best NON L long lens
- Thread starter jimjamesjimmy
- Start date
- Status
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM APO MACRO (needs to be that exact model, the last generation, to work on an D-EOS) optically the peer of the Canon EF 400 5.6L, better in fact according to photozone.de, but cheap.
As I say, any other model has the potential to brick on your camera, but this one is a goody if you can find it.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/306-sigma-af-400mm-f56-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review?start=2
As I say, any other model has the potential to brick on your camera, but this one is a goody if you can find it.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/306-sigma-af-400mm-f56-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review?start=2
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Okay I own or have owned the 55-250 EF-S (not relevant since you want full frame) the Tamron 70-300 VC, the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L. I have also rented the 300 L f4 and the 400 L f5.6.
My opinion:
The 55-250 EF-S, the 100-400 L and the Tamron 70-300 VC are all very good lenses and generally quite sharp.
The 70-300 L is sharper, weather sealed and generally a better lens overall, but we are talking margins here. Is it worth the price? Probably not. But I wanted it badly and bought it anyway. I don't regret it. I use it along with my 15-85 as a two-lens kit that covers almost every situation.
The 300 L was sharp, nice and a stop faster so it took a 1.4x converter. But, it was shorter than I wanted and not as flexible without the zoom.
The 400 5.6 L is light and sharp but doesn't have IS and since it isn't a zoom it also isn't as flexible and it takes up a lot of space due to its length.
While the 100-400 L is not quite as sharp as the 70-300 L, it is sharp enough and the extra 100mm is pretty critical for shooting critters.
The 70-300 Tamron is as sharp as the 100-400 and the 55-250, which means it is sharp. It does have a tendency to hunt a little on autofocus sometimes. Not sure what the problem was and it may have just been an anomaly. A minor nuisance, not a deal breaker.
Since the 55-250 doesn't work for your needs (full frame) I would say the lowest cost solution is the Tamron VC. Is it as good as the Canon L? Obviously not, but it's almost $1,000 cheaper. If you don't need a zoom, then maybe the 300 f4 or the 400 f5.6 would work for you, but for the marginal difference in price, I went with the zooms.
I got my 100-400 L as a refurbished. They haven't had it in stock for awhile, but there have been some good prices lately, still, it is also about $1,000 more than the Tamron.
All in all, I'd say the Tamron is the best value 70-300 lens out there next to the 55-250 (which you can't use.) If you need longer length, you are going to pay for it.
I thought the opinion of someone who actually has owned or rented these lenses might help.
My opinion:
The 55-250 EF-S, the 100-400 L and the Tamron 70-300 VC are all very good lenses and generally quite sharp.
The 70-300 L is sharper, weather sealed and generally a better lens overall, but we are talking margins here. Is it worth the price? Probably not. But I wanted it badly and bought it anyway. I don't regret it. I use it along with my 15-85 as a two-lens kit that covers almost every situation.
The 300 L was sharp, nice and a stop faster so it took a 1.4x converter. But, it was shorter than I wanted and not as flexible without the zoom.
The 400 5.6 L is light and sharp but doesn't have IS and since it isn't a zoom it also isn't as flexible and it takes up a lot of space due to its length.
While the 100-400 L is not quite as sharp as the 70-300 L, it is sharp enough and the extra 100mm is pretty critical for shooting critters.
The 70-300 Tamron is as sharp as the 100-400 and the 55-250, which means it is sharp. It does have a tendency to hunt a little on autofocus sometimes. Not sure what the problem was and it may have just been an anomaly. A minor nuisance, not a deal breaker.
Since the 55-250 doesn't work for your needs (full frame) I would say the lowest cost solution is the Tamron VC. Is it as good as the Canon L? Obviously not, but it's almost $1,000 cheaper. If you don't need a zoom, then maybe the 300 f4 or the 400 f5.6 would work for you, but for the marginal difference in price, I went with the zooms.
I got my 100-400 L as a refurbished. They haven't had it in stock for awhile, but there have been some good prices lately, still, it is also about $1,000 more than the Tamron.
All in all, I'd say the Tamron is the best value 70-300 lens out there next to the 55-250 (which you can't use.) If you need longer length, you are going to pay for it.
I thought the opinion of someone who actually has owned or rented these lenses might help.
Upvote
0
+1 for the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD. I used it on a Rebel and the focus and VC were really good.
Probably kind of short for birds on a full frame, but all the 400mm lenses are at L price levels.
Probably kind of short for birds on a full frame, but all the 400mm lenses are at L price levels.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
I agree nearly 100%. The 400mm Tele macro is a better lens than the Canon L. It won't brick your Camera if it is an older model, it will give an error message if you stop down but works perfectly well at f/5.6 where it is still very sharp. My non-HSM Tele Macro works at all apertures. So go for any Sigma 400mm f/5.6 Tele Macro - the words Tele Macro are the key ones.
Upvote
0
Honestly $400 on the tamron 70-300? it's a waste if you look around i'm sure you will find a decent priced canon 300f4L or 300 f4L IS
try KEH or craigslist in the US or gumtree in australia
try KEH or craigslist in the US or gumtree in australia
Upvote
0
While there are many lenses that reach 300mm + and are non-L most of those are not going to make even back yard photographers happy.
Granted the thread premise is a non-L lens with 300+ tele power, the reality is that the best bet is probably to get a used L lens and be happy with the result, as opposed to getting a sub-par lens and giving up on getting a good picture. While this doesn't address the ops question, it is what it is.
A budget based criterion (how much do you want to spend) as opposed to a model based plan would probably be better. By the time you spend enough for a poor lens you could probably get a point and shoot with better optics and response. Case in point a PowerShot SX500 IS Digital Camera with 720mm equivalent can be had for $300 at bhphotovideo, and there are others with more reach that should compete in the "not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus" category. Really I am trying to be helpful.
Granted the thread premise is a non-L lens with 300+ tele power, the reality is that the best bet is probably to get a used L lens and be happy with the result, as opposed to getting a sub-par lens and giving up on getting a good picture. While this doesn't address the ops question, it is what it is.
A budget based criterion (how much do you want to spend) as opposed to a model based plan would probably be better. By the time you spend enough for a poor lens you could probably get a point and shoot with better optics and response. Case in point a PowerShot SX500 IS Digital Camera with 720mm equivalent can be had for $300 at bhphotovideo, and there are others with more reach that should compete in the "not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus" category. Really I am trying to be helpful.
Upvote
0
If you can swing a used 300mm f4 IS, i highly recommend it.
One combination I recommend to many photographers is a 70-200 f2.8 (Canon Sigma etc,), and 2X converter. Thats because i think the 70-2002.8 belongs in you bag long before a birding lens does, and with the 2X converter, your have a 400mm f5.6. A friend of mine has this combo as a Sigma, and does quite well.
One combination I recommend to many photographers is a 70-200 f2.8 (Canon Sigma etc,), and 2X converter. Thats because i think the 70-2002.8 belongs in you bag long before a birding lens does, and with the 2X converter, your have a 400mm f5.6. A friend of mine has this combo as a Sigma, and does quite well.
Upvote
0
Dantana said:
Loved the combo on the 7D and T1i, the 200/2.8L is the one lens I have wanted back ever since I sold it.
Long lenses to also consider, Sigma 50-500 and Tamron 200-500mm, but they may not be ideal for the situation.
bwfishing said:
Give up, there isn't any recovery from the 300/2.8, especially once you've handled the mk II version.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
