So now we're dealing with the same speed at the long end.
Just to let you know, it's not so much as same speed at the long end as it is same speed at everything but the wide end. I believe the 100-400 goes to 5.6 at 101mm. Oh, and that 100-400 that the luminous landscape guy tests. A lot of people say that is a loaded lens since almost nobody else's is nearly as good.
Richard
My personal opinion is that the 70-200/2.8L IS with a 1.4 or 2x extension is a MUCH more flexible option than the 100-400L IS.
That is the option I went with and same reasoning. I knew I wanted the 70-200 and it would be used alone the majority of the time. The few situations I might need more lens I would add the 1.4, still faster than the 100-400 and the 70-200 still performs well in bright light. The 2x is for rare use, but there if I have to have a long lens. I rarely use the 2.0 (both actually). I did use the 1.4 at Road Atlanta during a motorcycle race and it worked well. I am waiting for wxwax to break down and buy the 400/2.8 IS, so I can borrow it.
Just to let you know, it's not so much as same speed at the long end as it is same speed at everything but the wide end. I believe the 100-400 goes to 5.6 at 101mm. Oh, and that 100-400 that the luminous landscape guy tests. A lot of people say that is a loaded lens since almost nobody else's is nearly as good.
Richard
My 100-400L went to 5.6 at around 300mm and was really sharp.
I used it for 5 years and sold it after buying the 70-200 IS 2.8L
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Sigma? vs Canon?
What do you all think of the Sigma? With the IS and the 2.8? I can't afford, really can't, to go over 1000.00, including an extension, that (the Sigma and extension) would put me over by 100.00. I would think about it, but only if I feel first class!
So, instead of the Canon, what do you all think, if you ever did, of the Sigma, with the same features as the 70-200 Canon, IS and all?
ginger
Am leaving to check out some wetlands, I would love to know what you all think. re the lens es.
What do you all think of the Sigma? With the IS and the 2.8?
Sigma has image stabilization?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Curse you, goose. I was happily waiting to never be able to afford a 400 2.8, I knew it and had accepted it. Now you have me looking at the Sigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400, even they're they're slow. Curse you.
Curse you, goose. I was happily waiting to never be able to afford a 400 2.8, I knew it and had accepted it. Now you have me looking at the Sigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400, even they're they're slow. Curse you.
What do you all think of the Sigma? With the IS and the 2.8? I can't afford, really can't, to go over 1000.00, including an extension, that (the Sigma and extension) would put me over by 100.00. I would think about it, but only if I feel first class!
So, instead of the Canon, what do you all think, if you ever did, of the Sigma, with the same features as the 70-200 Canon, IS and all?
ginger
Am leaving to check out some wetlands, I would love to know what you all think. re the lens es.
Ginger...im my lens induced late night net crawlings i found these if you are interested. All are sigma 70-200
I thought they did, but I don't see any now. This whole lens thing has gotten out of hand.
I need a lens that will shoot to 400 better than the one I have now shoots to 300. I was going to get the same lens Lynn did, but that really doesn't make sense for me, as I have one I like that goes to 135, what I need is a long lens, so I have gone from a price of a little over 500 to about 1500. I can't afford that.
Back to the drawing board. If any of you know of a decent lens that shoots 400, please let me know............oh, under 1000.00 dollars.
I was considering this lens when I was in the market for a telezoom. Apparently it has fairly good optics, and it also has Sigma's version of image stabilization (OS). Here is a link to a thread on the FM forums that discuss the telezoom options (Canon 100-400, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 80-400):
In the end, I chose the Canon 100-400L and I couldn't be happier. I bought it used off of FM for around $1100 (mint condition, 1 year old). It is decently sharp wide open, and with IS it makes it hand holdable to shutter speeds of 1/125sec at 400mm. I haven't had any problems with slow focusing either, but I've never used a really fast lens either so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.
But be warned, all long telezooms are heavy (>3lbs) and it can be challenging holding them for a long period of time. I would suggest a monopod if you find the weight too much (I had a sore back the first week I had mine!)
Comments
Richard
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
That is the option I went with and same reasoning. I knew I wanted the 70-200 and it would be used alone the majority of the time. The few situations I might need more lens I would add the 1.4, still faster than the 100-400 and the 70-200 still performs well in bright light. The 2x is for rare use, but there if I have to have a long lens. I rarely use the 2.0 (both actually). I did use the 1.4 at Road Atlanta during a motorcycle race and it worked well. I am waiting for wxwax to break down and buy the 400/2.8 IS, so I can borrow it.
I used it for 5 years and sold it after buying the 70-200 IS 2.8L
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
totally agree! the d.o. is nice for traveling and such, but it just doesn't compare to that 70-200 f/2.8L
i didn't use my lead pipe much on the 20d / 10d, but i like it a lot on the full-framer now
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
What do you all think of the Sigma? With the IS and the 2.8? I can't afford, really can't, to go over 1000.00, including an extension, that (the Sigma and extension) would put me over by 100.00. I would think about it, but only if I feel first class!
So, instead of the Canon, what do you all think, if you ever did, of the Sigma, with the same features as the 70-200 Canon, IS and all?
ginger
Am leaving to check out some wetlands, I would love to know what you all think. re the lens es.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
http://www.pbase.com/image/23829966
http://www.pbase.com/image/25927453
http://www.pbase.com/image/23411735
http://www.pbase.com/image/25558336
http://www.pbase.com/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/image/23974858
Here are some with a 2x converter:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24139082
http://www.pbase.com/image/25928473
Four handheld pictures at f2.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/23399814
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035390
http://www.pbase.com/image/23400186
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035312
I need a lens that will shoot to 400 better than the one I have now shoots to 300. I was going to get the same lens Lynn did, but that really doesn't make sense for me, as I have one I like that goes to 135, what I need is a long lens, so I have gone from a price of a little over 500 to about 1500. I can't afford that.
Back to the drawing board. If any of you know of a decent lens that shoots 400, please let me know............oh, under 1000.00 dollars.
ginger
Richard
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=263438&is=REG
I was considering this lens when I was in the market for a telezoom. Apparently it has fairly good optics, and it also has Sigma's version of image stabilization (OS). Here is a link to a thread on the FM forums that discuss the telezoom options (Canon 100-400, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 80-400):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/142771
In the end, I chose the Canon 100-400L and I couldn't be happier. I bought it used off of FM for around $1100 (mint condition, 1 year old). It is decently sharp wide open, and with IS it makes it hand holdable to shutter speeds of 1/125sec at 400mm. I haven't had any problems with slow focusing either, but I've never used a really fast lens either so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.
But be warned, all long telezooms are heavy (>3lbs) and it can be challenging holding them for a long period of time. I would suggest a monopod if you find the weight too much (I had a sore back the first week I had mine!)
Hope that helps!