Long lens for Canon , but how ? (updated with some results)

mipevo6

mipevo6

Messages
2,624
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Folks,

Currently thinking about adding to my lens collection :-)

I am looking to extend my reach but maintain flexibility hence thinking more about zoom rather than prime.

I am thinking about one of the 2 options below

a) 100-400 L

b) 70-200 F2.8 Mk2 with a 2x Converter

These both give me 400 @ F5.6 but the 70-200 give me more flexibility...

what do people think ?

which will give the sharpest result ?

Thanks in advance...
 
Last edited:
I think the choice is, what do you want most - f/2.8 or 400mm?

70-200L 2.8 Mk2 is absolutely stunning. Nothing to touch it in its native range. So good that even with a 2x it can rival the 100-400L, if not quite equal it. But if you want f/2.8 (and who doesn't... ;) ). Both similar size and weight.

Have a look here, and toggle between the two with the arrow in the middle. You can load up any number of comparisons here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
 
I want the 400 :-) but trying to have my cake and eat it :-)

I am looking for the range really as the longest I have right now is a 200 F4IS with 1.4x but often this is too short when trying for the deer etc.. in bushy park...

I wondered what the 70-200 F2.8 Mk II with the 2x Mk III would deliver....

That way I only have to carry one lens and the converter.

The 100-400 would be cheaper but overall is less flexible...
 
mipevo6 said:
I want the 400 :-) but trying to have my cake and eat it :-)

I am looking for the range really as the longest I have right now is a 200 F4IS with 1.4x but often this is too short when trying for the deer etc.. in bushy park...

I wondered what the 70-200 F2.8 Mk II with the 2x Mk III would deliver....

That way I only have to carry one lens and the converter.

The 100-400 would be cheaper but overall is less flexible...
Click to expand...

You're choking on too much cake! :eek:
 
Had this dilemma the other day with a borrowed 70-200 f4 accompanying my 100-400. The 100-400 is a bit long at 100 and the 70-200 was a bit short at 200. By the time you put a 1.4 extender on the 70 is at 100 anyway so might as well have left it at home that day and just taken the 100-400

So, what I've decided to do is buy a 28-300L instead.
 
So far my limited experience with a couple 100-400 tested leaves me wanting much more at 300-400mm. Ideally, 400mm 5.6L prime looks like day and night.

If you don't want a prime, definitely get 70-200 - at least that way you'll get excellent 70-200 and may get lucky further.
 
artyman said:
It depends what your current lens collection is, for wildlife range is king, so perhaps also consider the Sigma 150-500
Click to expand...

I already have the:-

Canon 10-22 USM
Canon 15-85 IS USM
Canon 100mm L IS USM Macro
Canon Nifty Fifty...
Canon 70-200 F4 IS USM
Canon 1.4x Mk II

I tend to stick to Canon lenses generally so have no experience of Sigma lenses.

I am not generally into small birds and tend to shoot bigger birds and deer etc... where I can get fairly close in Bushy park :)

So my thought was to find something a little longer than I currently have...hence considering the 100-400 or the 70-200 F2.8 with 2x combo

Is the 150-500 the best of the non Canons ?

Thanks for the help folks...
 
artyman said:
It depends what your current lens collection is, for wildlife range is king, so perhaps also consider the Sigma 150-500
Click to expand...

Except the weight of that is significantly more. 1910g against the 1380g of the 100-400.

Get the 100-400 then save up for the 70-200 f2.8 and swap that out later as the 70-200 f4 is still a cracking lens. The 100-400 works well with a 2x convertor and the 1.4x convertor if you need longer range. You'll just have to manually focus. Use live view and the zoom function to get critical focus.
 
I went through a similar exercise just before Xmas. I had the 300 f4 IS and found that I always had the wrong lens on.I either had the 70/200 f4 or the 300+1.4 tc and wanted the other one.I sold the 300 to fund a 100/400, I was going to sell the 70/200 f4 but I dont really need the cash and the lens is very nice to have so in all probabilty I will keep it.
You could probably buy a 100/400 for less than the cost of selling the 70/200 f4 and buying a 70/200 f2.8 + 2*TC.Dont forget with the 100/400 +1.4TC you have 560mm albeit at f8 and MF.
 
I had the 100-400 and changed to the 400. I prefer small birds and I found the 100-400 was always at full stretch and I found the IQ better on the prime.
I also live close to Bushy Park and try for deer shots, I would agree that if deer and larger birds are your preferred targets then maybe the 100-400 is better for you.
 
I have hired the 100-400mm on a few occasions and really like it, I think I have tried about 3 different ones over a number of days each time. from about 325-400mm I have seen different results over the 3, at worst they are can be slighty soft from 325-400mm nothign that cant be sorted in PP. I really like the lens but the push/pull action does dake a while to get used to. The IQ on the 400mm prime is better but I wouldn't say night and day thats a bit far IMO, the fact that its prime can also be restricting. Pretty much depends on what your shooting and your budget.
 
micloi said:
Also look at the Sigma 50-500mm OS.
Sharper than the 150-500 and with a lovely range!
Click to expand...

