New tele lens dilemma

ST Colin

ST Colin

Messages
225
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Early in the new year I plan to upgrade from my trusty old Canon 30D. I have been using it with a 70-200 f4, and various shorter range lenses. I do alot of aviation and motorsport photography and reach is a big problem. I've got a pretty extensive shortlist of lens, from the Sigma 50-500/150-600, to the Canon 400 f5.6/100-400 Mk1. I've pretty much settled on a Mk1 100-400. I'm sure the topic of the Mk2 has been discussed alot, but my question is, is it worth the extra £600-800 over a used Mk1?

Thanks,

Colin
 
What do you plan to upgrade your camera to. Next looking at your choices I would consider the 150-600c. I have both the 70-200 what a great lens and the 150-600c if its reach then this is a really good lens
 
Upgrading to the 80D.
 
The mk II is certainly worth the extra over the mk I if you can justify the cost difference. With the 80D, you could add a 1.4x converter and shoot at f8, 560mm. I have read that the Sigma isn't 600mm, more like 570mm, so they are very similar in that respect. I think you'll find quality is better with the Canon lens even with the 1.4, but at a big cost increase.
 
I have tested both mk2 and the 150-600c out and I think the iq of the canon lens is great. I went for the sigma for the reach, I really don't like converters. You have one on a crop body
 
I'm a Nikon shooter, so can't comment on the Canon glass, but i recently sold my Sigma 150-600mm C as it was too soft for my liking at the long end, its good up to 500mm wide open, but needs stopping down to f8 above 500mm, which makes it not so great for anything moving

For what it's wroth, i upgraded to the new Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, and it's a cracker, still sharp at 500mm wide open
 
Couple of things to mull over here ,I have a 80D super camera if set up properly ,lenses again I use a sigma 150-600 but the sport so I can't comment on the C model but it does look good ,what you have to take into account with the sigma's is you will also need a USB/ hub dock to enhance how it works and any firmware updates .
Then look at will you use it maxed out all the time ,do you need I.s ,do you need close focus if your answers are Y N N then a cheaper alternative is a 400mm f5.6 and a 1.4 tc .
I would suggest going onto Flickr and doing a search putting in the camera and lens choices as your search parameters .that should give a better idea.
As a afterthought there's allegedly a canon 200-500 non L lens due next year
 
Last edited:
When you say £600-800 difference with the 100-400s, I presume you're comparing a new Mk2 with a used Mk1? Granted the Mk2 doesn't come up used that often but it's not really a fair comparison.

The Mk2 is significantly better than the Mk1. Not only optically but the IS system is also staggering and one of Canon's best. Whether it's worth £600-800 is more debateable but you need to factor the new/used aspect into that judgement too.

The Mk2 is also better than the Sigma or Tamron 150-600s. Obviously you don't get the reach but the Canon with a 1.4x extender offers similar quality to the Sigma and Tamron at the far end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top