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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 24, 2006, 12:21 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

Based onrecent advice posted on this board, I decided to purchase a Sigma 100 - 300 F4 lens instead ofa Canon 100 - 400 L or Sigma 80 - 400 EX. When I picked up the lens today, I was a bit taken back by the size and weight of the lens. I got a chance to try the 100 - 400 L on my 5d and it was a pretty good match and I wasn't overwhelmed byits size and weight. The push pull zoom was a bit different but overall I felt that it would be okay for hand held shooting during daylight out of doors situations. As fate would have it, I ran into someone witha Sigma 80 - 400 on the way home with my 100 - 300 lens. There was a difference in the diameter and size of these two Sigma lenses. I also a chancegot to hold a 20D with the Tamron 200 - 500 zoom during my shopping for a long range zoom. The Tamron is smaller than the 100 - 300! I am going to get a lot of exercise with this one.

At leastit's a constant size zoom. Well off to see if size matters.


Bill

wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 24, 2006, 2:10 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Bill

Remember it's an f/4 -> twice the light - hence twice the diameter of an f/5.6!

This is just physics of it - there's just bigger glass inside to be faster!
-> Think about how big a 400 f/2.8 is (compare to the 100-400)... :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 3:04 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

Bill I thought exactly as you did with the 100-300 F4(I was also talked into it by NHL,LOL).I have taken it out several times and it isnt that bad in the field.I take it hiking,not into the city.I also recently bought a 1.4 converter and the 24-70 F2.8 EX sigma and when you add all those together it seems to get heavier every hour,and I know I dont have alot of heavy lenses.I think you will like it alot,like I do.Enjoy and hope to see some pics soon.



Charlie
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 3:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

That's exactly what I was thinking about when I first saw the case. Twice the light, twice the weight and twice the price if I had went with the 120 - 300 2.8. Seriously I think I will be able to adjust the lens. The weight actually helps. I'm getting pretty sharp shots without concentrating very hard. The lens is pretty quiet with excellent build quality. I really like the fact it doesn't change size when zooming.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 10:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

Athough I was trying the lens out by photographing small wild life, the best photo Itook on my initial outing with the new lensis ofan U.S. Flag. It's very sharp.
Attached Images
 
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 11:05 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

Shy guy
Attached Images
 
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2006, 1:16 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

"Remember it's an f/4 -> twice the light - hence twice the diameter of an f/5.6!"

Actually, twice the light means twice the surface area which is the square-root-of-two times the diameter ...
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2006, 6:09 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

jacks wrote:
Quote:
Actually, twice the light means twice the surface area which is the square-root-of-two times the diameter ...
You're quite correct - I'll put my dunce hat on in the corner...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2006, 6:27 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

wsandman1 wrote:
Quote:
I got a chance to try the 100 - 400 L on my 5d and it was a pretty good match and I wasn't overwhelmed byits size and weight. The push pull zoom was a bit different but overall I felt that it would be okay for hand held shooting during daylight out of doors situations...
Bill & Charlie

If there's any consolation, let me point to theses numbers from the Photozone site that we discussed on the other 120-300 f/2.8 thread:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm

@ 300mm w/1.4 Center f/5.6: 1655,5 f/8: 1750 f/11: 1631,5
EF 100-400L IS Center f/5.6: 1488 f/8: 1549 f/11: 1508
@ 300mm w/1.4 Border f/5.6: 1507 f/8: 1587 f/11: 1510
EF 100-400L IS Border f/5.6: 1489 f/8: 1539 f/11: 1512
->
In another word the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is sharper @ 420mm with the 1.4x than my Canon's 100-400L IS USM !!! :idea:
BTW check out the weight and size (extended) of the above two lenses again, they are actually quite similar...

... and you guys can also brag about the CA on the Sigma too which appears to be superior as well! :lol: :-) :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2006, 7:23 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

NHL,

I'm impressedwith this lens so far. The only downside besides having to pay for it, seems to be getting to places where there's wildlife. I live near Chicago. I went to a nature park to get the shots I posted, but there were park employees showing children around the park. The tour guide had the childrem making animal sounds and stomping. This frightened off most of the animals. The chipmunk was the last animal I saw close up, hence the flag shot. One thing I noticed is that I missed several close ups because I rotated the zoom in the wrong direction. I had to make sure I remembered which wayzoomed closer and which way zoomed out.

I'm planning on getting a 1.4 tele-converter. The Canon is about twice as expensive as the sigma. Any thoughts?

Bill
wsandman1 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 6:55 PM.