Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 12,528
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a Canon 100-400L, it's a Mark 1. I have been wanting to update it, if that's the right word for the Mk2, which is, or so I've heard/seen, is sharper than the Mark1. I also prefer the twist zoom of the Mark2.
That said, I have an R7 and of course, EF glass can be used seamlessly on R bodies with the adapter but I'm thinking ahead now and it's ony a matter of time before I do switch to Canon mirrorless, once I've had my use out of the 5Div. The R7 has blown me away, I feel much happier with it in my hands and a future R, FF body is on my mind now. I loved my Fuji previously, there's just something about mirrorless.
For now though, I'm sticking with the 5Div, I love that camera too. I am though reluctant now to spend in the region of £2k for the Mk 2 100-400, and now I have the R7 as a second body, I am making the transition and enjoying it too.
All my glass is currently EF.
It got me thinking though, I have a lot of time for the newer Sigma lenses, I am considering the 24-105 Art, to replace my Mk1 24-105, that has a small but annoying AF glitch.
I'm thinking, in my situation, that the Sigma 100-400 might be a better buy for me than the Mk2 100-400L. I'm not saying it's a better lens than the Mk2 but is it a better, (mainly sharper) lens than the Mk1 100-400.
The change from the Mk1 to the Mk2 is obviously an improvment but what about the Sigma 100-400, versus the Canon 100-400 Mk1? Have I missed any caveats?
For the foreseeable, any new lens purchases will be EF, not RF, as the 5Div has plenty of life left in it, it may even outlive me. I can use EF on both my 5D and on my R7 but not the other way around.
TIA.
EDIT:- just to add, this is a bit speculative at the moment, not forgetting I already own the 150-600C.
That said, I have an R7 and of course, EF glass can be used seamlessly on R bodies with the adapter but I'm thinking ahead now and it's ony a matter of time before I do switch to Canon mirrorless, once I've had my use out of the 5Div. The R7 has blown me away, I feel much happier with it in my hands and a future R, FF body is on my mind now. I loved my Fuji previously, there's just something about mirrorless.
For now though, I'm sticking with the 5Div, I love that camera too. I am though reluctant now to spend in the region of £2k for the Mk 2 100-400, and now I have the R7 as a second body, I am making the transition and enjoying it too.
All my glass is currently EF.
It got me thinking though, I have a lot of time for the newer Sigma lenses, I am considering the 24-105 Art, to replace my Mk1 24-105, that has a small but annoying AF glitch.
I'm thinking, in my situation, that the Sigma 100-400 might be a better buy for me than the Mk2 100-400L. I'm not saying it's a better lens than the Mk2 but is it a better, (mainly sharper) lens than the Mk1 100-400.
The change from the Mk1 to the Mk2 is obviously an improvment but what about the Sigma 100-400, versus the Canon 100-400 Mk1? Have I missed any caveats?
For the foreseeable, any new lens purchases will be EF, not RF, as the 5Div has plenty of life left in it, it may even outlive me. I can use EF on both my 5D and on my R7 but not the other way around.
TIA.
EDIT:- just to add, this is a bit speculative at the moment, not forgetting I already own the 150-600C.
Last edited: