DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> bigger zooms
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/27/2012 03:35:27 PM · #1
this year if i have the money i want to add something bigger to my bag

seen this 35-350 seems a good walkaround lens with the added length //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=45

looked at the pics on the site for it, wondered if anyone had opinions on this vs the 100-400

or the 50/150-500 sigmas, im tempted by the L though as 1 more L puts me in the canon cps scheme with 4 L's although the sub £400 price of the sigmas is a big draw

was tempted by the 1.4 or 2x converter for my 70-200 as well erm......
 01/27/2012 03:47:02 PM · #2
They are both honking-big, push-pull zooms. I wouldn't call anything that heavy a walkaround, myself. The 35-350 is, pf course, no longer manufactured; Canon has a new, interesting 28-300mm L zoom, and an excellent 70-300mm L zoom as well. But they all are heavy, and the 28-300mm is 2500 bucks worth of expensive as well... I'm very happy with my 100-400mm, but a "walkaround" it's not...

R.
 01/27/2012 04:06:51 PM · #3
giving that the fact im 19 st (270lbs) im used to carrying extra weight around haha, i guess by walk around i meant multi functional i'll use it on my monopod

good point on the end of lining of the 35-350 i'll stay away from it as thats what happened with my 28-70

so 100-400 or the bigmas, im not paying £2500 for a new 28-300, although ive played with one on a 5dmk2 at local canon pro centre a very nice lens

01/27/2012 04:37:49 PM · #4
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
so 100-400 or the bigmas, im not paying £2500 for a new 28-300, although ive played with one on a 5dmk2 at local canon pro centre a very nice lens


The 100-400mm is much nicer than the Bigmas IMO.

R.
 01/27/2012 05:22:30 PM · #5
That 100-400 was dooooope! :)
 01/27/2012 06:45:55 PM · #6
Originally posted by Mousie:
That 100-400 was dooooope! :)


Yup, when fully extended it was nearly as long as the Mouse's beard...

R.
 02/01/2012 09:38:25 AM · #7
went to the local shop today tried the options out, on my 5D

Sigma AF 150-500mm OS F5-6.3 Lens Canon


IMG_3934 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3936 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3941 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3942 by gilesbert, on Flickr

Sigma AF 50-500mm f4-6.3 APO EX HSM Canon EOS


IMG_3944 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3947 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3949 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3950 by gilesbert, on Flickr

sigma APO Tele converter 1.4x DG AF on my 70-200 2.8L


IMG_3957 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3958 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3963 by gilesbert, on Flickr


IMG_3964 by gilesbert, on Flickr

bought the teleconverter :) traded in my Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM for it good swap :)
 02/01/2012 07:46:28 PM · #8
To my eyes it looks as if the Sigma 50-500 is a bit sharper than the 150-500. It's hard to tell because of the shorter focal length how sharp the 70-200 with the tele converter is compared to the others. Do you think the L lens with the tele converter gives better images (even when cropped in to give the same size aspect) than either of the Sigmas? Let's say cost is not a factor. I've been struggling with the idea of getting one of the 500mm sigmas zooms.
 02/01/2012 07:55:07 PM · #9
I can see dust on your sensor? or is it smudges on the building?

Message edited by author 2012-02-01 19:56:43.
 02/01/2012 08:04:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by scooter97:
To my eyes it looks as if the Sigma 50-500 is a bit sharper than the 150-500. It's hard to tell because of the shorter focal length how sharp the 70-200 with the tele converter is compared to the others. Do you think the L lens with the tele converter gives better images (even when cropped in to give the same size aspect) than either of the Sigmas? Let's say cost is not a factor. I've been struggling with the idea of getting one of the 500mm sigmas zooms.


I swear by my Sigma 50-500. I killed the first one in the floods but replaced it immediately...I would never do with out it. It works 10 hours a day at times shooting an average of 2-4000 images in a day at dusty rodeo grounds....right through to the other end of the scale and produces crisp studio images. I even utilise it when I want narrow DOF with vignetting....!

Here is an example.


