What lens to choose?

Briony

Briony

Messages
3,869
Name
Nicki.
Edit My Images
Yes
I am wanting to change my Sigma 120 - 400 lens for a canon and cannot decide what to go for.

I know there will be differnet conflicting opinions and have p.m.'d a couple of people already to ask opinions but just wanted to know what others think.

I am very keen on wildlife and sports photography and wondered if to go for the Canon 400 or a 300 plus extender:shrug: am not to " into" F stops numbers and will try and read this up later to clarify things to me a bit more clearly. (yep I know I am thick but cna't be helped :lol:)

My budgeting is going to be around the £1000 mark NOT OVER and under if possible, (have to sell the Siggy first to fund this) but having used a Canon lens at the weekend and on the Kites I can clearly see the difference:eek:

Please can anyone who shoots similar to what I want to shoot let me have their opinions.

MANY THANKS in advance.
 
Hi nikki, i used to have a canon 100-400 IS and its an amazing piece of glass, very very sharp for a zoom, can pick them up for around the £700-£800 mark for a mint example. Regarding F STOPS the lower the number the faster the glass which in turn means alot more cash.

Andy
 
Last edited:
What canon lens is it you used over the weekend?

The 400mm f/5.6L prime will definitely be sharper than your 120-400, but you sacrifice OS and the zoom. If you can live with that trade off, the 400L is the sharpest 400 available short of the huge expensive f/4 or f/2.8 options.
For sports you might not want to give up the zoom.
How often do you use your 120-400 at focal lengths other than 400mm?

The canon 100-400L is another option, it's not as sharp as the 400 prime, but you've still got IS and the zoom. Might not be 'better enough' to merit upgrading from the 120-400 (though the 100-400 is a lovely lens ;)). Worth trying one for yourself, see what you think of it, if you think it would be worth upgrading to.

Does it have to be a canon? For a bit over your budget you could afford a sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Bigger and heavier, but you get two more stops of light (read 4x the shutter speed + smaller DoF), or add a 1.4x and get a ~170-420mm f/4, which I've heard is still very sharp.
 
Last edited:
I use my 120 - 400 alot to zoom for wildlife and I think I need the OS. but also use it under 400 when in the hide for Kites and birds nearer and some sports:shrug:

I used the 70 - 200 at the weekend for my point to point photos and Kites and was quite impressed at the sharpness.

I have to set my budget and want to get my best options.:thumbs:
 
Thank you to those who have replied, I am able to try a 400 today so will see after that.

Don't really want to go bigger and heavier as I find the Sigma heavy enough for me ;)

Just wish I was a bit more technical minded and understood things a bit more:shrug:
 
More or less decided to go for the 400 but waiting for the Mark 2 out at the end of the year:D better start saving.:thumbs:
 
400mm mark II?
The only 400mm mark II I've heard about is the 400 f/2.8 L IS II. RRP on that lens is ~£11,000 IIRC.
 
squishy said:
400mm mark II?
The only 400mm mark II I've heard about is the 400 f/2.8 L IS II. RRP on that lens is ~£11,000 IIRC.
Click to expand...

:thinking: Will try and find out a bit more about this for you and post it here it was from someone who went to focus last week and I know it was not that much, it is being released at the end of the year..

If it is that lens then :eek: :shake: will stick with what I have got, well unless I win the lottery this Friday then I will treat you to one :D :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top