Posted by David A Bliss on July 31, 2006 at 12:09 AM
As I posted in Dan's thread, I have an older Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO. It is a very good lens, that has done very well for me, with very good contrast and color rendering. The problem is the "Error 99" issue, and I can only use it at 5.6. This limits my DOF, and makes the lens very one dimensional. I would like to replace it, and I was hoping you all could give some opinions. I know, a good L series prime lens is always going to be the best choice, but I just don't have the money to drop on an L 400mm 2.8 or 4.0 DO, and it will take me years to come up with that kind of money. In the meantime, I would like to come up with a suitable replacement.
I have narrowed it down to a handful of lenses. All prices are B&H list.
Canon 400mm 5.6 - $1100 - This would be an exact replacement of the Sigma, with L quality glass. It is the lens I am used to, and with a 1.4 teleconverter, I can extend it to 560mm (896mm on my 10D) at f6.3.
Sigma 50-500mm - $1000 - This has gotten surprisingly good reviews for a zoom, especially one with this focal range, from knowledgeable shooters. It covers the focal range of another lens that I wouldn't mind replacing, a Canon 70-210 4.0 (again, a very sharp lens, but it is pre USM, so it focuses very slowly) so the $60 or so I could get from selling that lens could go toward the new one. A little slow, f6.3 at 500mm (I haven't been able to track down what the f stop is at 400mm, but I haven't tried very hard).
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - $1400 - Again, in the focal range to replace the 70-210mm. The IS is intriguing, also. I haven't read a lot of reviews on this lens, but what I have read makes me think it doesn't blow away the Sigma 50-500mm.
Another option would be a 300mm 2.8 lens with a teleconverter, but that still puts me up in the $3000 range.
Any opinions on these lenses, or any other that I have not listed would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!
Artie Morris (birdsasart.com, likes the Canon 400/5.6 for handholdable flight photography and speaks highly of it.
Sounds like you've already researched the 50-500...
Canon 100-400/nnn has pretty decent sharpness, but focusses slowly. If you're in a dusty area, it can suck in dust internally. A good friend calls this his "dust pump".
A 300/2.8 is actually a pretty good compromise when used with teleconverters. You might consider the Sigma 120-300/2.8. It's only $1200, but rather heavy. Based on the physical measurements, I'm not sure it actually goes all the way to 300mm - but close. I use this once in a while for sports photography and it woeks well. I like the zoom range, also.
You could also do what I did, and form an association of like-minded friends and corporately purchase a 600/4!
Tough choice. Only you can weigh the benefits of zoom flexibility vs. image quality of primes - at the longest focal length, with or without TCs.
I have the 400mm 5.6. Great image quality. Small enough to pack on long day hikes. Can hand hold for action shots with decent light. Great quality with 1.4x TC. Optics still good with 2x TC.
Canon 100-400mm L IS. Obviously convenience of zoom and IS is appealing for many. Highly recommended in situations where you need the variable focal length but can't change lenses because of dust or action. But, zoom is not as important if you will predominantly be shooting at the 400mm end. I've seen numerous comments about noticeable image quality deterioration with the 2x TC. Regarding the "dust-pump" complaints, there are lots of owners who would argue this is totally fiction and physically impossible. So, do some more research on this issue before letting it scare you away.
Canon 300mm 2.8. Great lens but I would find it hard to buy a $$$$ lens knowing that I still need a TC to get it to the focal length that I really need. 300mm is somewhat short for wildlife.
Sigma 50-500mm. Great price and focal length range. Can't comment on the image quality.
Posted by Brent Murphy on July 31, 2006 at 10:19 AM
I've heard good reviews on the Tamron 200-500, but can't comment on it directly.
Posted by David A Bliss on July 31, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Thanks everyone!
Brent, I was actually going to post a question about the Tamron 200-500, as someone on another forum mentioned it. I will have to research reviews of it, and see how it stacks up.
Ken and Bill, thanks for your comments! I actually read about the "dust pump" problem on the Canon 100-400. My Canon 70-210 has the same type of zoom, and I have never noticed a problem with it blowing dust on the sensor (but I will keep an eye on it, maybe I just haven't noticed that that is when I get dust!). The 100-400 is an L series, so it will have rubber gaskets and be more tightly built. I think what it tends to do is blow dust around that is already inside the camera. I think it is being dropped off of my list, anyway. I haven't heard enough good things to get me excited about it.
