Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cedric_r
I've been agonising for a while now on which lens to buy for nature photography (possibly occasionally sport). I have a budget that I can stretch up to £1000 ($1700 or so) and I've selected 3 that fit:
- The Sigma 50-500.
- The Tamron 200-500.
- The Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
For flexibility, the Sigma is more appealing because if you need to make photos of things closer (e.g. sport), you don't need to change the lens. But then 100mm isn't that far off 50mm, so the Canon is still reasonable. As far as I can tell, the Tamron is better optically than the Sigma, and cheaper. The killer appeal of the Canon is IS which I hope would mean that decent photos can be done handheld, but it's definitively more expensive than the other two (I could buy the Tamron 200-400 + Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the same price and have change left).
So I appeal to you all: put me out of misery, which would you advise me to buy?
|
Cedric,
I'm in the same boat. Considered the same suspects and have decided upon the Canon 100-400.
I hope to pick it up later this spring. There isn't a Lemon in this group, but alll around, the Canon is the
most versatile with the IS.
The "Push-Pull" design of the Canon also allows for quicker subject acquisition.
Some interesting links that mention the 100-400
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4is.html
Yeah, you can shoot birds with the 1-4
http://www.birdsasart.com/bn192.htm
Review of the Sigma "Bigma" and Canon 100-400
http://www.michaelfurtman.com./produ...m#Lens Reviews
A nice review of the Tamron 200-500
http://www.photofocus.com/showarchive.php?aid=224&cid=1