wing tong wrote:
What? Someone to hold your lens while you shoot?
That lens really looks like an ill considered case of corporate (Sigma) exibitionism. Sigma would have done better if they dedicated some of that development money to improvements in the finishing coat/paint of their "EX" class lenses.
Since you brought up lenses I am looking for one what do you guys (and lady) recommend for me? I have a 70-200 2.8 is and a 1.4x tx plan to use it for a mixed bad of stuff and i need something longer but want something sharp. I posed another thread on this board you may have seen. using a 5d2.
toddmitchell wrote:
Since you brought up lenses I am looking for one what do you guys (and lady) recommend for me? I have a 70-200 2.8 is and a 1.4x tx plan to use it for a mixed bad of stuff and i need something longer but want something sharp. I posed another thread on this board you may have seen. using a 5d2.
Well if you want flexible and long, then I cannot recommend the 100-400mm enthusiastically enough for wildlife standing still. If only want long and sharp for wildife moving around (with a bit of practice), the 400mm f5.6 is the way to go. But be warned about a couple of things, and I'm sure they people here will back me on this, BOTH lenses are only good in good light. For me, when the sun begins to fade, my keeper rate drops precipitously. My 50D's added 1.6X crop factor really helps a lot though. I rarely use either of my long lenses on my 5DmkII. but only because the fps on the 5D is just not enough to keep up with my spray-n-pray style of shooting! Haha!! But if you are methodical and systematic (like Peter - PetKal) I don't see that the 5DmkII is going to be a problem frame rate wise. I almost never ever use my 1.4TC with these lenses by the way. It seems to slow down the AF mechanism (although I could be wrong and just percieve it that way). I hope this was of some help.
Conrad Tan wrote:
Well from 10 yards at semi-moving targets, this is sharp enough for me... what do you think Todd?
is that with the 400?
I am worried it is not fast enough for me to take indoor swimming shots
I was looking at the 100-400 and the 300f/4 (would this be a first good step or should i skip it sinced i have the 200&1.4x) and the 400 5.6 but then i thought i may be able to swing a 300 2.8 but with some recent bill that just may turn out to wishful thinking.
some random thoughts;
the 200mm with the 5d2 is not very long
the 400 f/4 doesn't seem that sharp esp. at that price
the 300 2.8 is really more than i wanted to spend
the 100-400 seems like hit or miss in with the qc and is 5.6 to slow for me
Oh now you never said you were going to use it for INDOOR use. And of a fast moving subject like swimming no less? Oh man... Todd, the 400mm is not really going to work for you. Almost every shot I've ever taken was in good light and outdoors. You're going to need the 300mm 2.8. The 100-400mm is not very good indoors either. (these are my opinions from my experince of course)
I am worried it is not fast enough for me to take indoor swimming shots
I was looking at the 100-400 and the 300f/4 (would this be a first good step or should i skip it sinced i have the 200&1.4x) and the 400 5.6 but then i thought i may be able to swing a 300 2.8 but with some recent bill that just may turn out to wishful thinking.
some random thoughts;
the 200mm with the 5d2 is not very long
the 400 f/4 doesn't seem that sharp esp. at that price
the 300 2.8 is really more than i wanted to spend
the 100-400 seems like hit or miss in with the qc and is 5.6 to slow for me
gpsphoto wrote:
How much of a crop is that shot of the hummingbirds?
100% crop. Still pretty good huh? I think I could crop even more and still have detail... Light is the key to the 400mm. If the subject is in a shadow... forget it.
!!