I am going to research the Tamron, but I think I am leaning toward the Canon 400mm, with a 1.4 converter for those times I need a little longer focal length. Of course, I will keep my eyes on ebay, to see if any of the above mentioned lenses ends up selling cheaply (I know, pipe dream! ).
Then I guess I'll start saving to replace the 70-210 with the 70-200 2.8, either Canon or Sigma. Does anyone have an opinion on the 70-300 IS?
When I eventually get a lens, I will post my opinions on it here. It is still going to be another couple of months, though
Posted by David A Bliss on July 31, 2006 at 11:17 AM
<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/" target="blank">Here</a> is a link to a fairly extensive test of the Tamron 200-500.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/
While the zoom is always handy, I still think I am leaning toward the 400mm 5.6 prime.
Posted by Scott Buckel on July 31, 2006 at 2:39 PM
I did not know that the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 was that inexpensive (relatively speaking). I know a number of photographers using it and think it is great. I think Joe MacDonald carries one and he told me that it was a much better lens than the 100-400 from Canon. I have looked at several raw images from that lens and they looked great.
This lens sounds incredible, and at $2400, with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter ($170 and $190, respectively) all of a sudden you have a 120-300mm 2.8, a 168-420mm 4, and a 240-600mm 5.6, all for less than $3000. And, with the teleconverters being dedicated, they produce sharper images than probably even a Canon teleconverter would, and you keep auto focus!!
Boy, this throws another level of complexity into the mix! I might have to track one of these down at a local store, and see for myself!
I'll just add a little food for thought.
The Sigma 120-300 probably is a great lens (correct price of $2400 new).
A while back I had the same issue but $1500 was an absolute max price that I could afford.
I was considering the Canon 100-400 against the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX w/1.4 TC. At first I didn't like the idea of having to buy the TC with the Sigma but most reviews said it was great.
The 100-400 had issues with sharpness at the long end especially when wide open - which is what you typically want when shooting critters. To shoot at f8 (to avoid softness) seemed to negate the usefulness of the IS. Then there was the possibility of dust entry! Regardless of sucking in dust or just blowing it around it didn't sound like a good idea to me especially with digital.
I opted for the Sigma lens/TC combo. It maintains f4 (f5.4 with TC) through the whole zoom range, is very sharp wide open and still excellent with the TC. The zoom is all internal so there is no "long and short"
The Canon lens also cost almost twice as much ($1400).
This Sigma may not have the reach you want but it's just a thought. If you can afford the f2.8 - go for it!
Another thought, the 10D has very little noise at ISO 400. You can change the ISO and "make up" for that light fall off on an f4 lens pretty cheaply. You pay a lot for that extra stop of light on a lens, although I'm sure it's worth it when shooting in the twilight and dawn hours and you don't want to boost the ISO anymore.
I heard that Canon 400 5.6 is a really nice lens. I also use the Canon 300 f/4 with the image stabilizer.
I usually take that along with me when I am going hiking and I do not want to lug around the 500mm and the tripod.
You might not be asking about this lens, but I have the 70-300 DO IS. The main advantage of this lens for me is that is takes 1/3 the space in my bag that the 70-200 did, because it is short and can fit vertically in a backpack, whereas the longer lenses have to be placed horizontally and take the same space as 3 vertical lenses. This is not the sharpest lens but it can make good 16x24's - you just have to do a strong local contrast enhancement in post. It focuses fast and the IS works great.
Thanks Chuck! That actually makes me think even more of going with the Sigma 120-300mm with both TCs. I have found the lens a little cheaper at a couple of NYC mail order locations that have local pickup, and I might be visiting NYC again sooner than later. I'm hoping to get the entire package (lens and both TCs) for about $2500. That will get me from 120mm f2.8 to 600mm f5.6 for half (or less) of what one 2.8 prime canon lens would cost. And it sounds like the image quality is excellent to acceptable all the way through the achievable focal range.
I rarely shoot the 10D at ISO 400. Actually, I don't often go up to 200. Having shot Velvia for so long, 100 ISO seems fast! 200 still has very good image quality, but I have noticed some noise issues at 400. I am just waiting for the price of the 20D to drop, which I hope it will after Christmas. It seems there are a lot of them out on the market, and they are not selling well. If the price drops enough, I would absolutely buy the 20D over the 30D. Or maybe I will wait a little longer and see what Canons next release is going to be!
