Someone tell me this isn't a stupid idea please.

jnO

jnO

Messages
603
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
A Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX DG IF HSM and a 1.4x TC instead of a Sigma 150-500.
Assuming both combinations are the same price. In fact if I get the 100-300 then I'll sell my 55-250 so I would get £130 or so back.
I was going to wait and keep saving rather than dump it on credit card but am struggling to not go for the former tomorrow morning.
I am going to sleep on it but would be interested to hear what you all think :)

The lens will be for wildlife, aircraft and motor sports.

I have decided that I cannot afford the Canon 100-400L so no pointing me in that direction please ;)

:help:
 
Chaz Photos said:
I would go for the 150-500 you not miss the 50 tp 100 much at all
Its a hot lens I have tried one
Click to expand...

I am angling this more at the supposedly better IQ and versatility of the 100-300 to the 150-500 as opposed to reach. With better IQ I can crop in from 420.
Or am I wrong in thinking the 100-300 is superior in IQ:shrug:
 
My first go at motorsport with a 150-500mm my youngest son at donnington hand held shot

3378148371_c9c2cea0bd_o.jpg


3378967424_32681105a6_o.jpg

Dave
 
And then someone goes and ruins it all for me.

They're impressive shots Dave and, in my opinion, tack sharp. They are at 150 though, is it that sharp at 500 wide open?

I really am torn on this purchase.....:sulk: reviews are 6 or one, half a dozen of the other.
 
yep thats bottom end I dont have any MS shots at 500m as said first time I do have bird shots at 500mm though if your interest to see them
 
Just Dave said:
yep thats bottom end I dont have any MS shots at 500m as said first time I do have bird shots at 500mm though if your interest to see them
Click to expand...

Indeed fella. That would be great, thanks :)
 
The problem you're going to have with motorsport is that at 500mm the lens is wide open at f/6.3, in anything but bright sunlight you're going to have to crank the iso well up to get anything decent out of it...
 
I have this combination and am yet to be impressed but that could be me. The 100-300 on its own is a fantastic lens, not sure if cropping or adding the 1.4 is the way to go yet. I use it for motorsport.
 
I think the OS of the 150-500 could swing this.

I'll argue with myself more in the morning :)
 
you don't need OS for motorsport unless you're in a permanent epileptic state. you want your shutter speeds in the 1/100-250 region for much of the time so OS won't really help much... the extra stop you have at 420 will be much more useful.

100-300 with 1.4x tc is winnar.
 
adsayer said:
you don't need OS for motorsport unless you're in a permanent epileptic state. you want your shutter speeds in the 1/100-250 region for much of the time so OS won't really help much... the extra stop you have at 420 will be much more useful.

100-300 with 1.4x tc is winnar.
Click to expand...

So that's going to be the same for aircraft, in fact pretty much anything that requires panning I assume :thinking:
Wildlife I will use either a beanbag or a monopod when I can although some will still be handheld where I guess the OS would be most useful on a heavy lens.
 
to a certain extent I'd agree with you dude. I have an f/4 IS and whilst I used IS (mode 2) for motorsports to start off with, I found it gradually more of a hindrance as I got more confident with 3/4 and panning shots. I can't recall the last time I used the function at a sports event now :LOL:

really the 100-300 is such a nice lens, I'd say one of Sigma's best, you'd be unlikely to want to part with it for anything other than the 120-300mm. The 150-500 whilst it has the extra reach doesn't quite match the AF speed (i'd say more important than outright reach) and IQ. That said - I only used the 150-500 in jessops for a grand total of 30 seconds if that :LOL:
 
I took my 150-500 to it's 1st motorsport event at the weekend & found it was much too long (Knockhill) :D


I had a quick dig through my shots (still sorting them) & found this at 500mm / 1/400s / ISO 640 , handheld.

