RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 80D, Canon 100-400 II lens and 1.4x III extender | |
Yeah, I had (still do) a pair of Kenko's (well, one died electronically) ... I digress.
The thing that made me go with the 100-400 II + 1.4X TC III over the Siggy was a couple things.
First, I probably should mention how I progressed through my assessment.
At the time, I was shooting a 700D (Rebel), so I could NOT AF the Canon + TC combo @ f/8. So, that aspect didn't factor in (not directly, anyway).
Basically, I shot a variety of apertures, both hand held and tripod based with images ranging from basketball nets and people a block away, to wood grain in telephone poles in the parking lot, to ducks and anything else the park would afford.
I simply kept switching back & forth between the Siggy & the Canon combo using manual focusing to try and attain a clear cut winner on IQ basis alone. I could not get a clear cut winner. If anything I would suggest that the Canon combo (lens + TC) had a smidgen better micro-contrast than the Siggy, but that's splittin' hairs.
For handholding, the IS on the Canon was definitely better than the Siggy's OS. Caveat though: The Siggy is supposed to improve its OS when you calibrate it with the dock (which I hadn't yet purchased), so I took that with a grain of salt.
For AF without the TC, the Canon was a better AF than the Siggy, with it being a bit more snappy. The IQ improvement of the Canon without the TC wasn't dramatic (left-handed way of saying there wasn't a big penalty for using the TC), and of course for focal length comparison, the Siggy stayed pretty much on par in the 150-400 range.
Some images I'd give the nod to the Siggy, some would go to the Canon. I couldn't get anything past 50/50 ... at best, I was at 55/45 for Canon at that point, but I was still not "clear cut" on IQ merits.
Finally, I gave up trying to get a clear cut answer based on IQ.
Which brings me to my decision.
The 600mm Siggy has the longer physical lens, and the larger front element. Due to that it was more "tippy" than the Canon combo (lens + TC). It was heavier and I felt like I had to "work more" at handholding it (enter Kent's a wuss comment here ).
The other thing was the MFD. The MFD on the Siggy is nowhere near the MFD of the Canon 100-400 II. I like shooting near MFD stuff.
So, I considered the IQ, too close to call. Passed on the AF test @ f/8. Gave 1/2 a free pass to the Siggy IS (i.e. no dock to calibrate it).
But, after tossing all that out as a wash ... the "tippy balance" and the MFD, tipped the scales for me.
The other thing is that it also meant I had an effective focal length of 100-560 with the Canon vs. 150-600 with the Siggy. I figured the short end diff (2X vs. 3X) would mean more versatility than the diff on the long end (11X vs. 12X).
I have no doubt that on test charts, etc. the Canon may be a bit more clear cut above the Siggy IQ. But, in real world I couldn't produce it as a clear cut IQ superior lens to slay the Siggy when using the TC.
So, I passed along my Siggy after about three months with it alongside the Canon. So, for 2X the price of the Canon + TC combo, anyone who picks up the Siggy 150-600 for 1/2X the $$$ ... I get it. I just happened to get a nice CPW bargain price on the 100-400 II that let me "upgrade" to the Canon.
The 80D and AF @ f/8 came later (while I was still waiting for the 6D2).
So, that's my story ... and I'm stickin' to it.
|