Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...

[rpt]

I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

 

[RLPhoto]

I sold my 7D recently and I miss the reach sometimes. I was contemplating a 200mm F/2 sometime in the near future with a set of extenders.

I'll wait until the 7D2 is released before I consider another crop camera.

 

[Loswr]

You need to do some more Rithmetic.

The 300D at 400mm gives you a 640mm FF-equivalent FoV, and a 6.3 MP image. The 5DIII at 400mm gives you a 400mm FoV, and a 22 MP image. If you crop the 5DIII image to the 640mm FoV, you'll have an 8.6 MP image with better IQ than the 300D image.

As I've said before, the 'crop factor' reach is an illusion when it comes to IQ - the only thing you're usually giving up is MP in the final image...and in the case of an old APS-C camera like the 300D, you're actually gaining MP with the cropped FF image.

 

[TexPhoto]

2nd on that. The apparent 1.6X crop of the crop bodies is not a free extender. FF pixels are in general better quality pixels, and when you crop the FF to the crop sensor size, the photos compare quite well.

That said, a crop body can make a great 2nd body, a back-up to a new FF. For hose upgrading, I think it is worth holding onto your crop body, vs an eBay sale.

 

[dolina]

I have a working 10D, in terms of features is superior to your 300D. I am more than willing to accept in trade for your 5D3 even if it does not work with 800mm ;D

I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

 

[rpt]

I sold my 7D recently and I miss the reach sometimes. I was contemplating a 200mm F/2 sometime in the near future with a set of extenders.

I'll wait until the 7D2 is released before I consider another crop camera.

I'll wait probably a few years after the 7D2 is released. Like I said before, I spent all my moolah on the 5D3...

Good to know somebody thinks like me - but from your perspective I would not take it as a compliment

 

[rpt]

You need to do some more Rithmetic.

The 300D at 400mm gives you a 640mm FF-equivalent FoV, and a 6.3 MP image. The 5DIII at 400mm gives you a 400mm FoV, and a 22 MP image. If you crop the 5DIII image to the 640mm FoV, you'll have an 8.6 MP image with better IQ than the 300D image.

As I've said before, the 'crop factor' reach is an illusion when it comes to IQ - the only thing you're usually giving up is MP in the final image...and in the case of an old APS-C camera like the 300D, you're actually gaining MP with the cropped FF image.

True. Mentally I was at 18MP but holding on to my 300D - sorry about the confusion. Never mind. 1.4 x III or 150-500? Who do you vote for? Currently I have the 5D3 - so 22.3 MP applies to everything...

 

[Loswr]

1.4 x III or 150-500? Who do you vote for?

1.4x III, IMO. AF will be better, I suspect IQ will be better, too. I'm happy with the 1.4xIII + 100-400L on my 1D X.

 

[rpt]

I have a working 10D, in terms of features is superior to your 300D. I am more than willing to accept in trade for your 5D3 even if it does not work with 800mm ;D

I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

What can I say? As far as I can compute 300D = 10D * 30

so 300D > 10D algebraically.

 

[rpt]

1.4 x III or 150-500? Who do you vote for?

1.4x III, IMO. AF will be better, I suspect IQ will be better, too. I'm happy with the 1.4xIII + 100-400L on my 1D X.

Cool. Thanks.

 

[jthomson]

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

I got a sigma 150-500mm as my first long telephoto lens. I still have it and use it for airshows where the zoom is a big advantage, but the IQ doesn't compare to my Canon 400mm f5.6L. I can crop to better image quality with the 400mm and the IQ using a Kenko 300 1.4x on the 400mm is still better than the Sigma

I think you would be better getting the 1.4x converter, than the Sigma 150-500mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I ended up selling my 7D merely because I got better real world IQ with the 5D MK III.
When photographing moving wildlife in lower light at 400mm with a 7D, I needed 1/1000 sec shutter, and very high ISO which ate up the detail. With the 5D MK II, I can set the high ISO and not lose as much detail, so when all is said and done, the Image IQ is better.
You can AF with a 7D or 5D MK II / III at f/8 with a Kenko 1.4X TC, so in really good light, the 7D does have a slight advantage, I just was seldom in that situation.

