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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 5, 2005, 2:25 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the ship that i am waiting to sail on is the 400 DO IS f 4.0...

wow... what a lens, a 400 image stabilized lens at only 9 inches long...

its 4 inches shorter than the 400 2.8 is and 2 inches shorter than the 400 5.6..

a man can dream.....
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 5:58 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Golfer wrote:
Quote:
... Would beally love the Canon 500, but my ship hasen't come in yet.
I'm kind more of a practical guy:

1. IS - cool feature, but less practical on moving subjects which is why I prefer faster lenses to freeze the action for example... However when I picked an f/2.8, it's not for shooting in lower light (this is just a bonus), but my main objective is its extra 'bokeh' - This is what I'm paying for, just like my 85mm f/1.2... One can snap a picture, but to get a good image you just need good lighting [PERIOD]

2. Quickest AF - Sigma's HSM is also ultrasonic which is the high frequency inaudible drive by pulsation: You can probably instrument the milliseconds differences but most human can't detect this, IMO this opinion is more subjective than anything - Beside a 'brighter' lens helps a camera focus faster...

3. Not bad aperture - The 100-400 @ f/5.6 becomes f/8 at 560mm with a 1.4xTC against 600 f/5.6 for the Sigma with a 2xTC which still autofocus correctly. BTW the Canon TCs fit this lens (unlike its 70-200 f/2.8 ) if you can live with the black and white mismatch! 8)

Plus if I have a 20D which have the higher precision AF sensor for f/2.8 lensorlarger, I'll try to maximize this benefit - you're just 'wasting' this excellent feature otherwise which is really good at helping with achieving the desired 'bokeh'... :crazy:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 12:56 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
Default

Personally I don't like it. I hate the mechinism for it going in and out from 100 to 400.

I'm not sure if I need to get it serviced/calibrated as it seems to stick when I press to focus on my subject the imaage freezes for a split milli second, seems to jump and then clears!

I'd sell this lens today if someone pushed pound notes in my face!

I love the 70-200mm f2.8 IS and is my main lens.

Just my thoughts!
Carl.
CarlsPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 1:00 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I believe that is the IS kicking in. I get that with my IS lenses some time. (Assuming I'm understanding you correctly.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 10:09 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

:? DAD-GUM-IT You guys don't make buying a new lense very easy. NHL you really make some good points on the Sigma.

Eric and Bobby, you guys both have the 100x400 don't you? Any additional thoughts for me?

Thanks guys for your help and support, I need to decide Monday.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 10:18 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

To throw in more confusion if you are after range have you looked at the Bigma50-500 F4-F6.3?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=3Reasonabely priced and people who have it seem to like it.

(I don't have one :-), so I can't speak from experience.)

Or the whopper http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=3300-800 F5.6 (not cheep:?)

Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 10:38 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

Peter, just saw your replay. Thanks, yes I have considered the 50x500 and looked real hard. Reasons I thought against was no IS and is darkere yet than the 100x400. Do you think I am overlooking something here.

The 100x300 2.8 has real promise but I am not sure it's not almost a duplication of my 70x200 2.8. Since NHL has messed my mind up, any one else have thoughts.


Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2005, 11:01 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

You are absolutely right about the lens being a bit slower than the other ones you are looking at, and no IS. I never look for IS as a selling point because of the way I shoot, rarely hand-held, but I do find alarge max aperturea useful feature.

So many options, too little pay check :blah:

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 7:21 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Golfer wrote:
Quote:
The 100x300 2.8 has real promise but I am not sure it's not almost a duplication of my 70x200 2.8. Since NHL has messed my mind up, any one else have thoughts.
Sorry about that! :G

Like I said I have a 70-200 f/2.8 too... This lens is a must have, and it serves an entire different purpose: It's lighter and will do fine in smaller quarter.

Typically when you set out for a day shoot you have a general idea - If I go 'hunting' for wildlife I'm not going to take the smaller lens, this is where the flexibility of the 120-300 f/2.8 come in -> you don't need to carry the 70-200 anymore and with only one lens you can have up to the reach of a 'semi-fast' f/5.6 600mm with a few TC's! BTW I had the 50-500 for a short time, it's a good lens too, but when I went out I still need to carry the 70-200 f/2.8 along (or leave it the car)... In fact that's what happened to me when we went to beach week last year: I left the 50-500 in the car instead (but the wrong car) so that lens was out the entire trip! :evil:

My longing was always a 300 f/2.8 - I still have one in FD mount... I you never try a fast 300mm before you should: perfect focal lenght with fantastic 'bokeh' @ f/2.8 - This is a very popular lens for outdoor portrait/fashion shoots and Canon still charge a lot for this lens - Imagine my delight when Sigma came along with a zoom instead (@ 1/2 the price) and only for a small compromise.

Golfer... this is just my opinion - most folks will go the 'L' ways because they feel more confortable with the brand so don't get sway by me! I'm just more open than most here because I switched from Canon to '3rd' party camera like Minolta before when going AF (and collected Nikon - but I'm not a Nikon diehard), and have been exposed to many lenses of various brands so I'm not as apprehensive... :sad:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 12:34 PM   #20
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Golfer

What do you think you'll mostly be using the lens for?
peripatetic 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 7:52 PM.