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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 May 2011 (Thursday) 19:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What would be the best Alternative to Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

 
atlrus
Senior Member
Avatar
531 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Michigan
     
May 13, 2011 01:32 |  #46

Snydremark wrote in post #12400751 (external link)
@Atlrus: What is your point with these posts? Of COURSE people only tend to post their best shots...that's sort of the point, unless asking for C&C to improve.

Saying you can take "the same shot" with a 24-105 comes off as ignorant and misleading. I get the feeling that you're trying to make a different point but it's not coming out quite right....

My point is that those photos are taken from a very close range which is misleading for a super-telephoto lens. It's misleading because

1. at that distance you don't need a super-telephoto - you can take pictures just as sharp of that subject with a shorter lens.

2. It's misleading because it gives a surreal expectation of sharpness to someone who has never owned one before. They will expect to take just as sharp of a picture at ~150 feet as those they saw on the forum, without realizing that those were taken at a very close range.

All I did is warn the OP to keep in mind that those photos were taken at a very short distance - and all hell broke loose, that's why it kinda derailed the original conversation.


Gear: Sold :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jaghori
Member
31 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
May 13, 2011 01:42 as a reply to  @ atlrus's post |  #47

I am sure the OP has worked the focal length and asking the question about which lens at his desired focal length produce better image so lets stick to that and not how you can take better image with a different focal length.

Is there a better buy than the Sigma 50-500mm OS? I am also interested at getting a telephoto.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
atlrus
Senior Member
Avatar
531 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Michigan
     
May 13, 2011 01:49 |  #48

i just said i don't bother taking pictures of things that are as far away as your first two posts...as for 150 feet...i'll dig something up

I'll do the work for you :)

The flikr doesn't show the approx. distance, but I am sure you can find it in Photoshop, so how far you were when you took this picture (since to me it's the best illustration of actual sharpenss of the super-teles in question):

http://www.flickr.com …708669791/in/ph​otostream/ (external link)


Gear: Sold :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,230 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2769
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
May 13, 2011 02:02 |  #49

atlrus wrote in post #12400832 (external link)
I'll do the work for you :)

The flikr doesn't show the approx. distance, but I am sure you can find it in Photoshop, so how far you were when you took this picture (since to me it's the best illustration of actual sharpenss of a super-tele):

http://www.flickr.com …708669791/in/ph​otostream/ (external link)

that one i was close....probably like 30-40 feet....it's not really cropped much...

this next one is cropped a ton...and i'm probably 2-3X as far away as the shot above....

but looking at them here, can you tell which one i was closer to?

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2650/5708669791_0ee973c42e_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/algregoire/5708​669791/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/5715448404_3c8cd4ac3b_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/algregoire/5715​448404/  (external link)

what exif viewer are you using to get distance to subject?...i can't get it on any of mine right now...maybe my camera is too old...

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
May 13, 2011 02:55 |  #50

jaghori wrote in post #12400818 (external link)
..........Is there a better buy than the Sigma 50-500mm OS? I am also interested at getting a telephoto.

Yes the Canon 500mm f4 but then it costs a heck of a lot more. The Canon 100-400 is a good lens, the Sigma 150-500 is a good lens, the Sigma 50-500 is a good lens. All have their minor strengths and weaknesses., and all are capable of good shots. A lot depends on (a)budget (b) whether you need the extra 100mm focal range.

I use the Sigma 150-500 and it is a cracking lens, I could afford three Canon 100-400's but I would buy another Sigma 150-500 given the choice.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i139.photobucke​t.com …raphy/Birds/Img​_5951c.jpg (external link)

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,537 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6180
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
May 13, 2011 05:36 |  #51

atlrus wrote in post #12400745 (external link)
It would be silly if TeamSpeed posts the uncropped images of those birds, but like he said "Alot of my shots are not close range, some are." I am willing to bet that out of the 3 birds he posted ALL OF THEM are under 60feet!

And you would lose that bet on all 3 accounts. The goose was out on our pond with myself on our patio, and the other 2 were inside displays at the new wildlife exhibit at our zoo putting us probably at 80-90 feet out. All were under 100 feet though.

You seem to like making assumptions about others, what they are shooting, how far they are, how far they want to be, that you cannot get a sharp image unless you are close, etc. Can we put that to rest please? You make one good point, and that we do need to know the specific needs of the OP for a telephoto lens, but I won't make ANY assumptions at all until the OP answers.

Personally, I bought this lens along with high resolution bodies so that I have the most I can to work with for what I shoot, for cropping and reach. 500mm is great for the court, for hockey games up in the stands, etc. I don't know what the OP wants for a long telephoto, whether it is a water fowl on a pond far away, or that cardinal that might be on the branches 50 ft away, and won't speculate. I will speak to the years of experience I have had with multiple longish telephotos though (8+), and the pros/cons of each.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
May 13, 2011 06:47 |  #52

frozenmoments925 wrote in post #12398710 (external link)
As mentioned above, what would be the best alternative lens to the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom that offers the same reach with IS that won't break the bank.

Images from a Sigma 150-500mm optical stabilizer lens.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 403.0mm
Aperture: f/9.0
Exposure Time: 0.0020 s (1/500)
ISO equiv: 2500
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 439.0mm
Aperture: f/10.0
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 1000
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Focal Length: 340.0mm
Aperture: f/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0005 s (1/2000)
ISO equiv: 640
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

The lens has performed well.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,537 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6180
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
May 13, 2011 08:31 |  #53

That top shot looks like it could have had a painful conclusion!