 

[Kernuak]

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

I got a sigma 150-500mm as my first long telephoto lens. I still have it and use it for airshows where the zoom is a big advantage, but the IQ doesn't compare to my Canon 400mm f5.6L. I can crop to better image quality with the 400mm and the IQ using a Kenko 300 1.4x on the 400mm is still better than the Sigma

I think you would be better getting the 1.4x converter, than the Sigma 150-500mm.

There's also the extra weight to factor in, there's a reason the 150-500mm is called the Bigma . That in itself will potentially degrade IQ if handholding (which is usual for the most common use of birds in flight). There are some that insist that the Sigma has better IQ than the 100-400m, but most reviews indicate otherwise. Even those who state on forums that the 150-500 is sharper though, concede the point on contrast. However, whether the 100-400 would still have better contrast with the 1.4 extender is debatable, I never actually tried it on my 100-400 before I sold it, let alone performed any comparisons.

 

[kubelik]

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

I got a sigma 150-500mm as my first long telephoto lens. I still have it and use it for airshows where the zoom is a big advantage, but the IQ doesn't compare to my Canon 400mm f5.6L. I can crop to better image quality with the 400mm and the IQ using a Kenko 300 1.4x on the 400mm is still better than the Sigma

I think you would be better getting the 1.4x converter, than the Sigma 150-500mm.

I also had the Sigma 150-500 as my first telephoto lens and used it with my 30D. the bokeh is really very terrible, although I didn't know it until I started using a 70-200 f2.8 + 2x extender on my 5D Mark II instead. note that when I crop into my 5D Mark II frame I can get the same effective MP/focal length as on my 30D, so if anything, it gives me more options. I've sold my 30D, but I haven't sold the 150-500 as I actually feel sort of bad giving this to any of my friends, it's really a weak lens.

 

[sdsr]

Leaving aside the benefits of cropping on a full-frame camera as mentioned by others, you might want to consider the revised "Bigma" instead of the 150-500. I was all set to buy a 100-400L, but something made me consider the Sigma 50-500 and after reading more than a few favorable reviews and discussions of it online (which suggest/show that it beats their 150-500 and 120-400) I rented one from lensrentals a couple of weeks ago and liked it enough to buy one (in lensrentals' Black Friday sale, luckily). It took me a while to get used to the weight, but I was pleasantly surprised by how good the OS is (avoid the previous version, which, among other drawbacks, has no stabilization at all) and, even more, by the precision of its focusing - on objects both close and far. It's not the last word in sharpness, but you wouldn't expect that in a 50-500 lens and I think it compares well to the Canon 100-400 in that regard (and, unless there was something wrong with the 100-400 I rented, beats the Canon handily in terms of bokeh; better image stabilization too, as you might expect from a much more recent lens). So you may want to try one yourself and see what you think.

 

[jthomson]

There's also the extra weight to factor in, there's a reason the 150-500mm is called the Bigma . [/quote]

Actually the Bigma is the 50-500mm. The 150-500mm is the Bigmos. The Bigma is supposed to have better IQ than the Bigmos.

 

[natureshots]

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

I got a sigma 150-500mm as my first long telephoto lens. I still have it and use it for airshows where the zoom is a big advantage, but the IQ doesn't compare to my Canon 400mm f5.6L. I can crop to better image quality with the 400mm and the IQ using a Kenko 300 1.4x on the 400mm is still better than the Sigma

I think you would be better getting the 1.4x converter, than the Sigma 150-500mm.

There's also the extra weight to factor in, there's a reason the 150-500mm is called the Bigma . That in itself will potentially degrade IQ if handholding (which is usual for the most common use of birds in flight). There are some that insist that the Sigma has better IQ than the 100-400m, but most reviews indicate otherwise. Even those who state on forums that the 150-500 is sharper though, concede the point on contrast. However, whether the 100-400 would still have better contrast with the 1.4 extender is debatable, I never actually tried it on my 100-400 before I sold it, let alone performed any comparisons.

