Gear Talk > Lenses

Long Range L Choices

(1/6) > >>

Wilmark:
I am thinking about a long L series telephoto. My interest is action sports and birding. I am a value conscious buyer.

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM (+teleconv)
Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X (when it becomes available)
OR Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO IF HSM (sigmonster)

I am looking for long term use and value in the purchase. I know at least one of the items in the list has not been released yet but apparently there are lot of people previewing it. How does the Sigmonster compare with the Canon L brethren? Considering that its about half the price (well OK not quite half), both from a usage standpoint (speed of focusing, weight, zoom etc) and from IQ. Which one of the Canon is the best choice, Would the 400 F2.8 + 1.4X Converter (not the zoom) be a near match for the 600mm F4? Because if its close, then the 400 F2.8 may be the better choice as it give you the 400mm F2.8 which is a sweet combo for many options, including sports. Whats your opinion? Especially if you'd had any experience with these guys? I plan to use it with a 5DMkIII in the first instance?

dr croubie:

--- Quote from: BozillaNZ on August 01, 2012, 08:01:25 PM ---Long term value = avoid 3rd party brand

--- End quote ---


Only if you buy new. Buying 2nd-hand 3rd-party isn't so bad, then you can still sell it for about what you paid later (same with 2nd-hand L lenses too). It's only when buying new that L lenses hold their value to 80-90%, SigRons can lose to 50% of the sticker price. Finding the Canon L II versions second hand now would be near impossible (finding them new is hard enough).

Between the 400/2.8 II and the 600/4 II, they both weigh about the same. The prices are about the same, the 600mm is $1k more expensive (although that's only less than 10% more, it's still another nice lens you could have bought).
At 400mm, the 400 wins in IQ (obviously, the 600 doesn't go that wide).
At 560mm vs 600mm f/4, the bare 600mm wins over the 400+1.4x.
At 800mm vs 840mm f/5.6, the 600+1.4x again wins over the 400+2x.
And at 1200mm, the 600+2x wins over the 400 (presuming you stack a 400+1.4x+2x)

So it's more a matter of length. If you need the length, go the 600, especially if you've got a 70-300L or 100-400L that can cover the 400mm range in a pinch. If you'd rather do field sports or anything close(r) up, the 400 could be the go.
As to the SigMonster, there's precious few reviews, the best is probably this one at LL, if you haven't read it already. The IQ doesn't look too bad, but without a direct apples-apples against the new L II primes, we'll never know. I'd be guessing the L II primes are better, but are they $4000 better? ($8k vs $12k)

Wilmark:
@dr croubie - thanks for your reply. I have read all the reviews at Bryans website and the LL sigmonster (this is what made me consider it). A lot of Bryans reviews on these newer lenses are not based on production models unfortunately, and i think one is not based on him having the actual lens. I hate to ask you this but have you used any of these? If so, was your post based on this? Something that's hard to estimate is how much do you loose with the addition of the extenders. The longest i currently use is the 70-200II with a 2XIII for 400mmF5.6. Not bad for sports an outdoor situation, but the focusing is slow. Not enough for birding in the sheltered rainforests. Its a pitty that there is so little info out there even with the sigmonster. Almost no comparisons. I plan to wait until i see some solid comparisons but i am tending between the 400F2.8 or the 600F4 II. From what you say buying second had sigmas may not be a bad idea as they loose alot of their value on resale (their first resale i imagine). But i know that sigmonsters are hard to come by and i think there is a blacklisted set of serial nos that are defective. Thanks

dr croubie:
Unfortunately I haven't used any of the long L primes, especially not the II versions (there's not many people in the world who would have used the II versions of the 500/600 II versions as they're just so damned new).

A lot of people around here would have used the mk1 versions, but the difference between them and the II versions can be a bit, a lot more price for a lot less weight, and working better with the TCs is their main selling point.

The SigMonster 300-800 and the SigLauncher 200-500 f/2.8 are strange beasts, both are pushing the limits of designs (as do their 8-16 and 12-24 on the wide ends), but there's never much info about them, nor many reviews. For sure Sigma has an image problem (sorry for the pun), a lot of people automatically assume that everthing they make is no good, and some people rave about them (especially when factoring in price). The best I can say about them is that they probably have a Quality Control problem, they release good and bad copies of each lens (that said, my 8-16 is wonderful).

Best advice I could give if considering one of these is to go to a real store, try it out and see how well you like it. Or hire it for a few days (if you can buy the exact one that you hire). Or even an online store that will give you a return policy (preferably with free return shipping, those beasts are heavy and shipping's probably fairly steep)...

Magnumphotography:
I would stick with Canon lenses. The series II will give the best performance and retain value very well.
Also, don't rule out the 500mm series II.

I am currently shooting with the 500 f4L is Series I. Plus the 5D mark III. My main focus is larger birds. I shoot at  500 - 700mm, dependant on situation.  The lens weights roughly 8.5 pounds. Usually home on a gimbal and big gitzo tripod.

Like you, I am planning on upgrading to the series II.
Either the 500mm or 600mm.
Both perform superbly, so it's really weight, focal length and a price difference.

The extra focal length of 600 - 840mm would be welcome. As I am usually wanting more focal length. Plus the weight of the 600 II, is  almost the same, as my current lens.

The 500 series II is roughly 7 pounds. A 1.5 pound weight reduction, to the series I 500mm. This would really change its hand holdablity. 8.5 pounds , is  manageable for occasional shots. But a 7 pound lens,  should open up a new style of shooting. Such as longer hand held shooting and more comfortable hiking, with or without a tripod. (Although, I would still most likely shoot with one.)

The 400 2.8mm would be great, for low light/Auto focus performance. As your mark III can make better use, of the f2.8 aperture for focusing. The weight of 8.5 ish pounds would lead to a good tripod. Yet managable. This focal length would perform excellent for sports.

My overall opinion is mixed.
For me the 400 has great speed, but not enough reach for birds. It would excel at sports though.  So as a bird shooter, I did not consider this lens.

The 600 would give the best reach for birding.
 
The 500 would weight the least and a good cost savings over the 600mm.

So for me, I will most likely get the 600mm. As I want the reach, over the weight advantage.

So it really comes down to what you need. I would rent both lenses. Some stores offer a percentage return on the rental fee. As long as you order one of those lenses, while returning the rental to the store. Henry's in Canada offers this service. I believe it''s through head shots.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page