Telephoto Lens required, perhaps ~300-400mm?

A

add1ct3dd

Messages
126
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Currently I've got a 55-250mm IS, now while it's a good lens, I look at all these pictures people have taken (such as the RIAT) and am blown away by the image quality. Now obviously most of the photo is all about the photographers skills, but the kit also plays a big part!

So basically I'm wondering if there's a lens that can zoom further than the 55-250mm but equally I'm hoping it won't be too pricey. Looking around they all seem steep and don't compare to the 55-250mm, but surely there is some lens I'm missing that would give me that extra length?

Edit: It would be a bonus if it could do lower focal length such as the 100-400mm, but that is not so important, I just want to be able to get a decent length on Air/Motorsport photography :)

Thanks
 
Last edited:
The best bang for buck IMO has to be the Sigma 150-500 OS. You can pick a good second hand one up for less than £500 now, and while that seems a lot of money, you do get a lot of lens. Another good one is the Sigma 120-400 OS, which can be had for around £400 second hand and is about as sharp as its big brother.

I took this at Waddington airshow on 1st, july. The weather was awful but I still got some cracking shots with it. This is SOOC with only a crop.
7493943218_79cbfae498_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This one is with my 60D and Sigma 120-400 OS, also SOOC and just cropped.
7530225548_423fcd4689_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
wow 150-500mm, didn't even know they did that sort of difference in length!

It does look tempting I'll take a look around, and that plane looks familiar, saw it today at Fairford :)
 
Canon 100-400 L is nice, bit more money than the Sigma, the Sigma was a very close 2nd when I got my 100-400. To just go to 300 from 250 probably isn't worth it.
Taken with the 100-400mm on a 550d.

Blue & Yellow Macaws by Bambi_72, on Flickr
 
Bambi72 said:
Canon 100-400 L is nice, bit more money than the Sigma, the Sigma was a very close 2nd when I got my 100-400. To just go to 300 from 250 probably isn't worth it.
Taken with the 100-400mm on a 550d.

Blue & Yellow Macaws by Bambi_72, on Flickr
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I thought, 300mm is hardly worth it over the 250mm I have now.

400mm sounds nice, and that lens looks good (from all the pics I've seen and the one you have posted which is a cracker), but is quite a lot more expensive, and so far the 500mm suggested is ticking all my boxes!

I wonder if there are comparisons between the 100-400mm and the 150-500mm!

Matt
 
Last edited:
Hmm yep I see what you mean, though the Canon is a lot more expensive and has 100mm less :(

This is tricky.
 
I have a Sigma 100-300 F4 EX-DG going up for sale shortly
Boxed as new. Very sharp copy which worked superbly on my 7D...which will also be up for sale!;-)
 
I very much like my 100-400mm as I chose it over the 150-500 after comparing them myself, but since then the price of the sigma has dropped and the price of the canon has gone back up to a point where I would say the canon isn't worth the difference, even though I found it sharper.
 
I had a Canon 100-400 L and the Sigma 150-500 OS and after much testing I found the Sigma to be the better option. The OS/IS of the Sigma is undoubtedly better, I managed to get a decent handheld shot of a waterfall at 1/10th, while the IQ of the two lenses was very similar. Although the Sigma is f6.3 wide open at 500mm I found it focussed faster than the Canon in failing light. As for sharpness wide open I can't really fault either of them, but the Sigma delivers great colouring and clarity.

The waterfall shot at 1/10th with a 5D3, ISO 100, f5 @ 150mm. This is the full shot, resized and SOOC and handheld.
7095849405_7548f93868_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This one is with the 5D3 and Sigma 150-500 OS, 1/800, ISO 1000 wide open at f6.3 @ 500mm. It's SOOC and just cropped with no other PP.
7132819465_b1cfa8db91_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
add1ct3dd said:
wow 150-500mm, didn't even know they did that sort of difference in length!

It does look tempting I'll take a look around, and that plane looks familiar, saw it today at Fairford :)
Click to expand...

They do a 50-500 version aswell with better optics. It's about 50% more expensive though.
 
Get the Canon 400mm 5/6 sharper than all the one's mentioned in this thread.. you lose a few on occasion with it being fixed focal legth but the quality more than makes up for it plus the autofocus is twice as fast as the others mentioned

I shoot lot of airshows etc and also have a Canon 300mm F2.8IS and most times I take the the 400mm as its as light as a feather to pan round all day long

I had the 100>400mm and the pump action along with the slow autofocus was not to my liking
 
Buttkicker said:
Get the Canon 400mm 5/6 sharper than all the one's mentioned in this thread.. you lose a few on occasion with it being fixed focal legth but the quality more than makes up for it plus the autofocus is twice as fast as the others mentioned

I shoot lot of airshows etc and also have a Canon 300mm F2.8IS and most times I take the the 400mm as its as light as a feather to pan round all day long

I had the 100>400mm and the pump action along with the slow autofocus was not to my liking
Click to expand...

That's a nice idea but I'm not sure how i'd get on with it, whenever I use my 50mm prime I get frustrated with it not having any difference in focal length!
 
add1ct3dd said:
That's a nice idea but I'm not sure how i'd get on with it, whenever I use my 50mm prime I get frustrated with it not having any difference in focal length!
Click to expand...

Yes but in your original post you want a lens that will blow you away the only one's mentioned in this thread that will do that is the prime
reason because its sharper than the others

all the zooms are softer at the zoom end
but if you want a zoom go out and get one - but shooting aviation generally means longer is better so at most airshows you will be shooting at the end of the zoom range which is why I think the 400mm Prime is your best bet

but as you have stated you get frustrated using prime Lenses so get a zoom
but you will experience a slower autofocus and pictures that are not as sharp as a prime
 
Very true :)

I think the next few events I will be renting both a prime and a varied focal length and see how I get on with both!
 
Dont go for sigma's 50-500mm (bigma). I bought one and didnt get any decent shots (of aircvraft) at all. A lot of money for a shocking lens!!! Canon's 100-400mm is your best bet but is a little expensive. Ive been through lots of cheaper lenses and I gave up photography a few times because I couldn't afford the 100-400mm. Problem is once youv'e used a Canon L lens, nothing seems to compare....
Neil
 
I'm in a similar predicament...

I'm after a longer lens than my 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4 Externder II combo as I wasn't too happy with the results from last weekends trip to RIAT.

The 300mm F/4 is an old design and the IS isn't as good as later models.
The 400mm F/4 doesn't have IS but seems to get some great reviews.
The 100-400 is really quite old, variable quality and am not a fan of the push pull zoom.

Can't stop thinking that if I bought either of the above then I'd be well on the way to half the cost of a second hand 300mm F/2.8 I have dreamed of owning for some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top