Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk
Thread started 26 Sep 2017 (Tuesday) 00:59
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Time for a new lens...100-400 II or something else?

 
Mr_ipsum
Senior Member
Mr_ipsum's Avatar
Joined Aug 2012
Yonkers, NY
Oct 13, 2017 09:18 |  #16

s1a1om wrote in post #18471445 (external link)
I think I'd likely go with the Sigma 150-600 C. Seems to do a good job and won't break the bank. Your flickr seems to have a lot of wild-life. I would think the 150-600 would give you opportunities you don't have with the 100-400.

I don't know, maybe its unconscious bias, but I think the Canon 100-400 ii is sharper than the Sigma 15-600. I've looked at that lens before thinking about getting it, but from the photos I've seen I think the Sigma is not as sharp. I haven't worked with it on my camera, but that is just my impression from what I've seen and I'm not willing to trade sharpness for extra reach.


RichardCervellonePhoto​graphy.com (external link) | Follow me on Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,221 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Oct 13, 2017 09:25 |  #17

I suspect the 150-600 compared to the cropped FOV on the 400mm on the 100-400II is going to be very close. The Sigma is sharp, provided you go through and either use AFMA or use the dock to really nail down exacting focus. The problem is that folks use poor filters (since the filter is so large and expensive for a good one), or they don't make sure they have set up AFMA.

https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...e-Wild-Yonder/i-zxh8BMB/O (external link)
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...e-Wild-Yonder/i-SS3qDhN/O (external link)
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...e-Wild-Yonder/i-8f4Vpgn/O (external link)
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...e-Wild-Yonder/i-5WFfM7v/O (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Oct 13, 2017 10:37 |  #18

The only way I'll get to 600mm is to buy one of the 150-600's. I can get to 560 with my 1.4X lll teleconverter but the results are mixed at best.

I haven't really decided if I'm going to go down that path or not.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
fotoworx
"I get 'em pregnant"
fotoworx's Avatar
4,590 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Mar 2009
Oct 13, 2017 18:07 |  #19

fotoworx wrote in post #18471590 (external link)
Anyone use the 100-400II with a 1.5x ?

Is there much degradation?


No one?


.
Jim
.
f o t o w o r xexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sandwedge
Senior Member
sandwedge's Avatar
Joined Aug 2011
Atlanta, GA
Oct 15, 2017 13:39 |  #20

I've been pretty happy with my Sigma 150-600C for almost 2 years now. I bought a 70-200 II last winter and have been so impressed with it that I've wondered if I should have gone with the 100-400 II. I do like having the ability to go to 600mm though.

I've been obsessed lately with thoughts of getting a supertelephoto prime. Even at $6,000, the Siggy 500 f/4 is out of my range but I'm starting to save in hopes that I might have that option in the future.

Ideally, I think I'd have a 500 or 600 prime on one camera and the 100-400 II on another camera. And since this is more fantasy than reality, let's make one of these cameras the upcoming 7D mkIII.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/63710159@N07/ (external link)
http://www.DougMoon.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
80D, 7D, 5D, t2i, sx50, Sigma 150-600C, 100-400L, 70-200L II, 100mm Macro, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75, Tokina 11-20, Bower 8mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
TAPlank
Member
78 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Pennsylvania
Nov 01, 2017 08:37 as a reply to sandwedge's post |  #21

There have been a number of Canon 500 f4 for sale in the 3500-4000 range in the used equipment forum.




LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
MatthewK's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Maryland
Post has been edited 16 days ago by MatthewK.
Nov 01, 2017 17:17 |  #22

Just like the 70-200 f/2.8 is vital for wedding photogs, I'd consider the 100-400 II a staple lens for any wildlife photographer. It pairs perfectly with my 500, and a lot of the time I take it out instead of the bulky super-tele. IQ-wise, you aren't giving anything up with the zoom either.

For up to the minute reviews, just browse the photos in the ever-ongoing "EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Review WOW!" thread over in the Lens sub-forum.

fotoworx wrote in post #18472138 (external link)
No one?

None that I can really see, though I've found that going to a shutter speed faster than the 1/focal-length rule is advised. At a minimum, I like shooting at 1/800 - 1/1250 w/ the 1.4x.

Here are a couple of shots with the combo on my 5D4 and 80D:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from MatthewK's gallery.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Post has been last edited 16 days ago by Scrumhalf. 2 edits done in total.
Nov 01, 2017 17:22 |  #23

sandwedge wrote in post #18473282 (external link)
I've been obsessed lately with thoughts of getting a supertelephoto prime. Even at $6,000, the Siggy 500 f/4 is out of my range but I'm starting to save in hopes that I might have that option in the future.

Ideally, I think I'd have a 500 or 600 prime on one camera and the 100-400 II on another camera. And since this is more fantasy than reality, let's make one of these cameras the upcoming 7D mkIII.

You can get the original 500/4 for under $5K. That is an excellent lens, just a little heavier than the II.

The setup you mention is exactly what I have. The 500/4 II on one 7D2 and the 100-400 II on another. I can easily handhold both and carry them on slings on my birding walks.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,184 views & 10 likes for this thread
Time for a new lens...100-400 II or something else?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00146 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is MarthaBennett
916 guests, 433 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016