Posted by Elliott Neep on March 7, 2007 at 4:47 AM
I'm calling on the vast collective product knowledge base that is UKNP. I am debating on a new super telephote lens. It has come down to the Canon 600F4 IS or the Sigma 300-800. I love the canon lens but I have heard great things (especially from Phil T) about the Sigma. What I'm looking for is the fastest focussing and most robust lens. Any ideas?
To qualify, the lens will be sharper, it will mate with your system better, on the new cameras you will be able to use the AF calibration whereas this is not a given with the Sigma and you own a 1.4 converter which gives you a higher top end that Sigma (840mm) for the same F stop.
But I would look for one second hand or possibly hold off until you see if the rumoured 800mm F5.6 IS Canon DO appears and at what price.
Elliot,
I used the 300-800 on D1x's and then D2x's for many years and I must say I was never disappointed with it. The flexibility that the zoom range gives you simply cannot be underestimated and I used it fully shooting bears in Alaska and kites in Wales.
When I changed system from Nikon to Canon the deciding factor was Image Stabilisation in the long lenses. I agonised over whether to buy another 300-800 for the Canon (to go with the Canon 300 f2.8 IS) or go for the 600 IS. One important consideration was focal length, and as Tom pointed out, the Canon solution is slightly longer. The other consideration was my initial impetus to move in the first place, Image Stabilisation. I went with the Canon 600 and am very happy with the decision. I believe I have already made images with the benefit of IS that I could not have with the 300-800 - I'm thinking specifically about a hand held owl in flight shot here.
On the flip side of that coin however is the messing about changing lenses and TC's will lose me some images too, not to mention that I now carry two heavy lenses instead of one b****y heavy lens.
Summing up - I love the IS and it suits my approach to photography well but I do miss the huge zoom range of the 300-800. Not enough to buy another one at this time though.
1 it's a canon with IS and therefore should be properly calibrated to your system (of course this is not always true)
2 it has a focus limit switch which the Sigma does not so the autofocus should be faster.
con's
1 it's heavy and its big and white
2 can be troublesome to take on as hand luggage
3 you will have to invest in a really good tripod and possibly a gimble head as you really won't be hand holding it
sigma pro's
1 it's reasonably light it has great image quality throughout it's zoom range.
2 it is not white.
con's
1 it's ridiculously large llike the canon.
2 the autofocus will be slower than the canon because of no focus limit switch.
3 it has no IS (personally not a great problem for me)
They are both extremely well made and should give years of trouble-free use all the latest Sigma lenses come with a reprogrammable chip so it is a simple matter of having them reprogrammed for any new body that it may not work with which is usually carried out for free by Sigma.
The rumoured 800mm F5.6 IS Canon DO is just that a rumour it will never appear they were some images on the net but the images where a modified 400.
Warehouse express weights:
Sigma 800mm prime 4.9Kg
Canon 600mm prime 5.3Kg
Sigma 300-800mm 5.9kg
I guess you have weigh up what's more important to you, IS or more range. I know you do tigers so perhaps the zoom would be more useful.
You could carry a 300mm with your 600mm, but that's a little heavier.
Hi Tom / JohnS LOL I was thinking of my 800 prime drrrr sometime's the light is on but there is nobody at home. .
Phillip.
Posted by Elliott Neep on March 7, 2007 at 6:33 AM
Hi all,
Thanks for the advice. Seems to be a general consensus. At the moment my longest lens is the EF300 2.8. Doing water voles and hares recently has really left me wanting in the focal length department. It grieves me to have £3000 worth of glass and then put £250 glass in between the lens and camera. Kind of defeats the purpose of having pro glass. At the moment I use full-frame DSLRs but I am seriously looking at the 1Dmk3. I have two further queries regarding these lenses though:
Support: Currently own a Gitzo 1325 and RRS55 head. Will this support these larger lenses? I will probably get a Gimbal anyway.
Minimum focus: Which lens can focus most closely and retain the sharpness?
Support wise I used a 1325 and King Cobra head for both lenses and have no issues there, gimbal is most definately the way to go with these lenses. If I was buying again I'd go for a wimberley though - the Cobra side mount, I'm sure, will one day cause disaster. It's not always easy mounting such a weight sideways!!
I believe that the 600 focuses closer than the 300-800 and extension tubes will also help you here but at the cost of the loss of infinity focus.
Hmm Just a thought, and possibly a cheaper option?
You mention you use full frame, IE a 1DS or 1DSII... The 1DIIN/III would offer a bit of crop, but what about going to a 30D or 400D? the 10mp crop sensor of the 400D may be what your after... though i cant comment on the auto focus.
It was due to the need for a hign mp crop sensor in a good body that i went nikon.
