|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
24 Oct 2011, 19:39 (Ref:2976194) | #1 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
|
Is there a lens out there thats better than the Canon 100-400mm!?
...and cheaper!
I looking to upgrade my camera lens from the Canon 55-250mm. It's a good lens, but the restriction of only 250mm does stop me capturing some brilliant close up shots on certain corners. So I am looking to upgrade, to a proper, pro lens, so i can really capture motorsports at its best! Looking around, it seems the Canon 100-400mm lens is the 'daddy' when it comes to a motorsport lens, but was wondering if anyone has experienced a lens for a Canon camera, that is cheaper but,produces the same image quality, or a lens of simular price that produces better images? |
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 20:53 (Ref:2976231) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 691
|
For an all round motorsport lens, when you only want to have one long lens the 100-400 is probably the best solution.
However on a day with less than ideal lighting I'm more likely to us the 70-200f2.8L and the 400f2.8L as they are better in low light conditions, however it is a bigger financial commitment and a lot more weight to carry around. Judgeing by the number of Canon 100-400's that are seen trackside, and in spectator areas, its fair to say it's the most popular option. |
|
|
25 Oct 2011, 05:01 (Ref:2976372) | #3 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
I have 100-400 lens and used it and the 7D for the first time at the Silverstone Classic in July. If you look at this stream http://www.flickr.com/photos/40981912@N03/ you can see the limitations. I was really just pointing and pressing as it was mostly experimental. The fading light in the Group C race could have been taken up by adjusting the iso number.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
25 Oct 2011, 17:46 (Ref:2976689) | #4 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 480
|
I use just the 100-400 on my 7D and at brands for the BSB the light was awful to say the least and for the first time ever I stuck it on auto iso [cringe] but was quite surprised how well it worked out. Yes you can see the noise if you want to be really pedantic but for 'real world' use / prints it's fine (very little PP in this shot - sure with a bit of fettling you would never know)
example - under the tree's at clearways. 340mm iso 3200 Worth every penny in my book, I have covered a few events now since changing over to the canon and apart from putting the 24-105 on for a few paddock shot's the 100-400 hasn't come off the body. .DAVID. |
||
__________________
Photographer for the CSCC You can sleep in a car BUT you can't race a house!!! |
25 Oct 2011, 18:24 (Ref:2976710) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,982
|
How would the 70-200f2.8L with an extender rate against the 100-400mm f/4.5 ?
|
|
__________________
Cromley: "With the margin Gareth has, he doesn't need to play for sheep stations" |
25 Oct 2011, 18:43 (Ref:2976716) | #6 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
I've just taken the time to check one of my shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4098191...n/photostream/ - Taken in evening light on 1/250 with an ISO of 250. This is a very good lens.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
25 Oct 2011, 20:17 (Ref:2976758) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
I always consider an extender as being fine for occassional use, but no substitute for having the focal length required in the main lens.
Sigma 100-300 f4 EX is as sharp as the 100-400 from 100-300, and is faster. Given the cropping power of modern DSLRs its worth considering. |
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
26 Oct 2011, 09:29 (Ref:2976961) | #8 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
how does the cost compare (2nd hand availability?) for a 100-300mm vs the 100-400mm?
|
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
26 Oct 2011, 09:57 (Ref:2976981) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
If you can find one, the Sigma 100-300 seems to sell for £ 400-£ 500 secondhand, compared to £ 800 ish for the 100-400 from Canon.
|
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
26 Oct 2011, 10:49 (Ref:2977016) | #10 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
hmm. this thread is interesting to me cause i'm considering investing in canon kit over the winter that's at least the equal of my nikon stuff, which is the nikon 80-400mm lens and a d70. thinking about the shots i've taken this year at the circuit i've ended up using the far reach of zoom more often than not so i guess a 300mm lens with extender wouldn't cut it.
is there a difference in autofocus between the canon and sigma? |
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
26 Oct 2011, 10:56 (Ref:2977021) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
I've used the Sigma 100-300 for several years and its been great with my 30D/40D/50D. I hired a 100-400L once and I think the colours and contrast were slightly better out of the camera, but in terms of AF speed and accuracy they were equal, and sharpness was on a par as well. From 300-400mm the 100-400 held a small advantage when comparing with the Sigma with a teleconverter attached, but now with a 7D I can crop heavily.
I've now switched to a 300mm prime but still keep the Sigma 100-300 for those occasions where versatility is useful - eg race starts and pack shots. |
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
26 Oct 2011, 11:11 (Ref:2977032) | #12 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
(apologies for thread hijacking)
i have small hands and can't hold the big pro bodies (stop sniggering), so i'm stuck with the smaller slrs so your experiences with both are greatly appreciated, thank you. i try and stay away from photoshop and processing images so i think i'm stuck with going for the canon lens. is there a noticeable difference in weight? |
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
26 Oct 2011, 11:24 (Ref:2977042) | #13 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,142
|
The new Nikons are quite compact, I was looking at the D7000 and was impressed at how small it is compared with my old D100 yet it's light years ahead of it.
|
||
|
26 Oct 2011, 11:45 (Ref:2977056) | #14 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
I have a D50 and a 7D. Both are equal in size but the 7D is possibly a little heavier. Of the Canons the 600D is possibly the best in the smaller body. The Sigma 100-300 is substantially lighter than the Canon 100-400.
