400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?
- Thread starter drjlo
- Start date
- Status
That, with a 1.4 you apparently already have, will do just nicely. Flip side: not as sharp as your 70-200 2.8II with a 2.0 TC - although that is F5.6, of course.1982chris911 said:
)I was going to suggest the Sigma 300mm F2.8 HSM. 20% more expensive than the 70-200 2.8II and no OS, but it 'll give you a very fast 300 too, and 420mm @ F4, and 600mm @ F5.6, and at least the HSM is there. I have no idea how the IQ holds up on that one though, I just know it exists
Upvote
0
I have the sigma 120-300 2.8 non OS. Amazing lens, for the versatility and the IQ. Ok so unlike the 70-200 mkII it wont give you the IQ of comparable primes, but it will give you a 240-600 f5.6 with fast AF, and the OS version also gives you weather sealing and OS. It an incredible lens and the optics between both version are fairly similar other than a coating or two. As per the OP, it will give you a 420mm F4 when used with your 1.4x converter with great performance and very useable performance with IQ and AF with a 2x converter should you buy one. Highly recommended lens and one that Canon currently does not compete with (we'll see what the 200-400 F4 1.4x is like when it comes out).
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
1982chris911 said:
I would have suggested this as well, except:
drjlo said:
...which, it isn't.
drjlo said:
The main issue with making fast and affordable super telephoto lenses is the size of the physical aperture, and the amount of glass needed to fill that aperture with light. A 400mm f/4 lens means a 100mm diameter iris diaphragm, meaning lots of glass, meaning expensive. Many people have suggested they want Canon to make a 500mm f/5.6L IS lens as an 'affordable' supertele prime, similar to the 300/4 and 400/5.6 - such a lens would actually be closer in spec to the 300/2.8 than the 400/5.6, likely pushing the lens into the >$4.5K range (well outside of 'affordable' for most people).
Upvote
0
I second the 100-400L. I loved it when I had a 7D, and like it on the 1D Mark IV. The IQ is suprisingly good at 100 and 400mm, looking at my photos. I have it and I really like it.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
Really? For a $6500 400 mm lens, it seems to underperform. For example:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
BTW, what are people's feelings about Canon 300mm f/4L IS vs. Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS? I do like my 70-200L MkII, so I wish there was a reasonably priced 200-400L, but alas..
Upvote
0
drjlo said:
I have the 300L f/4 IS and I've been very happy with it on my 5D2. Fast AF, good IQ, and not excessively heavy. The IS is awesome, and is the main reason I picked this lens over the 400L f/5.6. I just got the 1.4 x mk3 TC, taking advantage of the current rebates. This gets me 420mm at f/5.6 and IS for not a huge amount more $$$ than the 400 would have been.
I am on a business trip to Japan right now and I didn't want to lug along the 300, so I've been trying out the TC with my 70-200L f/4. That combination seems to be working pretty well, although I haven't looked closely at the results off camera yet. I took a bunch of shots of formula cars at the Motegi racing circuit, and the AF seemed to track pretty well even with the TC. So I'm hopeful that the combination of 24-105, 70-200 and 1.4 TC will make a nice light and compact kit for casual travel when I don't want to carry my full set of gear.
I'm looking forward to trying out the 300 plus 1.4 TC combination in earnest when I get home. I only had time for a few quick shots of birds at a feeder before I left, and I didn't nail the focus. I did do my homework before buying, and came to the conclusion that the IQ of the 300/1.4 TC pairing was close enough to the 100-400L and the 400L f/5.6 to make this combination viable.
Like you, I have been vaguely evaluating 400 f/4 (or equivalent) options. The cheapest Canon solution would probably be a used copy of the 400 DO, which can be had for less crazy money than things like the 300L/f2.8 with TC, for example. But I'm thinking my best option will be to pick up a 7D to get the reach I want. The 7D is far less expensive than most fast 400 options, and has an AF system that is up to the demands of bird photography which the 5D2 really isn't. As a bonus I get a backup body as well. Until then I am stuck with borrowing my daughter's T3i when I can get away with it. 8)
Upvote
0
S
Steve Campbell
Guest
Does the Sigma 120-300 take the Canon teleconverters? I like the look of this lens. Right now, my Canon 300 f4 IS lives on my 7D as the equipment I use for maximum reach. I also use the 1.4 II TC when I need more reach. It's pretty good, especially with good light. This is one of the cheapest ways to get this type of reach and still maintain decent quality. 420mm at 5.6 in a decent size package.
There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.
There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
Just remember than converters make the AF slower.
Better off getting the 100-400 than the 300mm F4 and buying a 1.4x to stick to it most of the time.
The 100-400mm is cheaper than a 300mm +1.4x, more versatile and will be quicker to focus at 400mm the extra 20mm will not make any difference.
Better off getting the 100-400 than the 300mm F4 and buying a 1.4x to stick to it most of the time.
The 100-400mm is cheaper than a 300mm +1.4x, more versatile and will be quicker to focus at 400mm the extra 20mm will not make any difference.
Upvote
0
Steve Campbell said:
I hope you like the weight of it as well! It comes to 2950g or 104oz. One of the reasons why I chose against it. I find the 100-400 already on the heavy side. (And that one doesn't even weigh half)
Else it is indeed supposed to be a very good lens. And it is compatible with Sigma converters so I would assume it also takes Canon converters. (I see no reason why it shouldn't)
Upvote
0
Steve Campbell said:
I tried the 120-300 OS with a Canon III x2 on a 5d MkIII. Works OK and gives you up to 600mm f5.6 ...
the Sigma 150-500 is no comparison to the 120-300 ... It feels kind of toy lens against the former. the 120-300 F2.8 OS (new one!!!) can rival the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II in sharpness if you get a good copy ... There are several reviews online that confirm this.
Upvote
0
Here is another thought...
Consider a 2x mk.iii TC and use it on your 70-200mk.ii
I do the same and I rarely take out my 100-400L, but use the 70-200mk.ii + 2x mk.iii combo for most trips. The IQ is very comparable to the standalone 100-400L even though in absolute terms one could argue for the other. I find the combo has more gradiation in shadows, while the 100-400L has more contrast (both at 400mm), contrast is fixable in PP. I AFMA'ed my 70-200mkii + 2xmk.iii combo and it is very close in sharpness to the 100-400L. But if one splits hairs, one could call the 100-400L sharper in a controlled test... but in the field I doubt you will see the difference most of the time... the difference is probably more of academic in nature.
This will cost you less than $500 plus you can use the 2x on other lenses too.
Consider a 2x mk.iii TC and use it on your 70-200mk.ii
I do the same and I rarely take out my 100-400L, but use the 70-200mk.ii + 2x mk.iii combo for most trips. The IQ is very comparable to the standalone 100-400L even though in absolute terms one could argue for the other. I find the combo has more gradiation in shadows, while the 100-400L has more contrast (both at 400mm), contrast is fixable in PP. I AFMA'ed my 70-200mkii + 2xmk.iii combo and it is very close in sharpness to the 100-400L. But if one splits hairs, one could call the 100-400L sharper in a controlled test... but in the field I doubt you will see the difference most of the time... the difference is probably more of academic in nature.
This will cost you less than $500 plus you can use the 2x on other lenses too.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
