Michael Clark said:
Chaitanya said:
Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?
It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.
Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.
This is actually not true. I own both the 100-400LII and the Sigma 150-600, and although I the 100-400LII is my preference 95%+ of the time, that is because it's much smaller and easier to get good a handheld shot with, it has superior (more consistent and faster) autofocus, it has mode 3 IS, and it has a vastly superior MF ring.
Plus, in virtually all cases cases, getting close enough to take a 400mm photo will yield a sueprior photo to a 600mm photo.
However, you can't always get closer, and on two tripod shots, if a bird is perfectly framed and focused at 600mm,
losing 1/3 of the optical resolution will make it an inferior photo. Likewise, at 560mm f/8, the Canon will only take superior photos to the Sigma at f/6.3 if there's a lot of light. If it's a question between ISO 320 and ISO 640, the Sigma shot will be better after post every time (assuming perfect focus).
The big difference is that for me the Sigma takes perfect photos on a tripod, while the 400 is great either handheld or with a monopod. More often than not, I'm out looking for interesting bird shots, not looking to shoot a one specific bird shot, and a handheld/monopod lens yields more opportunities. But if I know what I'm shooting and I need the reach (for instance, there's a body of water separating me and the subject), the Sigma is a great deal -- especially given the price.
For the Nikon 200-500, I think it's actually a bit disappointing at 500; unlike the Sigma (mine is razor sharp at 600), the Nikon seems a little soft, at least on the copy I was playing with.