October 21, 2014, 05:38:02 PM

Author Topic: Long zooms  (Read 2545 times)

justawriter

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Long zooms
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:55:52 AM »
I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).

canon rumors FORUM

Long zooms
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:55:52 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14710
    • View Profile
Re: Long zooms
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2013, 09:14:20 AM »
You'll want the Canon 100-400L, partly for the better IQ but mostly for the much faster AF.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Long zooms
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2013, 09:56:12 AM »
I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).

You can find some of those compared to the Canon 100-400 here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

He also has another article which compares the Sigma 50-500 OS with the Canon 100-400, where he finds the Sigma a bit sharper at one end, the Canon at the other, and the OS of the Sigma to be far worse than the IS of the Canon.  He may have had a bad copy of the Sigma; the OS on mine is excellent, probably better than the Canon's (I've read reviews to the same effect).  I rented the Canon and the Sigma and ended up buying the Sigma because I preferred the bokeh from the Sigma.  Both struck me as being much the same otherwise (they cost about the same, too).  I had no problem with slow focusing on the Sigma, but then I don't photograph fast moving things and thus didn't really test it in that way.  I have no experience at all with the others on your list. 

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Long zooms
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2013, 10:10:14 AM »
Here is a review that fits your lens choices.  http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

But I have to say if I was in you shoes, I would be looking to get the best 70-200mm Canon I could and then a 1.4X or 2X teleconvrter.  The Looooong zooms are just not fast enough to capture action.  (fast as in f2.8 vs 5.6)

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Long zooms
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2013, 11:09:15 AM »
I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).

When you print at 150 dpi halftoned IQ becomes a very secondary matter.

I'd buy the Sigma 120-400 OS HSM. Doesn't match the Canon 100-400 L, but for you intended use you'll hardly see the difference - and it costs considerably less.

yogi

  • Guest
Re: Long zooms
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2013, 06:20:12 PM »
just a note about the juzaphoto comparisons: the sigma 50-500 is the old version without os. there is a newer version with os, and it cost more than than the 150-500.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Long zooms
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2013, 06:20:12 PM »