Full frame

knock500.jpg


100% (I put the crop through noiseware)

knockcrop.jpg
 
jnO said:
I am angling this more at the supposedly better IQ and versatility of the 100-300 to the 150-500 as opposed to reach. With better IQ I can crop in from 420.
Or am I wrong in thinking the 100-300 is superior in IQ:shrug:
Click to expand...

IQ might be better untill you put on a extender where you will loss some IQ I think
 
Seriously? Sigma 100-300 f4 EX. Range is suitable for most circuits and if you need more, bolt on a x1.4 TC to make a -420 f5.6. However, with this combination the focussing speed slows and you loose IQ. If you've got lots of pixels, I'd suggest cropping rather than using the TC.
 
This really is confusing me :LOL:

I appreciate the 1.4x may cause a loss of IQ, I guess my question is whether I will lose enough to drop it below the standards of the the 150-500 at the same length.

Either of these 2 will be my first lens over 250mm and my first substantial lens from a size/weight point of view too. Also whichever I get will be the main lens I take on a Safari next year, although that is a one off event. The rest of the wildlife use will be zoo's & parks in the UK. If it makes a difference it will not be a bird togging lens, purely critters & upwards ;)

I am a bit more awake now than I was early hours so I will have to look through some more reviews.

Keep the opinions coming though as I need all the advise I can get on this :)
 
What sort of motorsport do you plan to use with it. 100-300 is really an ideal range for most circuits. Its sharp and focusses very quickly and accurately. Constant f/4 helps.

Whilst there are times I'd like 500mm, being restricted to 150mm at the other end would be annoying.
 
Personally I'd far rather have the 100-300 f4 than the 150-500 OS - I used to have the 100-300 and it's a very nice lnes, fast AF and excellent IQ. The Af does slow a fair bit with a 1.4x in place, but the IQ is still very good. I've tested a few copies of the 150-500 OS and have been unimpressed with it. Two friends 'upgraded' to the 150-500 one from a 100-400 and one from a 100-300 + 1.4x combo. Both were disapointed with the new lens and both have since sold it and gone back to what they were using.
 
andrewc said:
What sort of motorsport do you plan to use with it. 100-300 is really an ideal range for most circuits. Its sharp and focusses very quickly and accurately. Constant f/4 helps.

Whilst there are times I'd like 500mm, being restricted to 150mm at the other end would be annoying.
Click to expand...

This will be mainly events at Brands Hatch and Goodwood. So I guess drive-by shots needing fast exposure rather than anything requiring huge reach, so ideal for the 300. However the reach issue comes in when it comes to the wildlife stuff, 500 and OS could be useful there but I am weighing that up against possibly better IQ at 420, with the pixels on the 450D I can always crop in a little as long as the IQ is there.
The aircraft side is somethign I have only just really started to get interested in since Biggin Hill and Airbourne. It will be probably those events, Farnborough and 1 ,or possibly 2 trips to Mach Loop.

What's annoying is that I was all happily set on the 150-500 until this deal came up :bang: :LOL: :help:

Personally I'd far rather have the 100-300 f4 than the 150-500 OS - I used to have the 100-300 and it's a very nice lnes, fast AF and excellent IQ. The Af does slow a fair bit with a 1.4x in place, but the IQ is still very good. I've tested a few copies of the 150-500 OS and have been unimpressed with it. Two friends 'upgraded' to the 150-500 one from a 100-400 and one from a 100-300 + 1.4x combo. Both were disapointed with the new lens and both have since sold it and gone back to what they were using.
Click to expand...

The 150-500 seems to be a real Marmite lens.
 
I did a trip to the Mach Loop this year (Cad West) and I thought 300mm was fine and a TC would get you closer in for cockpit shots.

The 100-300 f4 is from Sigmas EXcellence range, their version of Canon L. The 150-500 isn't.
 
