View Full Version : Undecided between these 2.........
Been racking my brain over my next purchase, narrowed it down to these 2, the canon 100-400mm and the canon 70-200mm f4 with a 1.4x converter, ill be using the lens for airshows, wildlife, surfing ect....
Also which 1 between these...
sigma 10-20mm ex dc hsm
tokina 11-16mm at-x
will be using on a 400d...
thanks andy..:thinking:
For those subjects, 100-400 without a doubt.
I have a 100-400, a 70-200 4 IS, and a 1.4x and would pick the 100-400 everytime for that stuff.
Plus the 100-400 has IS over the 70-200 as you've specced it.
Strangways
04-07-2009, 12:32
I agree with hoppy. The 400mm focal length is better for your type of photo, although it will be a bit heavier to handle.
foodpoison
04-07-2009, 12:38
Just read a brief review of the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20.
According to that, both lenses are pretty much the same, but the sigma is cheaper. I love my 10-20 and would honestly miss the 1mm difference at the wide end and the 4mm difference at the narrow end.
As far as your telephoto goes, 100-400, every time.
ok my mind is made up as ive heard great thing about the 100-400, but still undecided about the wideangle, any others you would recommend, would love the 10-22mm canon but its abit to expensive...:thumbs:
On the wide angle, all other things being equal (which of course they are not :) ) the Sigma has a 2x range and the Tokina 1.5x. BIG difference.
Are you saying the sigma 10-20 is the better lens??? How is it for sharpness, ca ect....
Strangways
04-07-2009, 13:47
Are you saying the sigma 10-20 is the better lens??? How is it for sharpness, ca ect....
There is a test for both lenses on this site.
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/
foodpoison
04-07-2009, 13:57
If you have a look on my website, all of the shots from hellingly are from there. They've obviously been compressed, but still.
At f/8, it's pin sharp.
Minimal amounts of distortion.
No chromatic aberration that I've noticed.
Super quick and accurate focussing.
Just an absolutely superb lens.
Sigma Vs Tokina??
give me the faster glass any day of the week!
Are you saying the sigma 10-20 is the better lens??? How is it for sharpness, ca ect....
They are sufficiently different for it to be very hard to say which lens is better overall. All I can say is I have the Canon 10-22 and no desire to change it, but you'll have to make up your own mind.
Quite a few reviews to read, so here's another one: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
desantnik
04-07-2009, 19:44
Of the two choices, 100-400 no problem! Alternatively, try the 300 f4 and a 1.4x TC, will be better if you can get your head around using a prime and not a zoom.
For the wide angle, go for the Sigma if you can't afford the Canon (which is definitely better than the competition)
foodpoison
05-07-2009, 08:11
Sigma Vs Tokina??
give me the faster glass any day of the week!
At such a wide angle, a stop doesn't really make much of a difference.
I can hand hold my Sigma at 10mm at nearly a second and still get a very usable image.
Ken Rockwell loves the Tokina, but then Ken Rockwell loves everything.
Of the two, definately the 100-400. Presumably you want the versatility of a zoom?
If not, then I'd throw a 400 f/5.6 into the equation as it's super sharp but obviously limited for on the spot composition.
The Sigma 10-20 isn't sharp on the corners and Sigma glass is a mixed bag unfortunately. Have you considered a 12-24? Reason I ask is that if you decide to upgrade to full frame, it'll work on both sensors....for sheer quality, the 17-40 is hard to beat, but £250 more and on cropped sensor, works out to be something like 27-65mm. Superb on a full frame camera, again if you go that route....
At such a wide angle, a stop doesn't really make much of a difference.
I can hand hold my Sigma at 10mm at nearly a second and still get a very usable image.
Ken Rockwell loves the Tokina, but then Ken Rockwell loves everything.
No he doesn't! That's why people read him. You know you're going to get an honest view. Highly subjective and skewed as only Ken can be (eg Leica) but honest ;)
whats your budget?
i just picked up a sigma 120-300 f2.8 2nd hand for the price of a new 100-400.. obviously new theyre going for 1.8k which is a touch pricey.
looking at £1500 for both lenses thats my budget....
looking at £1500 for both lenses thats my budget....
100-400L £1075, EF-S 10-22 £529 plus £10 RMSD from kerso1123@msn.com He's a well known and trusted supplier on here, based in Scotland, full international warranty.
Those prices were current only a couple of weeks ago. Go on - because you're worth it ;)
48thEagle
05-07-2009, 16:22
100-400L £1075, EF-S 10-22 £529 plus £10 RMSD from kerso1123@msn.com He's a well known and trusted supplier on here, based in Scotland, full international warranty.
Those prices were current only a couple of weeks ago. Go on - because you're worth it ;)
The Sigma is an excellent lens, and at approx £375, then by not going for the Canon, theres money in the pocket too.
I have both the 100-400mm, and the 10-20mm, and am very glad that I do :)
48th eagle or anyone, do you have any shots from the 10-20 that i could have alook at:thumbs:
I have been using the Tokina and it is worth every penny
foodpoison
06-07-2009, 20:02
No he doesn't! That's why people read him. You know you're going to get an honest view. Highly subjective and skewed as only Ken can be (eg Leica) but honest ;)
Beg my pardon!
Every single review I've read he's absolutely loved the thing he's reviewed!
I suppose the 10+ reviews I've read have only been about top notch gear aha.
I cant comment on the wide angle lens, but to confirm what's already been said about the 100-400. I was asking much the same question recently and decided on the 100-400, I took delivery recently from Kerso (who I recommend), and am delighted with the lens. The thread I started is:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=143816
Trev
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.