Sigma 150-500 and the Canon 100-400L compared here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 :thumbsdown: Sigma 50-500 is similar.

Then on that same website, load up the Canon 400L 5.6 prime, then to see how it really can be done, the 400L 2.8 and 500L 4.

Inescapable fact is that long lenses are hard to do well, and need lots of very expensive glass.
 
I really needed the full 500mm so, in your circumstances, I went for the Sigma. The eye-watering price of the 100-400mm also put me off but the real deal killer was that the Canon had only two stop image stabilisation whereas the Sigma has four stop.

As for your original question, if weight were an issue, I would go for the 100-400mm. If it wasn't the 70-200mm F2.8 with TC would be a sensible buy.
 
I spent some time last Saturday shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 mk2 plus x2EFII TC and Sunday with the 100-400 just to see which set-up I prefer on 60D and 1D3 bodies.

Having looked at the images I simply cannot tell which comes from which set-up. They are indistinguishable from one another.

FWIW, I prefer the 100-400 as it matches well with a x2 Kenko MC4 on my 1D3 to give a 800 f11, this, with the crop factor, is a useful FL for shooting really small birds.

However, if you are not shooting really small birds and 400 (plus crop) is long enough then I would strongly recommend the 70-200 plus x2TC as this gives a World Class lens without the TC as a bonus.

Just out of interest, I find the 70-200 to be really choosy about which TCs it will acquire AF with. In my experience you HAVE to use reporting TCs.
 
Oggy said:
I have both the 100-400 and the 150-500 and trust me it's not that clean cut. There are times when the extra 100mm gives the edge.

Don't read too much into a single very artificial test done on the net.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's not artifical at all, just controlled, so you can compare one lens against another. And the Sigmas get worse at 500mm.

I don't trust many tests on the net, and I don't trust the-digital-picture when it comes to shorter lenses (because of the small, flat test target they use) but that's not a problem with longer focal lengths and I think their long lens tests are very good.

Apart from that, those tests support the general views posted on the web. The Sigmas score on price, nothing else. That doesn't mean they won't do a good job though :)
 
Take a look at this:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm

Good comparison, shows what is expected.

The 100-400 is sharper at all focal lengths, but at 400mm the difference isn't huge (it's about the same at f/5.6 as the sigma's at f/8). After viewing that test, I concluded that with the money I'd have the 100-400, but if I couldn't stretch that far I'd happily have the sigmas.


I'd also add that I don't think the sigmas reach 4 stops of stabilisation. I tried two in a shop, a 120-400 and 150-500 and on neither could I get a sharp shot at 400mm below 1/160sec. I think it is slightly more effective than on the 100-400, but I wouldn't say 4 stops.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Why not? It's not artifical at all, just controlled, so you can compare one lens against another. And the Sigmas get worse at 500mm.

I don't trust many tests on the net, and I don't trust the-digital-picture when it comes to shorter lenses (because of the small, flat test target they use) but that's not a problem with longer focal lengths and I think their long lens tests are very good.

Apart from that, those tests support the general views posted on the web. The Sigmas score on price, nothing else. That doesn't mean they won't do a good job though :)
Click to expand...

Because all these geometric tests only tell part of the story. Only carried out once with only one example of each lens means that they are in no way rigorous. The acid test is the picture it takes. As I say I have and use both.

To dismiss the Sigma as you intitially did is wrong.
 
sharper at all focal lengths it has, obviously.

Most of the people I know shoot with the 50-500 or 150-500 at 400ish mm, because of the sharpness drop off. One guy said he'd tested and results cropped a tad at 400mm looked better than shots at 500mm because of the better contrast.
 
Last edited:
No -brainer get the 100-400L. I've owned the 100-400L and still own the 70-200 2.8L. I did pretty stringent side by side testing while I still had both lenses. With a 1.4X converter the 70-200 2.8 is acceptable stopped down one stop, but still doesn't equal the 100-400L, and you're already losing 2 stops so you're down to f/5.6.

Quality drop off with the 70-200 2.8 and a 2X converter is noticeable and if you only stop down one stop to compensate, you're now down to f8!

The 70-200 2.8 is a raspingly sharp lens, but like any zoom, it's best used without converters.

I only sold the 100-400L because I got the 500mm f4L - I quite often wish I'd kept it.

The only other thing I'd say is 400mm is probably the bare minimum for serious bird photography - longer is better so don't discount the Sigma 50 - 500 for around the same money and better reach.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Sigma 150-500 and the Canon 100-400L compared here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 :thumbsdown: Sigma 50-500 is similar
Click to expand...

:nono:The 50-500 OS is not similar at all to the 150-500. I changed my OH's 150-500 to the 50-500 and compared. The 50-500 is as sharp at f6.3 as the 150-500 was at f8.