If you are you get better resolution from 100-400 than you do with the sigma 150-500mm. The extra 100mm is not a huge difference (25%) but the resolution on the 100-400 is much better. The sigma does have better image stabilization though but you should be able to crank the ISO pretty high on the 5dIII and it shouldn't be an issue. The overall image quality is a good deal better. The big sigma zooms have considerable quality control issues too so buyer beware. I have a 50-500mm sigma (and I've compared it pretty thoroughly to the 100-400mm that a friend has) and my petite wife has no difficulty doing birds in flight with it and whipping it around quickly even for extended periods of time. The weight and size makes it easier in my opinion for BIF because it is easier to steady than a smaller lens. If you upgrade your firmware you will be able to focus up to f8 without an issue. I recommend pretty strongly against the Canon 1.4 III TC. The IQ is virtually identical to the 1.4 II and the kenko 1.4 300DX but it is 2x the price. Its a good idea if you are going to buy a series II lens as there is a chip in there which improves autofocus with the latest round of big whites. There is a tiny difference between the 1.4 II and the 1.4 III TC and that difference becomes even smaller when you get a kenko instead of the 1.4 II. I love my kenko 1.4 and it also gives you the benefit of using other AF points other than the center one on the 5dIII at f8. You should be able to get much better results with a cropped 5dIII than a 300d. Its not even close even in great light. You have smaller photodiodes so you're putting more MP on your subject and the photodiodes are MARKEDLY better. A 7D will put more photdiodes on your subject than a 5dIII but need to be no higher than ISO 400 to see an improvement over the 5dIII and it will be a splitting hairs type difference. The better AF on the 5dIII will more than make up for the greater pixel density on the 7d in real world applications.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
[*]The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.
[/list]

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

hmm your 5D3 actually has MORE reach, FOV hardly matters when you are distance limited, pixels per Yeti is what counts, so for once we actually see the beast clearly. And your 5D3 will toss more pixels on a Yeti if distance to Yeti is the same and you use the same focal length lens on both cameras. The 300D puts only 6.3MP onto an APS-C frame while the 5D3 puts a touch over 8MP onto an APS-C frame. Don't let the Yeti win! Use the 5D3!

(Plus it focuses way better and you will get crisp details on your shot and clearly be able to see that it is a man in a white fur coat instead of a mysterious foggy, fuzzy Yeti-like thing taken with the 300D.)

 

[Dylan777]

You need to do some more Rithmetic.

The 300D at 400mm gives you a 640mm FF-equivalent FoV, and a 6.3 MP image. The 5DIII at 400mm gives you a 400mm FoV, and a 22 MP image. If you crop the 5DIII image to the 640mm FoV, you'll have an 8.6 MP image with better IQ than the 300D image.

As I've said before, the 'crop factor' reach is an illusion when it comes to IQ - the only thing you're usually giving up is MP in the final image...and in the case of an old APS-C camera like the 300D, you're actually gaining MP with the cropped FF image.

+1...with Neuro. I shoot raw with 5D III. I'm not afraid to crop 50% - 70%. Detail still there.

 

[Don Haines]

Depending on the lens and camera, a cropped image on a shorter lens may give more detail than a longer lens. For example, sigma has a 150-500 and a 120-400. My personal experience was that the 120-400 was able to resolve more detail than the 150-500..... And neither lens will touch the Canon 400mm.

I have tried teleconverters on all 3 lenses and despite the 1.4 times magnification, on the sigma lenses the cropped pictures without the teleconverters showed more detail, the Canon 400mm was slightly better, but not by any significant amount.

This seems to tell me that the limitation is the resolving power of the lens. Adding a teleconverter further degrades the image. To get improvements with a teleconverter you need a high quality lens and a high quality teleconverter, high enough quality that the combination is still above the resolving quality of the sensor.

An APS-C sensor, with its higher pixel density, will reach this resolving limitation sooner than a FF sensor..... So although it may have a longer reach, unless you have super quality lenses, it will be a poorer quality longer reach, and that's why in so many cases the FF camera with shorter reach shows more detail on that far away object.