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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Long lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/09/2004 03:25:15 PM · #1
Like I have said before, I'm saving so I can get myself a good long lens. My two choices are the Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS and the Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 EX OS. However, I recently got a new idea. Do you think it would be better if I got the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS and a 2X extender instead? I'd like to hear your opinion.

June

Message edited by author 2004-09-09 15:26:21.
 09/09/2004 03:31:52 PM · #2
The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with a 2x extender is not as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. Check the review at Luminous Landscape where Michael Reichmann compares just that combination you are thinking about. Click here for the review.
 09/09/2004 03:36:48 PM · #3
Does Canon offer a 1.5x or 1.7x extender? Might be sharper than a 2x.
 09/09/2004 03:46:19 PM · #4
Originally posted by Maverick:
Does Canon offer a 1.5x or 1.7x extender? Might be sharper than a 2x.


Yes, they do, but then I wouldn't have the same focal length.

june
 09/09/2004 04:21:17 PM · #5
I have both the 70-200L/IS and the 100-400L/IS...and are serious staples of my bag Both of them are absolute wonders but the 70-200 w/ a series II 1.6x is no way a replacement of the 100-400. Having said that, realizing the expense, I would clearly start with the 70-200L/IS and a 1.6-II for sure. --> then when the money presents itself spring for the 100-400.

Incidentally, the 70-200L is my personal fav...but remember that with a 1Ds full frame its also a true 70-200 as compared to a 300D with a 1.6 factor already in the mix. You just cant go wrong with the 70-200L no matter what.
 09/09/2004 04:36:45 PM · #6
Originally posted by jefalk:
I have both the 70-200L/IS and the 100-400L/IS...and are serious staples of my bag Both of them are absolute wonders but the 70-200 w/ a series II 1.6x is no way a replacement of the 100-400. Having said that, realizing the expense, I would clearly start with the 70-200L/IS and a 1.6-II for sure. --> then when the money presents itself spring for the 100-400.

Incidentally, the 70-200L is my personal fav...but remember that with a 1Ds full frame its also a true 70-200 as compared to a 300D with a 1.6 factor already in the mix. You just cant go wrong with the 70-200L no matter what.


The 70-200 is actually more expensive than the 100-400 and even more so when you add the extender. So, I guess that's settled! back to my two original choices!
June
 09/09/2004 04:52:38 PM · #7
get the bigma. 50-500.
 09/09/2004 04:55:03 PM · #8
I have tried the Canon 100-400 L in the camera store and was quite impressed, but have not tried the Sigma 80-400 yet. My understanding is that the Sigma lacks the HSM focussing and is actually quite a bit slower to focus that the Canon. Just something to look out for. It will depend on your shooting habits, but for me, faster focus would be worth the $200 or so price difference to get the Canon.
 09/09/2004 04:55:50 PM · #9
Juneisy, what are you using it for? How about a Canon 300/4L IS ($1150) or a 400/5.6L ($1100).

Harrison has a point about the 50-500.. I was reading the reviews on Fred Miranda, and it did much better than I thought it would.. Supposedly it's not as good as a 100-400 though.
 09/09/2004 04:55:59 PM · #10
Originally posted by hsteg:
get the bigma. 50-500.


No IS/OS. I can't get sharp pictures at 300 imagine 500!

June
 09/09/2004 05:25:54 PM · #11
Just a little correction, Canon has 1.4X and 2x extenders. There are no Canon 1.6x extenders. June I'd get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, with your Rebel it's the equivalent of a 112-320 f/2.8 IS zoom. As someone else mentioned the 300mm f/4L IS is worth considering, I have it and it's a fantastic lens that works well with the 1.4X extender. See the image below shot with the 300 with the 1.4x extender.


09/09/2004 05:28:07 PM · #12
Nice shot Nick.. Also, I've heard on the grape vine that the 1.4x TC (and I guess 2x TC) works better on longer lenses. Hence it'll be better on a 300 than it would a 70-200..

