Sigma 300mm 2.8

I would like to say I am also interested in the answer to this question. I too have the 100-400 and find the same as you.
 
I had it and it is a very nice lens if you REALLY need 2.8.

BUT, there is always one, to really get high IQ from the lens you have to stop it to f4 where the quality is the same as the Canon f4 non-is that you can get for less than half the money and it weighs much less as well.

If you can afford the Canon f2.8 though that's a different story, razor sharp at f2.8, but (here we go again) it costs more than twice than the Sigma
 
Quite impressed with my sigma 300 2.8, only used it a couple of times but happy with it. Can be a bit hit and miss at 2.8, but when it gets it right, its a joy. Ok its not as good as the canon 300mm, but then again thats to be expected :)
 
I'd take a look at a 300mm f/4 perhaps. You get an extra stop, perhaps thats enough?

If not then you could consider the Sigma & Tokina 300mm's. I've read mixed reviews on both and never used either though.
 
The 100-400 does have its limitations, but outside of it you are going to have to get your head around long primes instead. Its quite a tricky process to get over zooms and the other way I know is the "cold turkey" approach - just force yourself or you never will!

The 300 f4 is definitely better than the 100-400 in terms of IQ and focus speed and not a shoddy performer with the 1.4x TC added... providing the light is good... so you are back really to where you are now.

The Canon 300 2.8 is stonking... but not exactly the gear for "casual photography" - both in terms of price and size!

Maybe hire/borrow a 300 f4 and see how you get on? If you hire the 300 2.8 you will want one, no question :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top