Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Budget tele?
  
 
Andrew J
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Budget tele?


You really should consider the forgotten 400. In a shoot out it often beats every lens mentioned in this thread.
There is at least one in the B&S right now. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1516838

https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?list=PLwIVS3_dKVptwehgeGp33K69dzq3dNq-o&t=312

Edited on Nov 10, 2017 at 04:52 PM · View previous versions



Nov 10, 2017 at 03:45 PM
garydavidjones
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Budget tele?


grog13 wrote:
Looking to get a telephoto on a budget and have narrowed it down to (all used) either the Canon 100-400 mk1, Tamron 150-600 mk1, or Sigma 150-600 C. (Might consider one of the newer Sigma or Tamron 100-400s, but lack of tripod ring is a big strike.) I used to have the Tamron in Nikon mount and found it okay - not spectacular but as good as could be expected. Is the old version of the Canon 100-400 better? (Just considering IQ & AF here, disregarding focal length diferences.)


My Canon 100-400 II is permanently attached to Canon extender 1.4x. III
far better than original 100-400 and any Sigma telescopic lenses I have
had. better AF and IQ

By ignoring the extender Canon 1.4 extender III, you're shooting yourself
in the foot. essential for close-up IMO.




Nov 10, 2017 at 03:45 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Budget tele?


garydavidjones wrote:
My Canon 100-400 II is permanently attached to Canon extender 1.4x. III
far better than original 100-400 and any Sigma telescopic lenses I have
had. better AF and IQ

By ignoring the extender Canon 1.4 extender III, you're shooting yourself
in the foot. essential for close-up IMO.



This ^ is the same setup I shoot, so I'm in strong agreement. BUT ... it's not a sub <$1,000 setup.



Nov 10, 2017 at 03:55 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Budget tele?


The 150-600 does quite well, better than any Sigma long lens before. The only other one that was close (and I have had almost all of them, from the original 70-300 to the latter ones like the 120-400, 150-500, 50-500 and 50-500 OS) was the 50-500 OS. I have not had a 120-300 or the 300-800 though, or the new 100-400.

It will cost me an additional $1300 to move to the 100-400II with a 1.4x III after selling the sigma. I just don't see it being worth it at all. I want that combination for sure, but the smart money says there is little to be gained.



Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Budget tele?


TeamSpeed wrote:
The 150-600 does quite well, better than any Sigma long lens before. The only other one that was close (and I have had almost all of them, from the original 70-300 to the latter ones like the 120-400, 150-500, 50-500 and 50-500 OS) was the 50-500 OS. I have not had a 120-300 or the 300-800 though, or the new 100-400.

It will cost me an additional $1300 to move to the 100-400II with a 1.4x III after selling the sigma. I just don't see it being worth it at all. I want that combination for sure, but the smart money
...Show more

The Sigma 100-300/4 is one of Sigma's finer tele's from the "old Sigma". The range of course isn't all that challenging for reach, but I (still have mine) shot it before trying the 150-600 C. The 120-400, 150-500 were not up to par, imo. The 150-600 C is closer to the IQ of the 100-300/4, whereas the others were not.

As to the gain(s) in the Canon 100-400 II ... MFD, AF Speed, IS performance. Whether or not those matter (i.e. are of value to a given person), is subjective to whether or not it's "smart money".

The new Siggy 100-400, I've not tried it so I don't know if it is up to par with the "new Sigma" stuff (I anticipate it would be worth a look if 400mm is okay).





Nov 10, 2017 at 04:28 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Budget tele?


AmbientMike wrote:
I haven't found tripod rings to be that great, just gives the shutter vibration more torque. Have had problems with them at times. Although even the 100-400 tamron might could use one.


Canon has this to say about IS, tripods and shutter vibration, so with their more recent IS lenses tripods are good things Whether it swings the decision in their favour (or whether the budget can stand it) is a separate issue but knowing which IS system the lens has is advisable.

