What super-telephoto zooms do you use?
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
Telephoto lens - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
On my last trip I was able to use a 200-500 nikon with a companion D850 at some point. The af seemed much slower than the canon 100-400 II; also in 500 mm they have to close the F a little for better clarity. The guide on the other hand used a nikon D500 with a sigma 150-600. Pesima quality of 500 mm up and AF just very bad. I think my 100-400 II is far superior to those lenses beyond what some reviewers say. Exactly the 100-400 II is the reason why I would not want to change brands
Upvote
0
Absolutely! The Nikon 200-500 is weak at 500mm - from many reviewers and from users I've met - and has slow AF. The Nikon 80-400 has fast AF but mediocre IQ. You need the new Nikon 500mm f/5.6 prime for good IQ and fast AF. The 100-400mm II is tack sharp across the frame at 400mm and has blisteringly fast AF. It helps keep me with Canon.
Upvote
0
Copied from 'bird portrait' thread -
My non scientific assessment after a couple of days of using the Sigma 60-600mm S (and much longer use of the excellent Canon 100-400mm II):
100-400mm II can achieve the best detail / sharpness - if you can get close enough for good framing
60-600mm comes quite close in sharpness and contrast while adding reach for tight framing - if you can handle the weight - or work from a tripod / monopod (the additional kilo of weight, way in front of the camera, makes itself felt...)
100-400 II + 1.4xTC III (so 560mm f/8) lags behind a bit in contrast / sharpness (all on my 7DmkII)
So this new 60-600mm will be used on occasions reserved for photography, where I know I'll need tightest possible framing (or need the massive flexibility in framing of the 10x zoom). When hiking "with the possibility of capturing a nice shot" and in case I know the reach is not critical, I'm using the 100-400 for its lower weight, easier handling and excellent quality.
W.
My non scientific assessment after a couple of days of using the Sigma 60-600mm S (and much longer use of the excellent Canon 100-400mm II):
100-400mm II can achieve the best detail / sharpness - if you can get close enough for good framing
60-600mm comes quite close in sharpness and contrast while adding reach for tight framing - if you can handle the weight - or work from a tripod / monopod (the additional kilo of weight, way in front of the camera, makes itself felt...)
100-400 II + 1.4xTC III (so 560mm f/8) lags behind a bit in contrast / sharpness (all on my 7DmkII)
So this new 60-600mm will be used on occasions reserved for photography, where I know I'll need tightest possible framing (or need the massive flexibility in framing of the 10x zoom). When hiking "with the possibility of capturing a nice shot" and in case I know the reach is not critical, I'm using the 100-400 for its lower weight, easier handling and excellent quality.
W.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
I use the 300 f2.8, it seems I am not a super-telephoto 
200-400 is on my list for the next lens to buy, but its all wibbily wobbly just now with the R and RF mount making me rather concerned about paying large amounts of money then the blasted thing ending up on an adaptor for its lifespan.
200-400 is on my list for the next lens to buy, but its all wibbily wobbly just now with the R and RF mount making me rather concerned about paying large amounts of money then the blasted thing ending up on an adaptor for its lifespan.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