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
26 Oct 2011, 12:14 (Ref:2977075) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
Canon have three sizes of body
the xxxD and xxxxD range which are quite small. the xxD and 5D / 7D range which is traditional 35mm sized and the 1D pro bodies which incorporate a battery grip and are bigger and heavier. I much prefer the 7D size to the older 350D I had, my hands are bigger and I found it more comforable to use, in the cold, wearing gloves. Trying in the shop is advisable, but take some gloves as a warm shop is different to Snetterton in March. The Sigma 100-300 EX f4 weighs 1480 grams, the Canon 100-400L is about 100 grams lighter. I tend to use mine with a monopod. |
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
26 Oct 2011, 12:23 (Ref:2977081) | #16 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,302
|
|||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
26 Oct 2011, 12:29 (Ref:2977083) | #17 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
the 35mm sized ones are about my limit - the problem isn't so much small hands, it's that i essentially have non-opposable thumbs. i can't use them to grip unless i use the joint at the very base of the thumb, which isn't made for that purpose! but i do agree that if you go for a really small body it doesn't feel balanced. plus with a heavier lens it can't be good for the lens mount either.
the only problem with acquiring new toys during the off season is the itch to try them out trackside is overwhelming, so it might have to wait until the other side of winter at least though! |
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
26 Oct 2011, 12:50 (Ref:2977100) | #18 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,447
|
7D is heavier as it has a metal frame as opposed to the plastic and polymers lower down the range. In terms of use, the 60D is not disimilar from the 7D (although you might consider the focusing options and higher frame rate of the latter to be crucial). The lens mount on the plastic bodies is stronger than used to be the case, so you should have no problem with all but the largest lenses.
Going back to the original question, the Canon is probably the cheapest and most convenient way to reach 400mm, although the prime options (400 or 300+1.4x) will generally produce a slightly better IQ. |
||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
26 Oct 2011, 14:47 (Ref:2977169) | #19 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 480
|
Quote:
.DAVID. |
|||
__________________
Photographer for the CSCC You can sleep in a car BUT you can't race a house!!! |
26 Oct 2011, 14:59 (Ref:2977174) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
100-400 isn't very waterproof - the friction ring which adjusts how firm the push/pull section is, is actually made from cardboard. Rain protection essential!
|
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
26 Oct 2011, 15:33 (Ref:2977191) | #21 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 397
|
I got a Sigma 100-300 F4 after being recommended it by AndrewC. I too upgraded from a Canon 55-250. I have only used the Sigma on one event so far, images here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingsy/s...7627705734383/
Mine was £499 second hand from the London Camera Exchange in Colchester. I'm very happy with it, especially so given that was the first, and so far only, event I've used it for. I used it handheld, and with a monopod. I look forward to using it a lot more next season. |
|
|
26 Oct 2011, 18:06 (Ref:2977276) | #22 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
that night one of the f1 pitlane is fantastic! did you do much to the colours in the daytime shots? cracking set, ingsy
|
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
27 Oct 2011, 12:09 (Ref:2977655) | #23 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 397
|
Thanks bella
I always used to enhance the colours when using the 55-250, but I didn't feel I needed to with the 100-300. It was a bright sunny weekend though, which would help though. |
|
|
27 Oct 2011, 22:50 (Ref:2977953) | #24 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
|
Brilliant photos Ingsy! That lens looks great, but I would love to zoom further than 300m! I myself am on the 55-250mm at the moment, and being a brands hatch regular, feel I need alot more zoom to capture some of the iconic shots (Looking up paddock hill, with the car head on, filling the shot...), would anyone know how the sigma 100-300 reacts with a teleconverter? Does it lose its image quality?
|
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 23:32 (Ref:2977970) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,412
|
Depends on the quality of the lens you use it with as it will enhance any faults.
If you use a 2x converter you will loose a couple of stops and in a low light situation that's not what you want and unless you increase the speed, camera shake rears its head. They can work well in good conditions and are a way of getting a cheap longer lens that is a lighter weight compared to the real deal, however when it comes to it you can't beat the real thing |
||
__________________
Balls of steel (knob of butter) They're Asking For Larkins. ( Proper beer) not you're Eurofizz crap. Hace más calor en España. Me han conocido a hablar un montón cojones! Send any cheques and cash to PO box 1 Lagos Nigeria Africa ! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM | woodyracing | Motorsport Art & Photography | 46 | 27 Apr 2011 07:37 |
Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens | Allen Mead | Motorsport Art & Photography | 5 | 21 Mar 2006 12:19 |
Canon Lenses for Canon 350d? | Michael Wyles | Motorsport Art & Photography | 14 | 18 Jul 2005 17:50 |
Canon 100-400 L series+ x2 converter | TuscanR | Motorsport Art & Photography | 17 | 23 Mar 2005 13:13 |