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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2006, 4:18 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I would avoid the 70-300 DO if your primary interest is wildlife.

The new 70-300 would make an acceptable upgrade from the FZ IMO. It gives an EFL of 480mm at the zoom end.

If my main interest was wildlife however I would choose between:
1. Canon 100-400L IS.
2. Sigma 100-300 f4 EX + 1.4xTC.
3. Sigma 50-500 EX.

With the Sigmas you lose the IS.

With #2 at the long end you gain an extra f-stop because it is a constant f4 throughout the zoom range. You can also add a 1.4x TC to make it a 140-420 f5.6 (EFL=224-672mm) which is much better than you were able to get with the FZ.

#3 (Bigma) is also an excellent wildlife lens and gives an EFL of 800mm! Which is twice what you are used to with the FZ.

It's a tough choice between the 3 options.

For general wildlife I'd choose #1 because I like IS.
If you don't mind using a tripod then #2 is just about the sharpest zoom available in that range and is still excellent even with the TC.
For birding I would probably go with #3 for the extra reach, and of course you will need a tripod.

The 2 Sigmas are almost the same price if you include a 1.4x TC for #2, and both are significantly cheaper than the Canon.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 6:02 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I tend to agree with peripatetic for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX

According to the MTF this lens is sharper than some prime, but the best part is this lens is priced lower than a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter - So actually it's quite decent as an all around lens if you don't need to carry a faster f/2.8

I have the 120-300 f/2.8 which is not as sharp as the f/4 EX (but absolutely love it), here's a shot with a 2x TC if you need a longer reach and still be handholdable unlike some prime:



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 1:34 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,699
Default

you guys are a wealth of info... any opinions or experience with the Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX APO OS? it seems to offer the same range as the 100-400L, with IS, at a bit cheaper price ($1000 vs $1400), though it's a bit slower at the long end...
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 2:51 PM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
you guys are a wealth of info... any opinions or experience with the Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX APO OS? it seems to offer the same range as the 100-400L, with IS, at a bit cheaper price ($1000 vs $1400), though it's a bit slower at the long end...
I have the 100-400L IS (and the 28-135 IS USM): http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=11


May be I'm not as warm to IS as other folks here, but I rather have faster lenses over IS any day:

1. The stuffs I shoot always move so IS is not that helpful there.
2. When I was in the rainforest last year under the tree covers I could have use IS to make the shots possible, but none were worth framing - The best images I've taken in low-light always required a good flash so why do I need IS? (shot @ 1/180s f/6.7 at 400.0mm iso400 with Flash)




3. Photography is all about lighting... :idea:
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 6:19 PM.