I would love to have a 400/5.6 L , but thats not gonna happen for at least a year or so (pocketbook is crying).
What alternatives are there that are optically sound performers? (I have a 70-200L, so if the optical quality stopped down goes much below that, it will probably make me sad).
I am all for used/discontinued whatever. All the shots I would take with it would be from a tripod so can be stopped down if lens performance is weak wide open. I dont even need AF on this lens, although I dont know how easy it is to MF a 5.6 lens on a 1.3 cropped viewfinder (without special screens) when the light is waning at the end of the day.
If it could take my Canon 1.4II that would be a boon.
Sigma had a few 400 5.6 primes, the first with a 72mm filter size wasn't too well liked but the later version with the 77mm filter size had a macro option and HSM which are supposed to be optically good but only work on older cameras like the 1D, D30 and D60 from what I've read. KEH usually has one or two in stock for around $500.
Tokina 400mm ATX f/5.6, now discontinued. This is a very good alternative, but hard to get now. Light, compact with built-in hood and tripod collar.
Sometimes it shows up on eBay for $280-350...
How about a Canon 200mm 2.8 with 2x converter. Takes your 1,4x and gives you 400mm f/5.6.
Second hands 200mm for 500 a 550 euro. Converter for 300 Gives you 850 euro against the 1100 euro it costs here (Netherlands).
Aug 18, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Bijltje wrote:
How about a Canon 200mm 2.8 with 2x converter. Takes your 1,4x and gives you 400mm f/5.6.
Second hands 200mm for 500 a 550 euro. Converter for 300 Gives you 850 euro against the 1100 euro it costs here (Netherlands).
He can buy a used 400/5,6 for the same price. And get a lot better image quality
Well I actually have lots of room on credit cards (I only buy things cash), but I always say better to save for it (jobs change, life happens). I like to keep the CC open for emergency.
So I guess the trick is convincing myself that its an 'emergency' for me to get this lens. Naw... i can wait.. i think.
Ive had great fun (and great results) using 70-200L + 1.4xII , but just want that bit more reach.
Im scared of Sigma because of the re-chipping issues, but the price and reports of the 400 APO HSM Macro seem to fit the bill of what Im looking for (affordable, decent quality)
Another idea (after reading a Bob Atkins article comparing super-telephoto lenses) is to get a used copy of the older non-IS 300/4L. I understand the results with TC should be decent (and im sure the 300/4 would smoke the 70-200 with TC @ 280) . Will tripod ring B from my 70-200 fit it (dont think so.. looks like it uses ring A??) ? keh has 300/4 for 645 without tripod ring.
GOVA wrote:
Tokina 400mm ATX f/5.6, now discontinued. This is a very good alternative, but hard to get now. Light, compact with built-in hood and tripod collar.
Sometimes it shows up on eBay for $280-350...
Wow, that's cheap. Maybe I need to get one of these.
Im scared of Sigma because of the re-chipping issues, but the price and reports of the 400 APO HSM Macro seem to fit the bill of what Im looking for (affordable, decent quality)
I think at the end of the day, it's best to buy a Canon if you own Canon equipment. Even if all else are in your favour in a third party lens, think of resale value of a Canon 400 F5.6L vs a Sigma 400 5.6 Apo.
Sad to say that the 400 5.6 is the AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE
its optically excellent and on par with its big brothers such as the 400 f4, 300 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4, those of course all cost several thousand minimum
Really for those who cant afford something such as the $5200 500 f4, the 400 5.6 is about the best deal going in terms of a sharp long prime.
Im a little different in that for me the 400/5.6L is the end goal (not an alternative). For the purposes I intend to use the lens, I would only be hindered by the cost/size/weight of the big boy telephotos (400/4,300/2.8,600/4).
But yes I do realize that for most (myself included) the Canon 400/5.6L is a *relative* bargain (and a highly regarded performer).
The 400/5.6L is pretty much exactly what I need, I just cant afford that right now.
I checked with Sigma, and their older APO tele-macros with HSM are too old to be
rechipped. Seeing that you have the Canon 1.4x II telextender, have you considered
a Sigma 100-300 f4.0, which if you have a good one, is a very sharp lens.
Dennis
larsenqs wrote:
I checked with Sigma, and their older APO tele-macros with HSM are too old to be
rechipped. Seeing that you have the Canon 1.4x II telextender, have you considered
a Sigma 100-300 f4.0, which if you have a good one, is a very sharp lens.
Dennis
According to Sigma, not with Canon's current digital cameras. Its a pity, because the
300mm f4.0 was a very fine lens and can be bought very reasonably on Ebay. I did not
ask about manual focus operation.
Dennis
Oh ic. Then I can put my focus on the Tokinas. I still don't know the difference between the SD version and the non-SD version. Or are they the same thing?
John - I am lucky to live a stones throw (750 meters) from the ocean and coastal mountains of BC. I enjoy taking shots of mountains, using the compression effect of long lens combined with atmospheric haze (you know, how the subsequent bands of mountains become lighter and lighter). So basically mountain/ocean landscapes where I am 'plucking' the scene.
I live on Vancouver Island, and the coast mountains are about (guess here) 30 miles away (across Strait of Georgia). I have found the 200 + 1.4II a bit short (for some shots, for lots of others of course less focal length is great).
For me, I also need it to be light. Therefore I can't buy Sigma 50-500. Tokina is even 250g lighter than the Canon. It seems to me it will be a good fit for me.
Gives you 850 euro against the 1100 euro it costs here (Netherlands).
Naw... i can wait.. i think.