02/01/2012 08:06:42 PM · #11
at full resolution the L is sharper and the extra f stop is a real plus its an f4 with the converter which is the better dg sigma not the cheaper one, the bigmas were £550 for the no OS one and £625 for the newer one but they are big huls of lenses and wondered if i had room in my bag, plus it was a no cost swap for my old unused lens which really sold it for me :) if i get some more spare cash the 150-500 is appealing.

if i need extra reach i can shoot with my 20d 1.6x > 1.4x > 70-200 giving me almost 480mm at f4, which i'll be doing for sports challenge i reckon

they wer all shot handheld though so monopod etc would help

and yeah my 5d is a dusty girl bu it doesnt bother me like some on here, not being without for a canon clean for a week or two
 02/01/2012 08:35:01 PM · #12
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
at full resolution the L is sharper and the extra f stop is a real plus its an f4 with the converter which is the better dg sigma not the cheaper one, the bigmas were £550 for the no OS one and £625 for the newer one but they are big huls of lenses and wondered if i had room in my bag, plus it was a no cost swap for my old unused lens which really sold it for me :) if i get some more spare cash the 150-500 is appealing.

if i need extra reach i can shoot with my 20d 1.6x > 1.4x > 70-200 giving me almost 480mm at f4, which i'll be doing for sports challenge i reckon

they wer all shot handheld though so monopod etc would help

and yeah my 5d is a dusty girl bu it doesnt bother me like some on here, not being without for a canon clean for a week or two


Seems a good choice for you then. Good luck with it! The 70-200 f/2.8 is a killer lens. I sold mine as it was too short and I felt the 100-400 was a better performer than the 70-200 with a 2x tele.
 02/01/2012 08:35:50 PM · #13
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by scooter97:
To my eyes it looks as if the Sigma 50-500 is a bit sharper than the 150-500. It's hard to tell because of the shorter focal length how sharp the 70-200 with the tele converter is compared to the others. Do you think the L lens with the tele converter gives better images (even when cropped in to give the same size aspect) than either of the Sigmas? Let's say cost is not a factor. I've been struggling with the idea of getting one of the 500mm sigmas zooms.


I swear by my Sigma 50-500. I killed the first one in the floods but replaced it immediately...I would never do with out it. It works 10 hours a day at times shooting an average of 2-4000 images in a day at dusty rodeo grounds....right through to the other end of the scale and produces crisp studio images. I even utilise it when I want narrow DOF with vignetting....!

Here is an example.



Great shots Judy. These look better than what I'm getting with the Canon 100-400
 02/01/2012 08:36:22 PM · #14
Originally posted by scooter97:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by scooter97:
To my eyes it looks as if the Sigma 50-500 is a bit sharper than the 150-500. It's hard to tell because of the shorter focal length how sharp the 70-200 with the tele converter is compared to the others. Do you think the L lens with the tele converter gives better images (even when cropped in to give the same size aspect) than either of the Sigmas? Let's say cost is not a factor. I've been struggling with the idea of getting one of the 500mm sigmas zooms.


I swear by my Sigma 50-500. I killed the first one in the floods but replaced it immediately...I would never do with out it. It works 10 hours a day at times shooting an average of 2-4000 images in a day at dusty rodeo grounds....right through to the other end of the scale and produces crisp studio images. I even utilise it when I want narrow DOF with vignetting....!

Here is an example.



Great shots Judy. These look better than what I'm getting with the Canon 100-400


To be honest...I prefer it to the 100-400mm
 02/01/2012 08:56:14 PM · #15
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by scooter97:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by scooter97:
To my eyes it looks as if the Sigma 50-500 is a bit sharper than the 150-500. It's hard to tell because of the shorter focal length how sharp the 70-200 with the tele converter is compared to the others. Do you think the L lens with the tele converter gives better images (even when cropped in to give the same size aspect) than either of the Sigmas? Let's say cost is not a factor. I've been struggling with the idea of getting one of the 500mm sigmas zooms.


I swear by my Sigma 50-500. I killed the first one in the floods but replaced it immediately...I would never do with out it. It works 10 hours a day at times shooting an average of 2-4000 images in a day at dusty rodeo grounds....right through to the other end of the scale and produces crisp studio images. I even utilise it when I want narrow DOF with vignetting....!

Here is an example.



Great shots Judy. These look better than what I'm getting with the Canon 100-400


To be honest...I prefer it to the 100-400mm


I'll rent one of the Sigmas to see how it compares with the 100-400 on my camera.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/21/2025 01:02:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/21/2025 01:02:23 AM EST.