Canon addressed the ‘feedback loop’ in later model IS lenses by introducing an algorithm to the IS detection system to automatically recognise when the lens is mounted to a tripod. When these lenses are mounted on a tripod and the shutter button is pressed halfway, the IS system kicks in and the image in the viewfinder can be seen to go through a very slow vertical shift for about one second.

If the shutter button remains depressed halfway the IS system detects the lack of motion and automatically switches into a special mode. In this mode IS detects and corrects for mirror, but not for ‘normal’ lens shake. There is no advantage to be gained in turning off the IS function or locking the mirror prior to exposure.
...Show more Source



Nov 10, 2017 at 05:39 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Budget tele?


RustyBug wrote:
The Sigma 100-300/4 is one of Sigma's finer tele's from the "old Sigma". The range of course isn't all that challenging for reach, but I (still have mine) shot it before trying the 150-600 C. The 120-400, 150-500 were not up to par, imo. The 150-600 C is closer to the IQ of the 100-300/4, whereas the others were not.

As to the gain(s) in the Canon 100-400 II ... MFD, AF Speed, IS performance. Whether or not those matter (i.e. are of value to a given person), is subjective to whether or not it's "smart money".

The new Siggy 100-400, I've
...Show more

I remember that lens, I am surprised Sigma hasn't come out with some sort of ART version of the 100-300 f4. I would have a hard time not buying it, it would be great for sports. I guess I could put a 1.4x III on the 70-200 II and get nearly the same type of thing with a Canon lens, a 98-280 f4L.



Nov 10, 2017 at 07:53 PM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Budget tele?




AJSJones wrote:
Canon has this to say about IS, tripods and shutter vibration, so with their more recent IS lenses tripods are good things Whether it swings the decision in their favour (or whether the budget can stand it) is a separate issue but knowing which IS system the lens has is advisable.

Source


It wasn't with IS lenses, though. I don't think I ever got a 300/4.5 to stabilize properly on a tripod using the lens tripod mount, on film. And I've had issues with the 180 Tamron, it seems. Might be others, idk.

If the lens isn't too heavy, and you can put the body on the tripod, that helps a lot



Nov 10, 2017 at 09:02 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Budget tele?


AmbientMike wrote:
It wasn't with IS lenses, though. I don't think I ever got a 300/4.5 to stabilize properly on a tripod using the lens tripod mount, on film. And I've had issues with the 180 Tamron, it seems. Might be others, idk.

If the lens isn't too heavy, and you can put the body on the tripod, that helps a lot


I assume you have good long lens technique



Nov 10, 2017 at 09:18 PM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Budget tele?




AJSJones wrote:
I assume you have good long lens technique


Sometimes, tripod collars don't work.



Nov 10, 2017 at 10:51 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Budget tele?


AmbientMike wrote:
Sometimes, tripod collars don't work.


Like they're not tight enough? Or even when tight in the collar, the lens itself is too flexible? (I've not heard of this before so I'm not sure what you mean)



Nov 11, 2017 at 12:21 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Budget tele?


TeamSpeed wrote:
I remember that lens, I am surprised Sigma hasn't come out with some sort of ART version of the 100-300 f4.


It was just a touch softer in the 275-300 range WO, but still a very nice lens. An updated version of this lens (with OS / Sigma Dock / etc.) would be quite welcome for many. Coupled with today's IQ of more MP's, higher ISO's and newer PP capabilities, the f/4 & OS could be a good combination for lots of things.

I suspect, they skipped this and went to the 100-400 instead to more directly compete with the venerable Canon 100-400.



Nov 11, 2017 at 05:02 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Budget tele?


grog13 wrote:
Looking to get a telephoto on a budget and have narrowed it down to (all used) either the Canon 100-400 mk1, Tamron 150-600 mk1, or Sigma 150-600 C. (Might consider one of the newer Sigma or Tamron 100-400s, but lack of tripod ring is a big strike.) I used to have the Tamron in Nikon mount and found it okay - not spectacular but as good as could be expected. Is the old version of the Canon 100-400 better? (Just considering IQ & AF here, disregarding focal length diferences.)


yes, the old original 100-400 is better (at 400mm)
I still use it

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



Nov 11, 2017 at 01:11 PM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Budget tele?


