpenss I gety from the canons
You are comparing a lens with a 1.4xTC against a lens without...

The 70-200 f/4 may be sharp by itself, but not after a 1.4xTC which degrades it a bit!
Let's look @ some of the numbers which Photozone has already tabulated for you:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L with 1.4x teleconverter MTF's (f/4 becomes f/5.6 @ 280mm):
@280mm f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1805 1740 1663
Border 1617 1639 1593
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX with NO teleconverter MTF's:
@300mm f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11
Center 1919 1951 1827 1702
Border 1715 1791 1777 1659
-> The Sigma is both a stop faster and sharper @ all apertures!

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L with 1.4x teleconverter vignetting:
@280mm f/5.6 f/8
Vignette .31 .03
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX vignetting with no teleconverter:
@300mm f/4 f/5.6 f/8
Vignette .46 .14 .04
-> Tied, the Sigma vignettes less @ f/5.6, but slighly more @ f/8 than the 70-200L

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L with 1.4x chromatic aberrations:
@280mm f/5.6 f/8 f/11
CA .77 .82 .93
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX chromatic aberrations:
@300mm f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11
CA .48 .58 .60 .64
-> The Sigma CA less across the board... as well
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 11:40 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

The other problem is weight. Although I can handhold the 400 L quite well, it does get a bit heavy. I don't use it as much as the 70-200 with the TC. I can handhold the 70-200 and the TC very easily for long periods, from what you say the sigma is a heavy lens, for a lens i would use more than any other that is a concern, Lots of things to weigh up
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 9:36 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Can't help you there!

It is indeed heavier as the optical elements of an f/4 have to be larger to collect more light than an f/5.6. There is just no way around that; However, it also opens up new possibility that you did not have before of shooting twice as fast in lower light (and slighly more de-focus DOF)... that needs to be weight-in

A bit heavy is also relative, nymphetamine and I shoot with a 500mm f/4L handheld so 1.5kg is relatively lightweight to us... :lol::-):G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 11:49 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

100-300 is not as heavy as it appears. The 1.5 Kg on, say a 40D or the xxD series will balance perfectly. In fact i had trouble using the super light 70-300 Sigma on a 20D since it was too light.

i am guessing it shoudl weigh almost similar to 70-200 with the 1.4x tele. Once u add the telethe lens is farther away from the body and the weight of the lens tends to act on its own instead of using the camera bodys surface area to spread the weight(or thats what i feel its happening)

the 100-300 is a superb lens, excelelnt optics and one of the sharpest wide open lens's

I bet its sharpness is as close to the legendary 70-200 F4 IS lens(this is one sharp lens)

And 1.5Kg is heavy as long as u dont get a chance to hold a 3.9kg lens as NHLsaid.

And often its always with the 1.4x tele or the 2x sometimes.(In fact for fun i tried adding the Kenko tubes and it felt like i was trying to hold a bazooka-a loaded one)
nymphetamine 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 4:53 PM.