What's next in 300-500mm primes and zooms?

[chrysoberyl]

Anything? I don't like TC's or zooms, and I haven't found anything over 200mm that is appealing and affordable. There are fans of the Canon 100-400 II, the 150-600's, The Sigma 120-300. But not me - I want a 300 or 400 or 500mm prime, or an internally-focusing zoom (longer than 200mm).

I note that Sigma is (kind of) trending longer. Is it unreasonable to expect Sigma to upgrade their 300 2.8 and 120-300 2.8 soon? I doubt that those would cannibalize their new 100-400 or the current 150-600's...

I wonder whether this topic will energize the '.... is doomed!' crowd.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Have you actually tried any of these things you "don't like"?

Incidentally, the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS ticks your boxes for internally zooming ((I assume you mean zooming -
all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?) and > 200mm and - as an owner - I know it to be bloody brilliant.

And it was only fairly recently updated - it's an utterly different beast to the 100-400mm or 150-600mm. Works brilliantly with TCs, too.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Have you actually tried any of these things you "don't like"?

Incidentally, the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS ticks your boxes for internally zooming ((I assume you mean zooming -
all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?) and > 200mm and - as an owner - I know it to be bloody brilliant.

And it was only fairly recently updated - it's an utterly different beast to the 100-400mm or 150-600mm. Works brilliantly with TCs, too.

I haven't tried them all; I just don't like dust and moisture suckers, plus all the complexity, the extra weight, the compromises that zooms entail.

The 120-300 would be a consideration, but the reviews are not stellar (for $3600 US, I want pretty sharp, if not stellar). I am glad you like yours, though! You probably got a golden sample. But for 3 kg hand-held, non-dockable and potentially having AF issues (I've read the stories about that), it is not for me. I have held off for several years; I can continue to do so.

It does seem time for Sigma to upgrade their 300 2.8, so I am optimistic and a bit impatient.

 

[PeterAlex7]

I think you should define "affordable" first.

If those huge white primes aren't affordable to you, how about sigma 500mm sport? It cost 6k new, you can wait for the used one and should be near 4k. You also have canon 400mm f5.6L or 300mm f4L IS as another options

 

[privatebydesign]

........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?

No.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I think you should define "affordable" first.

If those huge white primes aren't affordable to you, how about sigma 500mm sport? It cost 6k new, you can wait for the used one and should be near 4k. You also have canon 400mm f5.6L or 300mm f4L IS as another options

OK, to me 'affordable' is $3300 US for a sharp 300 2.8 with reliable AF. Or a 400 4.0. Or a 500 5.6.

I appreciate the input, but old designs that are not very sharp are not appealing. I can match the Canon 400 5.6 with my 70-200 + 2X TC. That is not what I consider an upgrade.

The Sigma 500 is just too much cost. But when a used one comes available for $4K, hmm... Good thought; thanks!

 

[privatebydesign]

Your only Canon option is a secondhand 300 f2.8 IS, MkI, but you'll say you don't want secondhand and all the hassle that entails. Which means you are not just going to have to wait, you will never get beyond your 70-200 + TC.

Mind you anybody that overlooks the Canon 400 f5.6 for a fraction of your budget hasn't used one, they are awesome sharp and light lenses.

Third party, I have a pro sports shooting colleague who swears by his Sigma 120-300, indeed he will use that over my Canon prime because he prefers the versatility. As for the rest, take your pick, but $3,300 is over third party options and well under new Canon options you say you'd like.

 

[unfocused]

Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.

As for your specific concerns about the sigma 300 2.8 zoom, I think you may be confusing previous models with the new sport version which has gotten good reviews and does take the sigma dock.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?

No.

Examples of externally focussing AF lenses, please?

 

[IglooEater]

........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?

No.

Examples of externally focussing AF lenses, please?

The 55-250 IS II comes to mind. Only one I've had personally.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

External focussing? Not zooming, focussing?

 

[privatebydesign]

........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?

No.

Examples of externally focussing AF lenses, please?

External focussing? Not zooming, focussing?

Off the top of my head 100 Macro non L, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4 but I am sure there are plenty of others, like the MP-E 65, etc.