BTW, if I do make it out to NYC, we can discuss a "film run." When I was at the B&H store in NYC a few years ago, film was even less expensive than mail order cost.
Dan and Tony, thanks for the info. This is getting more complicated, and it was supposed to get easier!! Sometimes I think I over think the whole thing, but I have enough great pictures ruined by soft lenses that I really want to try and get the best I can afford.
Tony, I definately thought about the 70-300 IS, especially when I was pretty sure I was going with the Canon 400 5.6. It would fill in the 100-300 range that I need to upgrade. But if the Sigma 120-300 ends up being as good as advertised, I wouldn't need to worry about that range anymore. I would have a small gap between 105 and 120, but I can live with that!
David I have the Sigma 50 - 500 and it's a great lens. Very sharp images and good focus speed. Some people complain that's it a little heavy, but hey it's a 500mm it's going to be a little heavy. The two problems I have with it is if you add a TC you can only manaul focus and once you get to around 300mm it's a f6.3. You need a lot of light if you are shooting any movement. If you can afford the 2.8 I would go that route if you need the speed. Hope this helps.
Thanks Brian! No, I can't really afford it, but like I said earlier, I really want to get the best I can possibly afford, so I am willing to save up a couple more months, I think. What your comment does tell me, though, is that the Sigma pro line lenses are very nice, sharp lenses. Maybe not Canon 2.8 quality, but good enough that I won't feel like I am settling for poor quality just because I can't afford the really high end glass. There was a time when a $200 lens was my price range, so I had to settle for old used or very cheap.
I seem to be one of the few people here who actually owns a Canon 100-400 L lens.
I bought it in Jan. 1999. It was finally cleaned in February , 2006. I don't think that is too
bad. It goes with me every where I do. It has preformed well for me. If you were to believe
all the rumors on the net, you would have a very light lens bag.
I had the 50-500 Bigma for over a year. I never had a problem with the sharpness of the lens. But I was never happy with contrast/color either. Blues always came out a muddy gray. The size also was an inhibitor for my type of shooting, which is much more hiking based. I thought I would shoot wildlife with it, but I never got around to doing that.
I think if I had to do it over again, I would get a prime like the 400 and a 1.4 tc for both the prime and my 70-200.
Posted by Brian Miller on July 31, 2006 at 8:47 PM
David
I have a Sigma 300 2.8 fixed focal length lens and it is sharp as can be. Everything I have heard about its replacement ( the 120-300 zoom ) is that the zoom is an even better lens. Overall I haven't been too big on Sigma but I think this lens is alot of bang for the buck. Just my 2 cents.
I did not know that the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 was that inexpensive (relatively speaking).
Sorry, brain-fart...I paid $1900 for the Sigma 120-300/2.8 at www.sigma4less.com. They seemed like a fine bunch to work with. No high-pressure tactics and no other surprises. I also ordered the (gulp $$$) 105mm skylight filter and 1.4X TC for it. It came with a very nice heavy-duty cordura case. I primarily use this for football and other low-light sporting events, but it's a rather large and heavy lens...
Really Right Stuff (and Kirk, I believe) has the Arca-Swiss mount for it. I'd also suggest getting the Wimberly Sidekick gimbal mount while you're at it.
I've used my 100-400/4 IS for a while now and have never had a dust problem. Although it seems to be well gasketed, my friend had to send his in for cleaning after several outings.
Posted by David A Bliss on August 1, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Ken, having done some more research, I have discovered the difference in price is the difference between the original lens, and the new DG lens. From everything I can tell, the DG might help with flare and ghosting, but the reviews on the original non DG lens are as good as the new one.
Since you have both, what is your opinion between the Sigma 120-300 (with TC) and the Canon 100-400?
Posted by Chuck Peacock on August 2, 2006 at 9:29 AM
That's a major thing with the 100-400 that discouraged me from buying - the inconsistency between individual lenses regarding sharpness and build quality, at least it seems that way. But then people have different expectations and treat their equipment differently too.
That was a rather expensive crap shoot to me, so I didn't take the chance. It sounds like I'm "down" on the 100-400 but I'm definitely not - it just left me wondering too much.