To get the best from the sigma 150-500mm, you'll need good (very good) light and stop it down an f-stop or 2. Wide open its soft, reports also suggest that its 450mm lens not a 500mm lens, it's also f6.3 and cheats the camera into thinking its a f5.6. The 100-300mm f4 is by far a better lens, image quality isn't effected with a TC, but the autofocus speed is, but thats the case when using TC's on any lens. The 100-300mm f4 with 1.4x TC will be a 140-420mm f5.6. It will work better in low light without killing the ISO settings to 800 plus, give you the advantage of 2 lenses in 1, with or without TC and beat the 150-500 hand down in all ball parks.

Ok the images are from the canon 300mm f4 prime, but I think the 100-300mm f4 is very much on par with this lens image quality wise, comparing my shots with my friends who has one.

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


Both are great lenses and work well with the 1.4x TC but to get the best you need the light conditions

Peter
 
I wouldn't use the TC on the Siggy 100-300 for motorsport.

If you want to play in the 400mm range and mess with TC's, get a prime - the Canon 300 f4 IS is a good place to start.

But if you have a chance of one lens and one focal length range, the Siggy 100-300 is a pretty good choice, slighty better than the next choice down which I would say is the Canon 70-300 IS and slightly lighter and cheaper than the next choice up, the Siggy 120-300 f2.8. Those are your options for a motorsport zoom assuming you don't want the Canon 100-400.
 
postcardcv said:
I've owned both and good as my 100-300 f4 was the Canon 300 f4 IS was better.
Click to expand...

Thats because a long prime is always better than a zoom, assuming you can get over the hang up of it not being a zoom.

If you really want to shoot motorsport, go for a long prime. If you just want to go watch some racing and take photos from wherever you and your family/mates are standing all day (ie photography is not your main aim), get a zoom.
 
I would go for a prime if it were just for motorsports and aircraft. I think going forward I need something less restrictive, especially for wildlife where there can be limited time to get a shot and so faffing around switching lenses is not really an option. I am under no illusion though that the Canon L options are better for IQ, they also are better at costing more ;)
If the Sigma 100-300 is only slightly better than the Canon 70-300 IS then I will probably not bother, as that lens did not really impress me that much and I would expect a lens costing over £1k in most places to trounce it in every aspect.

To be honest there are sooo many differing reviews/opinions of both of the Sigma lenses that I am probably just confusing myself more the further I read into them.
 
andrewc said:
The Sigma 100-300 is very good. If it were made by Canon it would be classed as an L lens.
Click to expand...

If it was made by Nikon it was classed as a Nikkor lens :LOL:
 
jnO said:
If the Sigma 100-300 is only slightly better than the Canon 70-300 IS then I will probably not bother, as that lens did not really impress me that much and I would expect a lens costing over £1k in most places to trounce it in every aspect.
Click to expand...

Your expectations are actually quite wrong. Like any performance technology there is a law of deminishing returns with cost vs performance. Curiously also the 70-300 IS punches way higher up the scale than its price tag would suggest.

To be talking about "trouncing it" you would be talking about Canon 300 2.8 primes to be honest, everything else is only marginally better unless you try some stupid comparison like max zoom wide open (which is always going to be the weakest point of ANY zoom lens).

I used to shoot the 70-300 IS and a Canon 300 f4 prime. At 800 pixel sizes for this forum people used to always read my sig and assume my shots were with the 300 prime - seriously, ALL the time. At 100% crop the 300 f4 was slightly sharper at 300mm and obviously could do nicer DOF bokeh effects.

You don't get into WOW territory until you are talking Canon/Nikon 300 2.8 territory and once you realise that you either save the pennies for it or just go with the best bang for buck approach.

I've been lucky and had a lot of friends and colleagues with big bags of kit and tried a lot of kit out for myself in real motorsport shooting environments, so this is not just me spouting some crap I read in a magazine :D
 
personally I would go for a 300mm prime lens for motorsport... Have not been for a while, especially since I bought my D300, will do soon!
 
