![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Llama
|
I've been waiting on getting a longer zoom like the Canon 100-400 but have been putting it off while waiting on the verdicts about the Sigma 150-500.
I currently own the Canon 70-200/f4 IS. I had the 150-500, there'd hardly any overlap between the two, so the 70-200 would remain my normal "event" lens (along with my 17-55). However, I'v read a lot of mixed reviews about the 150-500 and I may end up with the 100-400. I'd rather have the longer reach but I don't want to sacrifice much in quality. The problem is, the 70-200 and 100-400 overlap so much. Plus, the 100-400 isn't a whole lot slower. It starts at f/4.5, goes to f/5 around 130mm and f/5.6 at about 250mm, so at 200 it'd still be at f5, only 2/3 stop slower than my current 70-200. So I'm almost thinking that it'd be better to just sell my 70-200/4 and have just the 100-400, or if I really need it, get the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8. I was, for a short while, considering the 400/5.6 but I think I'd really no like having no zoom. And from what I've seen and heard, it seems like it may not be that much better than the 100-400. Thoughts? __________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Camel Breath
|
|
|
__________________
It's all about light, my friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Photocamel Master
|
What do you want to shoot with the 100-400 or the 150-500? The lack of a zoom may not actually be a disadvantage.
Get a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter instead. Adding/removing the teleconverter will give you some more flexibility, especially since the 100-400 is a f/5.6 at the long end anyways, and the IQ at 300mm will be better than any of the other lenses mentioned. |
|
__________________
-Michael Nikon V1 (Black), Nikon V1 (White), Nikon J1/WP-N1 (Red) , Nikon Coolpix AW100 (Orange) and Apple iPhone 4 (White) Find me on the web: Michael Chen Photo |Blog ("coming soon" since before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth)|SportsShooter | California Wildlife |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Dromedary
|
I'm with Michael. I had both. Sold the 100-400. Have a 300/4 and converter (though I sort of wish I had the 300/4 IS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Llama
|
Quote:
![]() So I was really hoping for something that I could afford (and that $1200ish range is what I'd like to stay near), that would have some extra reach. I didn't think that 300mm + 1.4 would quite do it. I have a 1.4 that I was going to use on whatever I get, btw. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Photocamel Master
|
Quote:
There's no cost effective way to get over 300mm. |
|
|
__________________
-Michael Nikon V1 (Black), Nikon V1 (White), Nikon J1/WP-N1 (Red) , Nikon Coolpix AW100 (Orange) and Apple iPhone 4 (White) Find me on the web: Michael Chen Photo |Blog ("coming soon" since before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth)|SportsShooter | California Wildlife |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Llama
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Alpaca
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
Posts: 27
![]() ![]()
CamelKarma: 188
Editing OK?: No
Gallery
|
Blog
|
Get the 100-400mm, Waple - IQ is not an issue (my 100-400 holds up against anything else mentioned here, and is better than any 300mm f/4 + 1.4x I've compared it with, and I've never seen anything from the 400mm f/5.6 prime that makes me think "I couldn't have done that...") and it provides a very welcome versatility...
No IQ issues here (all hand-held, incidentally - I will not be without IS): ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Taping the pins works fine, though it's somewhat body-specific: that is, I used a taped 1.4x + 100-400 all the time on my 30D, but the same rig won't work at all on my 40D. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Llama
|
Thanks Keith.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Alpaca
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
Posts: 27
![]() ![]()
CamelKarma: 188
Editing OK?: No
Gallery
|
Blog
|
Not that I've been able to find, Waple - I've tried the Canon and Kenko Pro 300 1.4s and with either, I just get hunting on the central AF point.
If however, I shift to a peripheral AF point, it will work: and (although it negates the point of using a TC) it will work on the centre point with the lens at c. 350mm or less. I'll be honest though - I'm not missing the extra reach, because the 40D/100-400mm combo is just so good as it is... __________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| « » |
| Share this topic: |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 100-400 IS, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 IS DO ? | colonel | Canon Forum | 21 | 07-03-2008 05:14 PM |
| 70-200 F2.8 IS with 2x convertor vs 100-400 IS | Imagesgranted | Canon Forum | 7 | 04-29-2008 07:03 PM |
| 70-200 f4 + TC or Tokina 400 f5.6? | waple | Canon Forum | 2 | 03-05-2007 10:17 AM |
| 70-200 VR or 80-400 VR? | andynos | Nikon Forum | 11 | 10-14-2006 02:39 PM |
| 70-200 2.8L IS + 1.4 Multiplier vs 100-400 L Lens.... | PhotoJoe | Canon Forum | 5 | 04-25-2006 10:13 PM |