gizz a clue

Gizz us an idea what you want to shoot with it!
 
birds wildlife i do have a sigma 50-500 non os but do like the canon gear
 
I've got a 300 f4 IS arriving tomorrow on rental for a week. There are so many brilliant shots taken with this lens, particularly on POTN that I just had to have a bash.
Got a feeling that the 100-400 may be finding a new home soon.
 
I have both and both have their advantages. The IQ of the 300 is head and shoulders above the 100-400, but it lacks the versatility of the zoom especially at times with aircraft photography. I also find the 300 is sometimes more useful on my 7D (APS-C) than it is on my 1D Mk IV (APS-H). If weight is an issue (and I'm guessing if you are using a 1D then it is not) the 300 is lighter.

If I could only have one, which would it be? Er um :thinking:
 
i am having the same sort of dilema.
should i keep my 100-400 or sell and buy 70-200 2.8 L is or even the sigma 70-200 2.8 os
 
steunited said:
i am having the same sort of dilema.
should i keep my 100-400 or sell and buy 70-200 2.8 L is or even the sigma 70-200 2.8 os
Click to expand...

Yes, that's quite the dilemma. Losing the 100-400 you will lose reach and even though the 70-200 is one sharp zoom I don't think putting a 2x converter on it would yield the quality you want.

The 1.4x converter is another matter, and many people get terrific results doing this.
I know nothing about the Sigmas so I can't comment although I do lust after the 85mm 1.4!
 
jm2 said:
You must have a very dodgy 100-400.
Click to expand...

No.It is to be expected that a fixed aperture prime is going to beat a variable aperture zoom at similar range.

The 100-400 is better at 100 and 400 (and a number of lengths in between). ;)
 
You should expect the 300mm prime to be sharper than the 100-400. However as soon as you fit a converter behind the prime the 100-400 will be sharper.

If it was my choice I'd go for the 100-400 for the reach and the flexibility of the zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top