PetKal wrote:
Robert, I agree, sometimes it is only owing to convenience and flexibility of the tool that people are able to get a shot that otherwise they couldn't have.
I always enjoy being able to zoom and change the framing of the image. Sometimes you want to be in tight, sometimes you want the subject in its environment. Having a high quality zoom is invaluable if that's how you want to shoot with just one body. I think I'm going to hold out for the new 120-300 OS and see what it delivers. I just hope Sigma don't go all Canon on us and hike the price up...
Bones74 wrote:
I always enjoy being able to zoom and change the framing of the image. Sometimes you want to be in tight, sometimes you want the subject in its environment. Having a high quality zoom is invaluable if that's how you want to shoot with just one body. I think I'm going to hold out for the new 120-300 OS and see what it delivers. I just hope Sigma don't go all Canon on us and hike the price up...
Yeah, that new Sigma seems to hold some promise as an alternative to 200-400L.
Besides, it is f/2.8 bare which is also great.
I concur on the Sigma. I have high hopes for the updated version and with a 1.4x has a more useful zoom range of 168-420 and will be around 1/3 the price and possibly 0.7kg lighter (including 1.4x)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I concur on the Sigma. I have high hopes for the updated version and with a 1.4x has a more useful zoom range of 168-420 and will be around 1/3 the price and possibly 0.7kg lighter (including 1.4x)
That might be a weakness right there: even if the Sigma zoom is great bare, how well will it take the TC ?
As far as Canon TC based combos are concerned, I think Canon has finally got it right: MkII lenses + MkIII TCs leave nothing to be desired. Amongst all that goodness, there is one lens which rises to the pinnacle of the Canon's lenscraft: 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, either alone or with 1.4xTC III or 2xTC III. And that is coming from someone who has despised TCs for years, before the advent of the MkIIIs, that is.
PetKal wrote:
That might be a weakness right there: even if the Sigma zoom is great bare, how well will it take the TC ?
As far as Canon TC based combos are concerned, I think Canon has finally got it right: MkII lenses + MkIII TCs leave nothing to be desired. Amongst all that goodness, there is one lens which rises to the pinnacle of the Canon's lenscraft: 400 f/2.8 IS MkII, either alone or with 1.4xTC III or 2xTC III. And that is coming from someone who has despised TCs for years, before the advent of the MkIIIs, that is....Show more →
Shots I've seen from the current Sigma and 1.4x TC seem great IQ wise, but how it will perform AF wise is another matter. Still if you save $7K I think you can live with some compromises.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Shots I've seen from the current Sigma and 1.4x TC seem great IQ wise, but how it will perform AF wise is another matter. Still if you save $7K I think you can live with some compromises.
Yes, $7,000 can buy a few compromises as well as a few other gears.
Furthermore, what might be a "compromise" in your type of photography, may be of no consequence in someone else's. Not all of us need a super fast AF, and very few of us need it at all times.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, $7,000 can buy a few compromises as well as a few other gears.
Furthermore, what might be a "compromise" in your type of photography, may be of no consequence in someone else's. Not all of us need a super fast AF, and very few of us need it at all times.
For example I find I can use the 100-400L + 1.4x TC for a lot of BIF work on my 1D IV and I'd be surprised if the Sigma + 1.4 can't handily out do that combo for AF speed. If it can then that's a good start.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, $7,000 can buy a few compromises as well as a few other gears.
Furthermore, what might be a "compromise" in your type of photography, may be of no consequence in someone else's. Not all of us need a super fast AF, and very few of us need it at all times.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
For example I find I can use the 100-400L + 1.4x TC for a lot of BIF work on my 1D IV and I'd be surprised if the Sigma + 1.4 can't handily out do that combo for AF speed. If it can then that's a good start.
I'll give it a try with my EX 120-300 OS Mk I & 100-400L over the next few days. Bad news: most of the birdies is gone. Good news: I'm still here.
P.S. I hoped to use it at a varsity rugby game last weekend, but that didn't work out.
I love the 120-300mm OS as it is now, and the price is really good, but you'd need to have 2 of them just to be competitive with Canon (1 as a back up). As a stand alone lens the Sigmas are starting to really shape up against Canon but there is no Sigma Professional Services, which makes it hard to depend on Sigma.
I had a Sigma 50-500 OS with issues and I sent it in...took them 12 weeks to get it back to me claiming there was nothing wrong with it. I had to send it in again for another 4 weeks before they told me an internal lens element was damaged. Uh...why didn't they catch that the first time...?