 

[9VIII]

At the very least I wish Sigma would just bring back their 400f5.6 Telemacro lens, supposedly that lens was already sharper than Canon's 400f5.6.
Just adding IS and a closer MFD would be a huge deal for a 400f5.6 prime, but Sigma should be able to make it significantly sharper too.
The same would apply to 500f5.6, but at least we know that 400f5.6 is a well proven popular design.

 

[IglooEater]

External focussing? Not zooming, focussing?

Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.

 

[IglooEater]

........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?

No.

Examples of externally focussing AF lenses, please?

External focussing? Not zooming, focussing?

Off the top of my head 100 Macro non L, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4 but I am sure there are plenty of others, like the MP-E 65, etc.

I think the MP-E 65 can be excused for not being all internal.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.

As for your specific concerns about the sigma 300 2.8 zoom, I think you may be confusing previous models with the new sport version which has gotten good reviews and does take the sigma dock.

I fully agree on the popularity of zooms. In another year, I may give in and buy one. Possibly the Sigma 120-300 S. I usually go to LensTip and Photozone for reviews, but they have not reviewed the S version. Which other reviewer has reviewed this lens?

I very much appreciate the input, all.

 

[unfocused]

Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.

As for your specific concerns about the sigma 300 2.8 zoom, I think you may be confusing previous models with the new sport version which has gotten good reviews and does take the sigma dock.

I fully agree on the popularity of zooms. In another year, I may give in and buy one. Possibly the Sigma 120-300 S. I usually go to LensTip and Photozone for reviews, but they have not reviewed the S version. Which other reviewer has reviewed this lens?

I very much appreciate the input, all.

The Digital Picture.

 

[chrysoberyl]

The Digital Picture.

I haven't visited that site for several years, because there seemed to be a Canon bias. Having reviewed the image quality charts just now, the Canon 70-200 II + 1.4X TC clearly wins. I wonder why anyone would buy the Sigma 120-300 instead.

 

[SecureGSM]

1. you likely looked at the wrong chart. Sigma 120-300 Sports clearly much better across the frame than Canon 70-200 F2.8 + 1.4 Extender at the long end. here is at 280mm F4 / 300mm F4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
On 75" screen the difference is striking.

2. the reason people do buy Sigma 120-300 Sport lens: if you shoot indoor sports in low light situation or even PJ when your subject is fairly distant. you can also stay farther than the rest of of the photo crowd and still get the same framing. you do want that extra stop of light to keep your iso reasonable and shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. yes, Canon 300 F2.8 can be a smidge sharper but the convenience of the zoom in dynamic situations is obvious. The price: I bought my Sigma 120 300 Sports barely used, if at all, for A$1950.00 (US$1,470.00). The cheapest Canon 300 F.28 II I have seen sold at A$5,000.00. That's nearly x3 more expensive lens.

3. AF quality of the Sigma120-300 Sport lens is quite excellent. accurate, snappy, with 2 sets ofd custom settings.

The Digital Picture.

I haven't visited that site for several years, because there seemed to be a Canon bias. Having reviewed the image quality charts just now, the Canon 70-200 II + 1.4X TC clearly wins. I wonder why anyone would buy the Sigma 120-300 instead.

 

[chrysoberyl]

1. you likely looked at the wrong chart. Sigma 120-300 Sports clearly much better across the frame than Canon 70-200 F2.8 + 1.4 Extender at the long end. here is at 280mm F4 / 300mm F4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
On 75" screen the difference is striking.

2. the reason people do buy Sigma 120-300 Sport lens: if you shoot indoor sports in low light situation or even PJ when your subject is fairly distant. you can also stay farther than the rest of of the photo crowd and still get the same framing. you do want that extra stop of light to keep your iso reasonable and shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. yes, Canon 300 F2.8 can be a smidge sharper but the convenience of the zoom in dynamic situations is obvious. The price: I bought my Sigma 120 300 Sports barely used, if at all, for A$1950.00 (US$1,470.00). The cheapest Canon 300 F.28 II I have seen sold at A$5,000.00. That's nearly x3 more expensive lens.

3. AF quality of the Sigma120-300 Sport lens is quite excellent. accurate, snappy, with 2 sets ofd custom settings.

Thanks, I was comparing the Sigma and Canon wide open, rather than both at f/4, and extender II, rather than III. It does look pretty good. Not like the charts show the Canon 300 2.8, but sharp.

Sounds like the 120-300 is worth renting at least.