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Silverfox1
Goldmember
Avatar
3,195 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 55
Joined Aug 2009
Location: South Texas
     
May 13, 2011 09:38 |  #54

artyman wrote in post #12401003 (external link)
Yes the Canon 500mm f4 but then it costs a heck of a lot more.

I use the Sigma 150-500 and it is a cracking lens, I could afford three Canon 100-400's but I would buy another Sigma 150-500 given the choice.

QUOTED IMAGE


Arty if you can afford 3 / 100-400L`s then your really close to affording a nice used stellar 500/f4 IS that IMO is a vast improvement over the Bigmos.

Im still saving for one and at 5.5K even a used 500/f4 IS carrys a steep price, although it is really hard to justify versus these lesser quality lenses most of us have. I did sell my 100-400L and found an essentially brand new UY copy of the 400L/f5.6 prime but it is no 500/f4 IS but not too far back in IQ ! :p

400/f5.6 versus 500/f4 IS @ f5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 (external link)

400/f5.6 versus Bigmos 150-500 @ f6.3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1 (external link)

:lol: I know most of you Bigmos owners are gonna start replying this was the worst Sigma 150-500 copy EVER tested at the above site and the 400/f5.6 was the best they ever tested so bring it on ! :p

Regards, ;)


Silverfox1 POTN Feedback / TC Extender Tests / Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,230 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2769
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
May 13, 2011 09:50 |  #55

Silverfox1 wrote in post #12402281 (external link)
400/f5.6 versus Bigmos 150-500 @ f6.3

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1 (external link)

:lol: I know most of you Bigmos owners are gonna start replying this was the worst Sigma 150-500 copy EVER tested at the above site and the 400/f5.6 was the best they ever tested so bring it on ! :p

nah....just another 'test' for comparison purposes....
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=999806


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,528 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 1589
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
May 13, 2011 10:07 |  #56

atlrus wrote in post #12400788 (external link)
My point is that those photos are taken from a very close range which is misleading for a super-telephoto lens. It's misleading because

1. at that distance you don't need a super-telephoto - you can take pictures just as sharp of that subject with a shorter lens.

2. It's misleading because it gives a surreal expectation of sharpness to someone who has never owned one before. They will expect to take just as sharp of a picture at ~150 feet as those they saw on the forum, without realizing that those were taken at a very close range.

All I did is warn the OP to keep in mind that those photos were taken at a very short distance - and all hell broke loose, that's why it kinda derailed the original conversation.

The problem is that both of those statements are incorrect and misleading,

Even at 30ft you cannot take the same shot with say, your 24-105, as you can with the 150-500. You can frame your subject much tighter and take more advantage of the full resolution of your camera with the 150-500 than you EVER will with the shorter lens. So, yes, there absolutely IS a good use for a super telephoto at those distances.

Also, that first assertion completely ignores things like perspective, framing, resolution, etc.

As for the second point, I'm sure that most people looking at a lens like this understands that you're not going to suddenly be able to fill the frame with a golf ball at 150ft. But they'll still be able to take a better shot of it than someone with a shorter lens.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
atlrus
Senior Member
Avatar
531 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Michigan
     
May 13, 2011 10:23 |  #57

Even at 30ft you cannot take the same shot with say, your 24-105, as you can with the 150-500.

I disagree. At 30ft I will always grab my 135 and would never consider a super-telephoto lens. I can guarantee you that I will have a much better shot (IQ, sharpness, contrast) SOC with the 135 than you would with the Bigma.

If I shot anything under lets say 60-70 feet I would go for a telephoto rather than a super-telephoto. If this was my shooting disatnce I would much rather buy a 300 prime than a super-telephoto zoom. Heck, at that distance the 70-300 would pull out just as nice shot as the Bigma would @ half the price and a fraction of the weight.

BUT, this is all my opinion. The OP may agree or disagree. I just wanted to include the warning because I myself was first disappointed by the 500mm reach, upgrading from the 70-300. Maybe he knows what he's doing, maybe he doesn't, I dont know, he did not provide much information, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to include some personal experience. It turns out it did hurt, but that's my fault, I should've known already that people are quite touchy about the equipment they own, whether rightly so or not.

Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, if the OP or anyone else want to hear my opinion on this matter they can PM me instead.


Gear: Sold :cry:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKGuns
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Joined May 2008
     
May 13, 2011 10:32 |  #58

These aren't close range either, the 100-400 is the choice for me.

IMAGE: http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v23/p341122220-4.jpg

IMAGE: http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v14/p746767199-4.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
May 13, 2011 10:36 |  #59

The thing to remember is that really long distance shots you are shooting through an awful lot of atmosheric crud which is always going to impair an image no matter what lens you use.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pleb1024
Senior Member
Avatar
313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Ex Christchurch, New Zealand. Now Atlanta, GA, USA
     
May 13, 2011 10:58 |  #60

artyman wrote in post #12402672 (external link)
The thing to remember is that really long distance shots you are shooting through an awful lot of atmosheric crud which is always going to impair an image no matter what lens you use.

Yep - This is 7-8 miles away (cropped) 100-400

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2415/3532547692_f41ec2b602_z.jpg?zz=1

I would suggest to OP going down the used 100-400 route, if you cant stretch to to new.

Daniel

7DMkII | 7D | 450D | Canon 18-55 IS | Canon 55-250 | Canon 100-400L MkII | Canon 100-400L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | Tokina 11-16
Flickr (external link)

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

19,050 views & 0 likes for this thread
What would be the best Alternative to Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is htam
899 guests, 221 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.