I had a 600mm Nikkor when I had nikon kit on FF (F5) I moved to a 500mm with Canon and, whilst I will say that occasionally I miss the range, I really think it is a better all round wildlife lens as it can be handheld (with practice) and it doesn't kill your back on a long trek. That extra approx 2kg of a 600mm+ is a lot of weight and hampers manoverability when not on a gimbal, especially on a grab shot out of a car window.
That said I still hanker after another 600mm
Posted by Elliott Neep on March 7, 2007 at 8:00 AM
Hi Tom, yes I would have to agree. I have seriously considered the 500 and still am considering it for its all round use. Its just that extra bit of reach isn't it. If there are any Canon reps out there, can I trial both for a couple of months?
Paul, I have had a play with the 400D & 30D but I have used series 1 canon bodies for too long. To be honest, the build quality and feel is not as good IMO I also have to satisfy agents who prefer the larger files.
If you travel abroad also consider the lens lengths, I'm not sure what the stats of the Sigmonster are, but the Canon 600 is just about squeezable into cabin bag limits of the mainstream airlines, ie non budget airlines, a 500mm is of course easiest of all.
Budget airline travel is a nightmare for big lenses - I can just about squeeze my 500 F4.5 into current "Ryanair" legal rolling hard luggage (stripped out non camera designed), but prefer to travel lighter with the Oly equipment to avoid weight arguments
Posted by szekiat chan on March 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I've used the 300-800 for over a year now and have no regrets moving away from the canon series. I use it on the 20D and admittedly, its rather lacking in the AF department, but i have no problems when focusing on birds on perches, even unsteady ones like long tailed tits and flycatchers. Its lack of a focus limiter is irritating, but i make up by doing on a combi of MF-AF-MF. I've been using this style since i shot a 400 2.8 and its always worked for me. I MF into the target range, use AF to achieve an initial lock on, and then fine focus with MF. The canon lenses also have variable MF speeds and this helps for my technique.
I think the biggest single advantage of the sigma is its zoom capability. It allows me to work well from hides without moving and disturbing my subjects. I always have a bit of a laugh when ppl need to start fiddling, because of nearer subjects.
Price wise, a sigma is about the same price range as a 600 non-IS and weigh the same as well. Image quality at 5.6 is excellent and comparable with the 600 IS at 5.6. I'm not sure if the 600 with a 1.4 at 5.6 will stack up as well to be honest. At f8, they are both equal. The Sigma also works well with a 1.4x and i used this combi extensively while shooting in borneo.
I think the best way really is to try out both lenses. I'd like to extend an offer to both the TS and TomW to try it mine out if they are ever in London. Use it on a 1 series body, and AF stops becoming too much of an issue. Its not speed king, but it sure is bang for buck value for money!!!!
Posted by Elliott Neep on August 3, 2007 at 5:49 AM
A quick word of thanks to all that contributed to this thread. I took a lot into consideration and played with both. I'm now waiting delivery of my Canon 600F4 IS. For me the IS wins over the longer focal length of the Sigma, although admittedly, the picture quality of the Sigma is also excellent. I do a lot of photography in low light and the IS gives me the extra critical stops. I can't bloody wait to get my hands on it!!!!! I've been stuck in doors for weeks now and it looks like the first trial this baby is gonna have is trained on a wildebeest on the Mara plains. At 12lb it will probably give me the hernia the docs have warned me about hehehe. Still, you can't grumble!
Welcome to the 600mm IS club ( Yes I move back to one about 3 weeks ago). For general portability have a look at one of these Beach Rolly
Posted by Elliott Neep on August 3, 2007 at 6:26 AM
LOL! Do they not do one in Advantage Timber? How about an electric powered one, like those golf strollers? hehehe! Would probably save the hernia though, so thanks. Didn't realise there was a 'club'... Do I get a badge?
Discussion
20 repliesTo qualify, the lens will be sharper, it will mate with your system better, on the new cameras you will be able to use the AF calibration whereas this is not a given with the Sigma and you own a 1.4 converter which gives you a higher top end that Sigma (840mm) for the same F stop.
But I would look for one second hand or possibly hold off until you see if the rumoured 800mm F5.6 IS Canon DO appears and at what price.
T
I used the 300-800 on D1x's and then D2x's for many years and I must say I was never disappointed with it. The flexibility that the zoom range gives you simply cannot be underestimated and I used it fully shooting bears in Alaska and kites in Wales.
When I changed system from Nikon to Canon the deciding factor was Image Stabilisation in the long lenses. I agonised over whether to buy another 300-800 for the Canon (to go with the Canon 300 f2.8 IS) or go for the 600 IS. One important consideration was focal length, and as Tom pointed out, the Canon solution is slightly longer. The other consideration was my initial impetus to move in the first place, Image Stabilisation. I went with the Canon 600 and am very happy with the decision. I believe I have already made images with the benefit of IS that I could not have with the 300-800 - I'm thinking specifically about a hand held owl in flight shot here.
