« on: February 24, 2014, 11:57:31 PM »
3 for your consideration......
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).
But how does this lens compare to the Sigma 18-35 f1.8? I know the L is full frame and the Sigma is not. But if both used on a Super35mm sensor, how do they compare?
Interesting points about the 300 2.8 II and the 200-400. But...the 300 2.8 II is almost half the cost of the 200-400, and it's a sharper, faster lens. Which makes me wonder, why even bother with the 200-400? At 12k, shouldn't it have the performance of the 300?the 200-400 is actually a razor sharp 200-560mm f4-5.6 lens. I was thinking really hard about getting the 300 at the time I bought it. But today I don´t regret it. It gives you a flexibility that is unsurpassed. Because it is a zoom lens, I throw away much less image area due to less need for cropping. So in practical terms, I make up for the (very minor) IQ penalty. But for very fast action, the AF on the 300 is still the one to beat. It is still high on my wish list, but there is a limit to how many lenses I can justify having ...
I do not see how the 800/5.6 can be an alternative to the 600 f4L IS II. Combined with the 1.4xIII the 600 is sharper than the 800. But if you can get the 800 for a good price ...OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.
Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?
Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?
The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.
What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.
You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.
Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.
Or you can just buy the amazing SIGMA 35mm 1.4 prime for about 1/2 of what you'd pay for the inferior Canon prime.
...just a thought...
Inferior? The Canon 35mm F/2 IS USM has better mid-frame sharpness AND much better corner sharpness than the Sigma 1.4 even with the Sigma stopped down to f/2.8:
Aperture isn't everything, especially when it comes at the expense of edge-to-edge sharpness.
This is about the S1.4 vs the C1.4. From what I understand, the Siggy is better. Apples 'n' apples. The 35 IS is a pear
Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.
But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.
To shoot this with the 100-400f/4-5.6, you would need the 1.4x converter attached and then your shooting an Animal running @ 100kph @ f/8, not an impossible task I admit but a lot more difficult than it seems, but the 200-400f/4 in this instance was on the 1Dx 560mm f/5.6 1/2000th ISO800 and just handled it supremely well, I don't think the 100-400 could have done it as well, but, I didn't have the 100-400 so it's conjecture, based on experience, mine.
Could the 100-400 have done it, I'm sure it could have, I'm just glad I had the 200-400 instead so I was more sure of getting The Shot.
Like Dylan, I just ordered my first big white (300 2.8 LL) and the $6700 was a quantum threshold for me to cross. I don't know, perhaps after this getting past a 10K barrier will be easier, but somehow, I don't think so. I am wondering how other people do it? Are that many professionals (i.e., people making a decent living from photography using these lenses) to justify the price, and drive Canon profits, or are the lenses selling to people like me who are avid/rabid enthusiasts? Just a question.