I also compared the 50-500mm to the Canon 400mm and they are much closer than you think sharpness wise.

Both shots open wide (50-550 first, 400mm second)

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/micloi/FULLSigma50-500mmf63.jpg
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/micloi/FULLCanon400mmf56.jpg
 
The 50-500 is a stunner of a lens considering it's zoom range. The only thing that put me off the OS version was that the best new price I could get at the time was £300 more expensive than the 100-400 (which had dropped in price for a limited time on amazon). If the 50-500 OS was the same price as the 100-400, I would seriously consider it as an alternative.

As I have the excellent 100-400 now though, the only thing that would make me part with it (bar saving enough for a 500/4 and a 300/2.8) would be if canon release a 400mm f/5.6 prime with IS and close focussing of 2m or under and the same IQ of the current one.
 
Oggy said:
Because all these geometric tests only tell part of the story. Only carried out once with only one example of each lens means that they are in no way rigorous. The acid test is the picture it takes. As I say I have and use both.

To dismiss the Sigma as you intitially did is wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't dismiss the Sigmas! In fact I said they would do a good job. I said the Canon lenses were better, which they are. Whether or not they are worth the extra cost is down to the individual.

It's unrealistic to expect the Sigmas to perform at the same level as more expensive lenses. They are more cheaply made, that's their point of differentiation, and often better value. If they were the same quality as the Canons, they would cost the same - and nobody would buy them in preference.

Sigma also knows full well how to make excellent lenses, but when they do, they are priced accordingly. The 50 1.4 is a case in point - better than the Canon, and costs more too. Sigma does very well by picking gaps in the camera brands' ranges, and plugging them with an alternative. Usually the point of differentiaion is price, but it is also often a more ambitious spec, or higher performance.
 
Folks,

Thanks all of you very much for the excellent replies...

Really not sure what to do now :-) too many choices :)

I will say I wasn't thinking about a Sigma at all as I was going to stick to a Canon as I haven't tried a Sigma before.

Are all the profiles in LR etc.. ? for automatic lens correction?

The push pull of the 100-400 concerns me as well...

Hmmmm.....
 
mipevo6 said:
The push pull of the 100-400 concerns me as well...

Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...

I don't see why, it's quicker and more intuitive than twisting I reckon.

400mm f/5.6L ?

Sharper than the 100-400L.
 
Well images probably say more and I can't say that I have notoiced any difference in softness at 400 and 500mm. Mine lives at 500mm most of the time and usually at f6.3 or 7.1

100% crop
http://SPAM/c3whur/Birds/Img_5954c.jpg

Oh and it works quite well with a 2X as well

http://SPAM/c3whur/Birds/Img_1975.jpg
 
why a 2x convertor ?
you loose the auto focus on some lenses
you can buy mt 2x mkII if you want
 
Frank

Not sure I agree with the "you cannot shoot wildlife at 800 f11" sentiment. I'll endeavor to put up some images when I get some time but, to me, I have some nice captures using these conditions with the 1D3/100-400 combination which I routinely print up to A3. To me these look ok, you may have higher standards ?

The IS really helps when shutter speeds get down to a few hundreths of a second though.

FWIW, I previously used a Sigma 500 f4.5 prime but find the above combination much more manageable.

Just my 2p worth.

Back to the OP, I would also very much like to hear actual user opinions on the new Sima 50-500 OS.

Gary
 
Last edited:
mipevo6 said:
The push pull of the 100-400 concerns me as well...
Click to expand...

Why its brilliant. 100-400 is a pretty wide range to be honest and sliding up to 400 is easy, fast and accurate. Ignore the haters that will tell you it sucks in loads of dust, flick round a twist zoom and you get exactly the same. It's also brilliant being able to lock the zoom at any length along the way.

FWIW I think you'd do well with 100-400 and the 1.4TC as that would put you at 560mm f6.3 and your AF would still work, and with the 7D you can still up the iso a bit to keep the speed up without getting that noisy. I don't know how the IS works with a TC added though.
 
Hi Micloi

I KNOW that your 50-500 OS is spot-on. I was wondering what experience other users have of this lens ?

Also, to get back to CW318is, I think the 100-400 with TC will be a 560 f8. I tried this combination (100-400 with the EFII x1.4 and a 7D) in my local Jessops and could not get AF. I did not have the cheek to tape the pins there and then though so it may work with a non-reporting TC ? This combination DOES work very well on my 60D using the outer AF points though.
 
cw318is said:
FWIW I think you'd do well with 100-400 and the 1.4TC as that would put you at 560mm f6.3 and your AF would still work,
Click to expand...

AF would only work on a 1 Series body, unless you're meaning taping the converter pins, but that didn't work for me at all.
 
CT

No need to tape pins if using a non-reporting TC like the cheap Kenkos or Tamron or Jessops versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top