| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2004 06:29:48 PM · #1 |
Hello.
I know you guys must be tired of all my lens posts, but I'm really whishy-washy and I need your input.
I'm thinking of buying a good tele zoom lens in the next year. My two options right now are the Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO and the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. I don't like the push-pull zoom the Canon has, so I'm leaning towards the Sigma. What do you guys think? Both have rated very similarly on photographyreview.com, but people seem to have more complaints about the Canon. Plus, once again, the Sigma is cheaper.
June
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 18:30:50.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:14:33 PM · #2 |
| June, I'd get the Canon 100-400 anytime over the Sigma. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:21:30 PM · #3 |
Juneisy,
Can't give you advice on Canon glass, but doctornick takes some very good shots. For what it is worth, the Sigma Ex series is quite good. They have a 50-500 that is very popular with bird watchers. I'll edit here in a moment with a couple of examples.
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 20:23:39. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:27:25 PM · #4 |
| While I own and love the Sigma 50-500 if you can afford the Canon, I would be very tempted to go that way. Future re-chipping and the IS would be the best reasons to go canon. The extra reach, the lower price and the fact that it isn't white argue for the sigma. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:42:30 PM · #5 |
I'm not thinking about the sigma 50-500, but the Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO. OS stands for Optical Stabilizer, or something like that.
June
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:14:56 PM · #6 |
| I also am thinking about the Sigma 80-400mm. From what I've read, it seems like the lens to buy for me. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:28:08 PM · #7 |
Although I haven't used the Sigma, I do have a friend who has one and borrowed my 100-400L. He loved the Canon and offered to swap.. I declined.
Another vote for the Canon from me, a couple of examples:
 |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 10:37:26 PM · #8 |
One thing that I would strongly recommend is to consider the weight of the lens. the Canon 100-400mm is 0.5 lbs lighter than the Sigma 80-400mm. That's not something to sneeze at.
I'm looking into a 80-400mm lens as well and I'm willing to fork out the extra $200 for a 0.6 lbs difference with the Nikkor 80-400mm.
Just a thought. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:43:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by dan_pendleton:
Although I haven't used the Sigma, I do have a friend who has one and borrowed my 100-400L. He loved the Canon and offered to swap.. I declined.
Another vote for the Canon from me, a couple of examples:
|
Dan...
Nice pics.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 21:43:47. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 12:45:51 AM · #10 |
And while I know you are not considering it, just to make you chioce harder I thought I might share the fact that my 50-500 is almost never set below 400mm. The canon 70-200 2.8 with a 2X teleconverter will get you to 400 with the same minimum f stop as the 100-400 with the same IS and better CA. Once you have the reach out to 500mm it is awfully hard to shoot shorter. Generally I wheel it out till it goes "clunk" then I compose.
    4 @ 500
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 01:36:24. |
|
|
|
08/25/2004 10:44:46 PM · #11 |
Anyone want to try and guess where/how I took this yesterday? Is that actually an eagle?
 |
|
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: 09/11/2025 09:45:59 PM EDT.