I believe fredmiranda.com/reviews has reviews of the TCs listed..
 09/09/2004 05:29:00 PM · #13
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Originally posted by hsteg:
get the bigma. 50-500.


No IS/OS. I can't get sharp pictures at 300 imagine 500!

June

get a tripod too, or maybe even a monopod.
 09/09/2004 05:32:05 PM · #14
Originally posted by chiqui74:
Originally posted by hsteg:
get the bigma. 50-500.


No IS/OS. I can't get sharp pictures at 300 imagine 500!

June


See thread. You may want to contact Alice.
 09/09/2004 05:32:07 PM · #15
a note at correcting myself - its a 1.4x not a 1.6 [don't know why that stuck in my head]... Either one is a great choice
09/09/2004 05:53:28 PM · #16
If weight (and cost) is a factor, you might also want to consider a Sigma 170-500mm. When I was using film and a Nikon, I had a fine time with this lens. Contrary to the heavy 50-500mm Sigma, I could handhold the 170-500 easily and got some pretty good pictures with it. B & H has it for about $640.

I haven't looked at any reviews but it's been around for a while now.

Alice
 09/09/2004 06:01:18 PM · #17
Originally posted by sfalice:
If weight (and cost) is a factor, you might also want to consider a Sigma 170-500mm. When I was using film and a Nikon, I had a fine time with this lens. Contrary to the heavy 50-500mm Sigma, I could handhold the 170-500 easily and got some pretty good pictures with it. B & H has it for about $640.

I haven't looked at any reviews but it's been around for a while now.

Alice


I was just telling a friend that I used to think that the 50-500 was a heavy lens. Then I started packing around the 120-300 2.8. The 50-500 now feels really light. I guess what I am trying to say is that if you carry around something heavier for awhile, what you thought was heavy before won't seem so bad. I would also have to say that the Canon 100-400 is just as heavy as the 50-500.
 09/09/2004 06:07:11 PM · #18
Canon 100-400 IS: 3.0 lb
Canon 70-200 IS: 3.2 lb
Canon 70-200: 2.8 lb

Sigma 80-400 OS: 3.6 lb
Sigma 50-500: 4.1 lb
Sigma 170-500: 2.9 lb
Sigma 120-300: 5.73 lb

Edit: Added 120-300..

Message edited by author 2004-09-09 18:08:16.
 09/09/2004 06:07:33 PM · #19
What you really need to know is your style of photog and what you like to shoot. I would not trade my 100-400 for a 70-200 ever! Even tho the 70-200 is perhaps slightly sharper. (IMO it is not when you add converters) When you add converters you can lose AF or IS capabilities too so you want to be sure of how converters affect the 70-200. I love the reach of the long lens. I have a 1.4x converter that I occassionally use on my 100-400L. I really think the difference is the kind of shots you like to take, I love wildlife and candids so I prefer the length of the 400 without losing quality and AF or IS.
(does anyone know how/if the 70-200 is affected by converters?)
 09/09/2004 06:10:47 PM · #20
Originally posted by ellamay:
does anyone know how/if the 70-200 is affected by converters?

Even the supposedly very high quality 1.4x TC seems to affect the 70-200Ls.. Both myself and a colleague shot with a 70-200 and 70-200 IS respectively last weekend, both with the 1.4, and separately came to the conclusion that the shots were softer and focus was off from normal.

Personally, I'd avoid the 2x TC unless I really needed to use it. From the reviews on Fred Miranda it's not supposed to be very hot..

Edit: I've also read other user reviews backing up what you say that the 100-400 is sharper at 400mm than a 70-200 + 2xTC at 400mm.. Although I believe quality does drop off with the 100-400 over 300mm?

Message edited by author 2004-09-09 18:14:02.
 09/09/2004 06:11:13 PM · #21
Originally posted by ellamay:
...(does anyone know how/if the 70-200 is affected by converters?)


The 1.4x is not bad but with the 2x the 100-400 is better. See here.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 05:55:09 PM

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: 09/12/2025 05:55:09 PM EDT.