Mind you, this is in Canada, where Sigma has a distributor, but CPS puts the Canon gear on another level. Sigma is great for amateur stuff or on a budget, but the Canon CPS network makes the Sigma stuff pale in comparison.
Best thing about the 200-400mm is going to be the integrated TC. No need to pull off the lens in the field. Saves time and no need to expose your sensor to dust etc.
Interesting point about CPS support. I use them a lot. I figure the Sigma will keep on ticking, until I drop it. Then I'll slap an EF 1.4x on my 200/1.8L, or haul out my 500/4L IS, and keep on ticking...
Here's some more info for you fellas (and ladies).
I went to the PhotoPlus Expo at Javits in NYC today and actually got my grubby paws on the 200-400.
Everybody give me one big slap. That is one awesome piece of equipment/glass. Much nicer than the Nikon 200-400 I had. Not front heavy at all. Perfectly balanced. The lever for the TC is butter smooth and moves only a small amount. I looked at that carefully as I've read people's worries it may be a place for moisture to enter. Doesn't look like that at all.
I mean just wow.
Unfortunately, the dude behind the counter said he didn't know when it would finally hit market, but couldn't be long as it was a fully working model. He's awaiting a catalog number and that's also when they will know the price.
It was sitting on top of the counter, unlike a big display they had behind glass of all the other super tells. He handed it right to me. I didn't have my camera, so I don't know if he would have permitted me to put it on. I may return on Saturday, camera in hand, and see if they will allow it.
In any event, it is now on my list of must haves.
I almost bought the 1Dx there today, but figured money may be better spent on that lens.
MDJAK wrote:
Here's some more info for you fellas (and ladies).
I went to the PhotoPlus Expo at Javits in NYC today and actually got my grubby paws on the 200-400.
Everybody give me one big slap. That is one awesome piece of equipment/glass. Much nicer than the Nikon 200-400 I had. Not front heavy at all. Perfectly balanced. The lever for the TC is butter smooth and moves only a small amount. I looked at that carefully as I've read people's worries it may be a place for moisture to enter. Doesn't look like that at all.
I mean just wow.
Unfortunately, the dude behind the counter said he didn't know when it would finally hit market, but couldn't be long as it was a fully working model. He's awaiting a catalog number and that's also when they will know the price.
It was sitting on top of the counter, unlike a big display they had behind glass of all the other super tells. He handed it right to me. I didn't have my camera, so I don't know if he would have permitted me to put it on. I may return on Saturday, camera in hand, and see if they will allow it.
In any event, it is now on my list of must haves.
I almost bought the 1Dx there today, but figured money may be better spent on that lens.
if it were 200 f/2 weight it would have to have a carbon fibre body and plastic lens elements I'd say, but I'd pay $11K if they could pull that off. I thought Canon's new light alloy body and front element would have resulted in weight still under Nikon's 3.3kg despite the built-in TC, but maybe this thing has a lot more glass than we think to get the optical performance
Pixel Perfect wrote:
if it were 200 f/2 weight it would have to have a carbon fibre body and plastic lens elements I'd say, but I'd pay $11K if they could pull that off. I thought Canon's new light alloy body and front element would have resulted in weight still under Nikon's 3.3kg despite the built-in TC, but maybe this thing has a lot more glass than we think to get the optical performance [/quote]
This is interesting, because if I recall the copies available for us to get our grubby paws on months ago didnt have the metal plate with the lens name and info on. At that time the Canon rep I spoke to said there were only two of these (pre-production) lens in existence. So the lenses being displayed now are much closer to the final product. I have no doubt the lens I handled weighed at least as much as the 400mm /2.8 ii. It's good to hear that they have got the weight down to a reasonable level ... well for those who will be able to afford the lens it's good news
Bones74 wrote:
I have no doubt the lens I handled weighed at least as much as the 400mm /2.8 ii. It's good to hear that they have got the weight down to a reasonable level ... well for those who will be able to afford the lens it's good news
Stuart, I wouldn't bet my paycheque on it.
Here is something interesting: I've had quite a few photographers ask me if they could "feel" the weight of my old 400 f/2.8 IS MkI mounted a 1D camera.........most of tem would say that the weight wasn't that bad, whereas in reality, the weight was as bad as it could get, and the lens was very hard to use handheld for me as well as most other "normal" people.
And that is coming from someone who has despised TCs for years, before the advent of the MkIIIs, that is. 