I snatched a bargain bin copy of the old Canon 100-400 and it's been working fine. The few issues it has (for my use) are actually all there in the specs: no weather sealing, the first-generation IS, and the rather long MFD of 180 cm...


Nov 11, 2017 at 04:00 PM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Budget tele?




AJSJones wrote:
Like they're not tight enough? Or even when tight in the collar, the lens itself is too flexible? (I've not heard of this before so I'm not sure what you mean)


No, you're just putting the shutter and mirror several inches from the bolt, and giving it torque. Generally making it less stable.

I tried more than one brand of 300/4.5 on film, I don't think I ever got sharp photos at lower ss using the factory tripod mount. Digital seems to have less vibration, though. MLU helps, but I'm not sure it's 100%.



Nov 11, 2017 at 04:12 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Budget tele?


AmbientMike wrote:
No, you're just putting the shutter and mirror several inches from the bolt, and giving it torque. Generally making it less stable.

I tried more than one brand of 300/4.5 on film, I don't think I ever got sharp photos at lower ss using the factory tripod mount. Digital seems to have less vibration, though. MLU helps, but I'm not sure it's 100%.

The slower the shutterspeed gets, the more likely I am to do two things : 1) MLU and 2) long delay after shutterpress, even if using a cable. I understand the physics but never found it was due to a poor collar system, that’s why I was curious. (Poor technique on my part, cheap tripod etc yes) These days, LiveView and silent mode make it all easier.



Nov 11, 2017 at 05:03 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Budget tele?


qc_mountain wrote:
Maybe just maybe one day Canon will wake up from its Deep slumber and make a 200-600 f/5-6.3.

Francois


It already exists - its called 200-400/f4 with a built in extender. Aside from weight/price/size it is flawless.



Nov 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Budget tele?


Scott Stoness wrote:
It already exists - its called 200-400/f4 with a built in extender. Aside from weight/price/size it is flawless.


Or is that a 280-560 / 5.6 with a built in reducer.

One thing is for certain about it, though ... it will definitely reduce your bank account.



Nov 12, 2017 at 12:55 AM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Budget tele?



AJSJones wrote:
The slower the shutterspeed gets, the more likely I am to do two things : 1) MLU and 2) long delay after shutterpress, even if using a cable. I understand the physics but never found it was due to a poor collar system, that’s why I was curious. (Poor technique on my part, cheap tripod etc yes) These days, LiveView and silent mode make it all easier.


I use MLU if I'm on a tripod most of the time. I don't remember if I was using a cable release the time I had trouble with the Canon, and it only has the 2 sec delay, so there's some chance that caused the problem. But I had had trouble before, I think on Minolta and Nikon film cameras. And I think on an om1, that lens had a lesser tripod mount, but the OM1 shutter vibrated little, and I think I had the mirror locked up.

My 75-300 sigma was no real problem, I attached the camera to the tripod.

I usually use a 7.5 lb bogen tripod, and before that a 7.5 lb slik, which I actually preferred.

I can change the delay to 10 seconds on m4/3, which I've been doing more if the balance is less than ideal and I have time. I wish Canon has 4 seconds delay.

I don't remember having trouble on the heavier lenses



Nov 12, 2017 at 03:58 AM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Budget tele?


But that's the thing: with its price, it may just as well be nonexistent for 99 percent of the shooters, and the size/weight makes it impractical for a lot of situations as well. I saw it once, it's a monster of a lens.

Scott Stoness wrote:
It already exists - its called 200-400/f4 with a built in extender. Aside from weight/price/size it is flawless.




Nov 12, 2017 at 08:28 AM
1      
2
       3       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password