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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:20 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Canon 30D with Canon 100-400 - 1/500; f8, ISO 200 @ 330mm, reduced:
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:23 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Detail from above:
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:25 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

'Electric Bird': Canon 100-400, built in flash, reduced, edited RAW and converted to JPEG:
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:26 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Canon 100-400:
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:51 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Canon 100-400, Sea gull - low pass; croped-not edited:
Attached Images
 
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2006, 8:39 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4
Default

thanks for that comparison - had a look at both these lenses and have ordered the 50-500 - - It didn't seem like there was much difference between the two (not enough to warrant the price difference) and your photos pretty much prove this.
beets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2006, 1:49 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

I do not think you would make mistake in purchasing any of those two lenses. Once you have only one, that one is going to be the best lens for you!

In Canada in photo shops, there is not the big price difference. Sigma sels for about $1450 can and Canon for $1750. If I like Canon more (I think I do) I wouldn't care for $300 dolars difference. But if you order over internet, you can find a much better deal on Sigma and price difference becomes substantial.

It is tough choice and in my case I am still thinking what to buy. Sigma has deffinitelly better range. Main disadvantage in my opinion is weight. And with this lens you will probably need at least a monopod for best pictures. So it is deffinitelly less practical of two.

In my opinion having only one of those two is not going to be enough anyway. There are number of people having at least two 'teles'. I would probably include 80-200/2.8 to this lens as well. And than use only one depending on the situation.

Other options in my opinion is excellent Sigma 100-300/f4 and 80-400.
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2006, 2:11 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

And just one more thing to add when we asses the difference between two lenses. Yes, there is not much of an opticall difference between those two lenses by my 'casual' comparison. But there is not much difference between light and cheap Canon 75-300 and Canon 100-400 as well. Indeed, Canon 75-300 is bit sharper than much more expensive 100-400. In my tests again, Canon 75-300 was bit softer on the left side and 100-400 softer on the right side. And that could be just two lens samples which are never identical.

But would I still buy more expensive 100-400? Yes, I would for couple of obvious reasons:

-very good build quality (I didn't reck my 75-300 even after couple years of use)

-IS, better end range and no visible CF, keeps the value

For that lens to get, I empty my pocket for additional $1500and add 1kg more in my photo bag. Just to get an approval ...
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2006, 12:17 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

IMHO, I think 100-400L can do a lot better than what your shots show.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2006, 12:58 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

I didn't post enough shots as to use them for proper evaluation. In some reviews it is said not to use 100-400 at 400 and 5.6. I did many comparison shots between 75-300 and 100-400 and asked couple of people (advanced amateurs) to pick 'one of two'. Everyone picked picture from 75-300 as better! I have to say that sometimes it is our beleif that expensive lens has to be always the better one! In casual shooting it can be proven otherwise.

But one thing I have to say is that using 100-400 percentage of technically good picture is going to be higher than from 75-300, partially due to IS. On the other hand 100-400 has much less (or none) CA at high contrast edges and becomes better at cloudy days having better contrast (but not much).

I had sigma and canon lens only for two days and that again, may not be enough to do proper testing.

Again I find 100-400 to be optically better than Sigma 50-500 but that comparison is not fair one due to higher range of Sigma lens. Some reviews show (even some at this forum) that you can see more detail from 50-500 at 500 than from Canon 100-400 at 400. I didn't see that much of difference or any! Again for fair comparison you have to use the best condition possible and I didn't use tripod but used 1/1000 or higher speed.
GM2006 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 12:56 PM.