100-400mm lens advice

aztec

aztec

Messages
578
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
:help:Looking for advice at buying a lens for wildlife the odd bird picture not to large in size may fit a teleconverter for extra focal length should i try for a canon or look at other makes, larger aperture the better not sure if I need IS but would obviously help spend around £800 max. so its either 100-400mm canon at f4 or a better f2.8 200mm lens and then get the teleconverter
 
The 100-400 is 5.6 at 400mm. The 200/2.8 will take a 2x T/C but it won't match the IQ of the 100-400 in that configuration.

Bob
 
I'd opt for the 100-400. Mine takes a canon 1.4X really well but that's not always the case.

Remember too that if you put a convertor onto the 100-400 you'll probably lose autofocus on anything other than a 1 series body.
 
Virtually all of my photos in my galleries below are with the 100-400mm. I don't use the TC with it anymore as it affects the IS too much, and the AF is at best average with it on.

It's a superb lens, but does take some getting used to, to get the best from it.
 
so forget the telecoverter then and go for a smaller aperture lens f5.6 in the canon 100-400mm, is it worth loking at any other brands?
 
I rarely use the lens wide open; I prefer F6.3 or F7.1. There are alternatives - Sigma do a couple of them. The Bigma is 50-500mm, with no IS and is significantly heavier. But is a good lens, and has a wider range. And there's a newer 150-500 lens with IS, but a friend recently chopped his in for a 100-400mm after seeing pics I got sat next to him!

Another popular lens is the 400mm F5.6 prime. Light weight, fast AF and great for wildlife. No IS, but doesn't seem to hinder it. Cheaper too. But you lose out on the flexibility of the zoom, and the minimum focusing distance is further, so can be a pain when photographing insects, for example.
 
If you can afford it go for the Canon 100-400 general consensus seems to be that this is a very good lens. If moneys a bit tight then the Sigma 120-400 with OS seems a cracking lens for the money and one I am looking at myself.

Steve
 
Duck_Pond said:
I rarely use the lens wide open; I prefer F6.3 or F7.1. There are alternatives - Sigma do a couple of them. The Bigma is 50-500mm, with no IS and is significantly heavier. But is a good lens, and has a wider range. And there's a newer 150-500 lens with IS, but a friend recently chopped his in for a 100-400mm after seeing pics I got sat next to him!

Another popular lens is the 400mm F5.6 prime. Light weight, fast AF and great for wildlife. No IS, but doesn't seem to hinder it. Cheaper too. But you lose out on the flexibility of the zoom, and the minimum focusing distance is further, so can be a pain when photographing insects, for example.
Click to expand...

A point to remember regarding the 400 5.6 is it can't take an extender on a non 1D body, without losing AF.

Have heard it's a super piece of glass though but has limitations as you've stated
 
Go for the 100-400. I've got one, and it's fantastic - you really won't regret it.
 
aztec said:
not use to the push pull on this lens would you say its a good feature?
Click to expand...

Some people don't like it, but I much prefer it - it's very fast and intuitive, no forgetting which way to turn the ring to zoom.
 
steve_v said:
If you can afford it go for the Canon 100-400 general consensus seems to be that this is a very good lens. If moneys a bit tight then the Sigma 120-400 with OS seems a cracking lens for the money and one I am looking at myself.

Steve
Click to expand...

As that seemingly rare thing, a user of the Sigma 120-400mm OS lens, I can say it is a cracking lens for under £500. I appreciate the Canon 100-400mmL may have the slight (and it is slight) edge in IQ, but it is over twice the price, and I'd rather have £600 in my pocket and have a lens that is 98% as good. If you look on my Flickr there are a few wildlife shots taken with this lens.
 
the sigma seems very appealing especially with the image stabilisation, does it give you 2 extra stops when shooting.
 
The Sigma isn't weatherproof as far as I'm aware, but I've never checked. It is built like a tank and I wouldn't be hugely bothered about taking it out in light rain for a short time. The image stabilisation is claimed to give you 4 extra stops, and it does make a massive difference when shooting. If you look at some of my recent motorsport shots, I can can go down to 1/80th-1/40th of a second and still get useable results on a fast moving subject. I know for a fact I couldn't do that without IS.
 
They look about right to me. It gives fair IQ, no better, wide open, but go to f6.3 or f7.1 and it's pretty sharp. The Canon 100-400mm is probably a little better, but not much
 
Still cant decide which one to go for, looking like the sigma at the moment due to cost of canon price the rise, I take it the sigma works on cropped and full frame cameras.
 
Yes the Sigma will work on both.

I am trying to decide between 120-400 and the 100-400 too, though I will have to save my pennies for either.

Have you looked at the Sigma 150-500mm? I have seen some cracking pictures taken with it.
 
hiya
i have just collected my sigma 120-400, i must say its a very impressive lens indeed, the zoom is a bit stiff its bulit solid the os is brill and i like the idea it has hsm which is great to override the auto focus which is great when taking pics of birds amongst trees.
cheers..
alan...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top