On the flip side of that coin however is the messing about changing lenses and TC's will lose me some images too, not to mention that I now carry two heavy lenses instead of one b****y heavy lens.
Summing up - I love the IS and it suits my approach to photography well but I do miss the huge zoom range of the 300-800. Not enough to buy another one at this time though.
My 300-800 is currently for sale by the way.
Good luck with your decision.
Regards
JohnS
1 it's a canon with IS and therefore should be properly calibrated to your system (of course this is not always true)
2 it has a focus limit switch which the Sigma does not so the autofocus should be faster.
con's
1 it's heavy and its big and white
2 can be troublesome to take on as hand luggage
3 you will have to invest in a really good tripod and possibly a gimble head as you really won't be hand holding it
sigma pro's
1 it's reasonably light it has great image quality throughout it's zoom range.
2 it is not white.
con's
1 it's ridiculously large llike the canon.
2 the autofocus will be slower than the canon because of no focus limit switch.
3 it has no IS (personally not a great problem for me)
They are both extremely well made and should give years of trouble-free use all the latest Sigma lenses come with a reprogrammable chip so it is a simple matter of having them reprogrammed for any new body that it may not work with which is usually carried out for free by Sigma.
The rumoured 800mm F5.6 IS Canon DO is just that a rumour it will never appear they were some images on the net but the images where a modified 400.
Phillip.
Ps I bet that not many will say get the Sigma.
Regards
JohnS
The canon is about half a kilo lighter than the Sigma - the sigma ain't called the Sigmonster for nothing
Of course the other small issue that differentates them is the Sigma is its about £1500 cheaper.
I'd love to have a play with the sigma if anybody has it in a Canon Mount.
Sigma 800mm prime 4.9Kg
Canon 600mm prime 5.3Kg
Sigma 300-800mm 5.9kg
I guess you have weigh up what's more important to you, IS or more range. I know you do tigers so perhaps the zoom would be more useful.
You could carry a 300mm with your 600mm, but that's a little heavier.
Tim
Phillip.
Thanks for the advice. Seems to be a general consensus. At the moment my longest lens is the EF300 2.8. Doing water voles and hares recently has really left me wanting in the focal length department. It grieves me to have £3000 worth of glass and then put £250 glass in between the lens and camera. Kind of defeats the purpose of having pro glass. At the moment I use full-frame DSLRs but I am seriously looking at the 1Dmk3. I have two further queries regarding these lenses though:
Support: Currently own a Gitzo 1325 and RRS55 head. Will this support these larger lenses? I will probably get a Gimbal anyway.
Minimum focus: Which lens can focus most closely and retain the sharpness?
Cheers all!
I believe that the 600 focuses closer than the 300-800 and extension tubes will also help you here but at the cost of the loss of infinity focus.
Regards
JohnS
300-800mm = 6m
600mm = 5.5m
Manfrotto 393 gimbal, save yourself £400 quid.
Tim
You mention you use full frame, IE a 1DS or 1DSII... The 1DIIN/III would offer a bit of crop, but what about going to a 30D or 400D? the 10mp crop sensor of the 400D may be what your after... though i cant comment on the auto focus.
It was due to the need for a hign mp crop sensor in a good body that i went nikon.
I had a 600mm Nikkor when I had nikon kit on FF (F5) I moved to a 500mm with Canon and, whilst I will say that occasionally I miss the range, I really think it is a better all round wildlife lens as it can be handheld (with practice) and it doesn't kill your back on a long trek. That extra approx 2kg of a 600mm+ is a lot of weight and hampers manoverability when not on a gimbal, especially on a grab shot out of a car window.
That said I still hanker after another 600mm
Paul, I have had a play with the 400D & 30D but I have used series 1 canon bodies for too long. To be honest, the build quality and feel is not as good IMO
Budget airline travel is a nightmare for big lenses - I can just about squeeze my 500 F4.5 into current "Ryanair" legal rolling hard luggage (stripped out non camera designed), but prefer to travel lighter with the Oly equipment to avoid weight arguments
I think the biggest single advantage of the sigma is its zoom capability. It allows me to work well from hides without moving and disturbing my subjects. I always have a bit of a laugh when ppl need to start fiddling, because of nearer subjects.
Price wise, a sigma is about the same price range as a 600 non-IS and weigh the same as well. Image quality at 5.6 is excellent and comparable with the 600 IS at 5.6. I'm not sure if the 600 with a 1.4 at 5.6 will stack up as well to be honest. At f8, they are both equal. The Sigma also works well with a 1.4x and i used this combi extensively while shooting in borneo.
I think the best way really is to try out both lenses. I'd like to extend an offer to both the TS and TomW to try it mine out if they are ever in London. Use it on a 1 series body, and AF stops becoming too much of an issue. Its not speed king, but it sure is bang for buck value for money!!!!