Ok maybe I am approaching this all wrong then, and maybe I need to provide more details for people to help, sorry :(.
Most of my shots are resized to no bigger then 1280 on the long side, so 13" prints when I do. I do not sell the shots and never have a need for huge prints/digital copies.
Does this maybe change matters/opinions. Does the extra reach without TC now become more influential?
I'd love to be able to get these lenses side by side and compare but this is simply not an option. Jessops have the 100-300 on limited offer for the Canon fit @ £599, where all other variants are still at £1k plus, and the 150-500 is home delivery only and more expensive at Jessops than other retailers :bang:

I'm sorry, I'm a pita. I miss the days of me being happy with a £75 point and shoot :LOL:
 
If you can get the 100-300 for £599 then get it, its such a great price.If you are not happy you will get your money back. If you are asking about zoom vs prime for IQ prime wins.
 
desantnik said:
Your expectations are actually quite wrong. Like any performance technology there is a law of deminishing returns with cost vs performance. Curiously also the 70-300 IS punches way higher up the scale than its price tag would suggest.

To be talking about "trouncing it" you would be talking about Canon 300 2.8 primes to be honest, everything else is only marginally better unless you try some stupid comparison like max zoom wide open (which is always going to be the weakest point of ANY zoom lens).

I used to shoot the 70-300 IS and a Canon 300 f4 prime. At 800 pixel sizes for this forum people used to always read my sig and assume my shots were with the 300 prime - seriously, ALL the time. At 100% crop the 300 f4 was slightly sharper at 300mm and obviously could do nicer DOF bokeh effects.

You don't get into WOW territory until you are talking Canon/Nikon 300 2.8 territory and once you realise that you either save the pennies for it or just go with the best bang for buck approach.

I've been lucky and had a lot of friends and colleagues with big bags of kit and tried a lot of kit out for myself in real motorsport shooting environments, so this is not just me spouting some crap I read in a magazine :D
Click to expand...

^^^ Good post (y)

All zooms really struggle at long focal lengths. Nikon and Canon don't even bother trying beyond 400mm and only make primes. Most long zooms are either soft, heavy, expensive, slow focusing - sometimes all of those things.

At shorter focal lengths zooms make a damn good fist of it, but if you compare zooms and primes where they overlap around 300-400mm, the primes are just in a different league.

If you look at the MTF graphs (Nikon, Canon and Sigma publish comparable test data) the big primes have really much higher contrast, right across the frame. And it's contrast that you want, more than resolution for screen viewing, but primes have loads of that too. Canon's 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4 and 600 4 are just stunningly good; I'm sure Nikon are right up there too. That's what gives pro sports photos that amazing 'pop' and they work superbly right from maximum aperture so you get shallow depth of field which helps stand-out and high shutter speeds to freeze action really crisply.

In comparison, zooms don't have that punchy contrast and blur badly towards the edges, even when you use higher f/numbers. Teleconverters have similar characteristics so when you put the two together, the result is not surprising.

To the OP, if you want to see a jump in IQ, primes are the way to go. I've never used them, but Canon 300 4 IS and 400 5.6 are well spoken of, and vaguely affordable. Canon 100-400L is the only zoom that gets consistently good feedback, but even that cannot compete with primes. Other zooms seem to offer varying degrees of disappointment.
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon 100-400L is the only zoom that gets consistently good feedback, but even that cannot compete with primes.
Click to expand...

Well, the Nikon 200-400 is pretty ***** hot but kinda expensive/bulky :help:

Other zooms seem to offer varying degrees of disappointment.
Click to expand...

Also correct. If you look at the guys in the media vests out on the track who get paid for top notch photos you will see only one zoom generally - a 70-200 on a second body for close up action (on the grid or pitlane you might see some other stuff like 24-105's or wide angles but thats not really the photography we are talking about here). Other than that, its long primes...

So there is your motorsport kit bag: 70-200, 300 prime and a couple of TC's... now where have I seen that list written before....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top