Discussion
20 repliesI have narrowed it down to a handful of lenses. All prices are B&H list.
Canon 400mm 5.6 - $1100 - This would be an exact replacement of the Sigma, with L quality glass. It is the lens I am used to, and with a 1.4 teleconverter, I can extend it to 560mm (896mm on my 10D) at f6.3.
Sigma 50-500mm - $1000 - This has gotten surprisingly good reviews for a zoom, especially one with this focal range, from knowledgeable shooters. It covers the focal range of another lens that I wouldn't mind replacing, a Canon 70-210 4.0 (again, a very sharp lens, but it is pre USM, so it focuses very slowly) so the $60 or so I could get from selling that lens could go toward the new one. A little slow, f6.3 at 500mm (I haven't been able to track down what the f stop is at 400mm, but I haven't tried very hard).
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - $1400 - Again, in the focal range to replace the 70-210mm. The IS is intriguing, also. I haven't read a lot of reviews on this lens, but what I have read makes me think it doesn't blow away the Sigma 50-500mm.
Another option would be a 300mm 2.8 lens with a teleconverter, but that still puts me up in the $3000 range.
Any opinions on these lenses, or any other that I have not listed would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!
Artie Morris (birdsasart.com, likes the Canon 400/5.6 for handholdable flight photography and speaks highly of it.
Sounds like you've already researched the 50-500...
Canon 100-400/nnn has pretty decent sharpness, but focusses slowly. If you're in a dusty area, it can suck in dust internally. A good friend calls this his "dust pump".
A 300/2.8 is actually a pretty good compromise when used with teleconverters. You might consider the Sigma 120-300/2.8. It's only $1200, but rather heavy. Based on the physical measurements, I'm not sure it actually goes all the way to 300mm - but close. I use this once in a while for sports photography and it woeks well. I like the zoom range, also.
You could also do what I did, and form an association of like-minded friends and corporately purchase a 600/4!
Ken
I have the 400mm 5.6. Great image quality. Small enough to pack on long day hikes. Can hand hold for action shots with decent light. Great quality with 1.4x TC. Optics still good with 2x TC.
Canon 100-400mm L IS. Obviously convenience of zoom and IS is appealing for many. Highly recommended in situations where you need the variable focal length but can't change lenses because of dust or action. But, zoom is not as important if you will predominantly be shooting at the 400mm end. I've seen numerous comments about noticeable image quality deterioration with the 2x TC. Regarding the "dust-pump" complaints, there are lots of owners who would argue this is totally fiction and physically impossible. So, do some more research on this issue before letting it scare you away.
Canon 300mm 2.8. Great lens but I would find it hard to buy a $$$$ lens knowing that I still need a TC to get it to the focal length that I really need. 300mm is somewhat short for wildlife.
Sigma 50-500mm. Great price and focal length range. Can't comment on the image quality.
Brent, I was actually going to post a question about the Tamron 200-500, as someone on another forum mentioned it. I will have to research reviews of it, and see how it stacks up.
Ken and Bill, thanks for your comments! I actually read about the "dust pump" problem on the Canon 100-400. My Canon 70-210 has the same type of zoom, and I have never noticed a problem with it blowing dust on the sensor (but I will keep an eye on it, maybe I just haven't noticed that that is when I get dust!). The 100-400 is an L series, so it will have rubber gaskets and be more tightly built. I think what it tends to do is blow dust around that is already inside the camera. I think it is being dropped off of my list, anyway. I haven't heard enough good things to get me excited about it.
I am going to research the Tamron, but I think I am leaning toward the Canon 400mm, with a 1.4 converter for those times I need a little longer focal length. Of course, I will keep my eyes on ebay, to see if any of the above mentioned lenses ends up selling cheaply (I know, pipe dream!
Then I guess I'll start saving to replace the 70-210 with the 70-200 2.8, either Canon or Sigma. Does anyone have an opinion on the 70-300 IS?
When I eventually get a lens, I will post my opinions on it here. It is still going to be another couple of months, though
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/
While the zoom is always handy, I still think I am leaning toward the 400mm 5.6 prime.
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0204sb_sigma/
This lens sounds incredible, and at $2400, with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter ($170 and $190, respectively) all of a sudden you have a 120-300mm 2.8, a 168-420mm 4, and a 240-600mm 5.6, all for less than $3000. And, with the teleconverters being dedicated, they produce sharper images than probably even a Canon teleconverter would, and you keep auto focus!!
Boy, this throws another level of complexity into the mix! I might have to track one of these down at a local store, and see for myself!
The Sigma 120-300 probably is a great lens (correct price of $2400 new).
A while back I had the same issue but $1500 was an absolute max price that I could afford.
I was considering the Canon 100-400 against the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX w/1.4 TC. At first I didn't like the idea of having to buy the TC with the Sigma but most reviews said it was great.
The 100-400 had issues with sharpness at the long end especially when wide open - which is what you typically want when shooting critters. To shoot at f8 (to avoid softness) seemed to negate the usefulness of the IS. Then there was the possibility of dust entry! Regardless of sucking in dust or just blowing it around it didn't sound like a good idea to me especially with digital.
I opted for the Sigma lens/TC combo. It maintains f4 (f5.4 with TC) through the whole zoom range, is very sharp wide open and still excellent with the TC. The zoom is all internal so there is no "long and short"
The Canon lens also cost almost twice as much ($1400).
This Sigma may not have the reach you want but it's just a thought. If you can afford the f2.8 - go for it!
Another thought, the 10D has very little noise at ISO 400. You can change the ISO and "make up" for that light fall off on an f4 lens pretty cheaply. You pay a lot for that extra stop of light on a lens, although I'm sure it's worth it when shooting in the twilight and dawn hours and you don't want to boost the ISO anymore.
I usually take that along with me when I am going hiking and I do not want to lug around the 500mm and the tripod.
You might not be asking about this lens, but I have the 70-300 DO IS. The main advantage of this lens for me is that is takes 1/3 the space in my bag that the 70-200 did, because it is short and can fit vertically in a backpack, whereas the longer lenses have to be placed horizontally and take the same space as 3 vertical lenses. This is not the sharpest lens but it can make good 16x24's - you just have to do a strong local contrast enhancement in post. It focuses fast and the IS works great.
I rarely shoot the 10D at ISO 400. Actually, I don't often go up to 200. Having shot Velvia for so long, 100 ISO seems fast!
BTW, if I do make it out to NYC, we can discuss a "film run." When I was at the B&H store in NYC a few years ago, film was even less expensive than mail order cost.
Tony, I definately thought about the 70-300 IS, especially when I was pretty sure I was going with the Canon 400 5.6. It would fill in the 100-300 range that I need to upgrade. But if the Sigma 120-300 ends up being as good as advertised, I wouldn't need to worry about that range anymore. I would have a small gap between 105 and 120, but I can live with that!
Brian
I bought it in Jan. 1999. It was finally cleaned in February , 2006. I don't think that is too
bad. It goes with me every where I do. It has preformed well for me. If you were to believe
all the rumors on the net, you would have a very light lens bag.
Art Lund
I think if I had to do it over again, I would get a prime like the 400 and a 1.4 tc for both the prime and my 70-200.
I have a Sigma 300 2.8 fixed focal length lens and it is sharp as can be. Everything I have heard about its replacement ( the 120-300 zoom ) is that the zoom is an even better lens. Overall I haven't been too big on Sigma but I think this lens is alot of bang for the buck. Just my 2 cents.
Brian
Sorry, brain-fart...I paid $1900 for the Sigma 120-300/2.8 at www.sigma4less.com. They seemed like a fine bunch to work with. No high-pressure tactics and no other surprises. I also ordered the (gulp $$$) 105mm skylight filter and 1.4X TC for it. It came with a very nice heavy-duty cordura case. I primarily use this for football and other low-light sporting events, but it's a rather large and heavy lens...
Really Right Stuff (and Kirk, I believe) has the Arca-Swiss mount for it. I'd also suggest getting the Wimberly Sidekick gimbal mount while you're at it.
I've used my 100-400/4 IS for a while now and have never had a dust problem. Although it seems to be well gasketed, my friend had to send his in for cleaning after several outings.
Since you have both, what is your opinion between the Sigma 120-300 (with TC) and the Canon 100-400?
That was a rather expensive crap shoot to me, so I didn't take the chance. It sounds like I'm "down" on the 100-400 but I'm definitely not - it just left me wondering too much.