100-400L - worth it?

[doodle]

Need some feedback on choices that/s been torturing me for months:
Target:
airshows, sports and covert candids.

Been shooting airshows previously with my 70-200/2.8 sigma + 2x TC, the 140-400 range was just bearable for reach (actually can do with a little closer) and when it comes to formation/team performance I have to quickly remove the TC or to change to my 28-135IS for wider angle shots (lucky I have second body)...

Options:
1. 100-400L
Pro: IS (my skinny arms with coffee withdrawal cannot make it...), find monopods/tripods not fluid enuf to follow the fast aircraft. Add a 1.4X TC and I'll have decent reach and still have AF. Push-pull zoom fast handling in flypast.
Con: Price, and push-pull dust sucker? White lens not vey covert... and still need to buy 1.4xTC. Not sure if Sigma TC can use on the canons...

2. 50-500BIGMA
Pro: one lens does it all - wide framing and close in shots. AF and sharpness not too bad? Add my 2x TC I get 100-1000 telescope! (albeit no AF). Price.
Con: heavy and no IS, AF not as fast? (not sure if there is a focus limiter)

Anyone have tried both and any comments on my impressions of the two from what I read in forums. Additional comments appreciated.

I think i can squeeze budget for either but I only a serious hobbyist, don't want to splurge unnecessarily....
HOw?

[stout]

Go for the 50-500mm, one of the best I've.

Advantage;

50-500mm usable, even better to step-down one or two stops.

Sharp though out.

Very Much Lighter compare to 500mm f4L, which is 3.8kg. (50-500 is only 1.8kg)

Price is very cheap for getting a 500mm range! cheaper than 100-400L

Easy to handle compare to 500mm L lens.

Can Sometime use without tripods, 500mm f4L hardly possible!

[Terence]

Couple of my images with the 100-400L. Since you like aviation subjects, try these...

White Knight
AS-365
A300B4
A340-313X
B747-400
A330-300
Fokker 50 Enforcer 2
Surfer in Bali

[r32]

Keen to know what other people think about it.

I have used it for an afternoon, and did not like the handling of the lens. Other than the accusations of being a lens that sucks in dirt (you can feel the air coming out of it when you compress) I dislike that the lens feels unbalanced as the focal length changes. It is better if you have it locked to a certain focal length, then you need not keep your left hand gripping on the zooming portion. If you try to zoom as you shoot, your left arm is getting progressively compressed or stretched out, and the weight loading on your right arm holding the grip changes. Of course, this is irrelevant if you have it mounted on a tripod or a monopod. I shoot handheld mostly, and prefer the twist-zoom action still.

About the plus points, you really do see the IS working at 400mm, from being a jittery image in your viewfinder, into a steady image, swaying just slightly. Image quality beats a 70-200mm with a 2X teleconverter comfortably.

[bowwow]

it's big, heavy and bulky. But I use it often and like the sharpness and compression. Use it mainly for landscape though.

[Terence]

There's lots of talk about the 100-400L being a vacum cleaner and dust monster but in my experience, it's one of my cleanest lens. I use it very extensively in the field with hardly any problems with internal dust.

Maybe because I have a high tolerance to dust levels but compared to my old 24-70L, the telezoom is much cleaner.

The push-pull design does take some getting used to, it's weight shift can be quite significant if you pull out the barrel suddenly but this can be minimal if you're using a heavier body or learn how to support the elongated barrel. I sometimes rest my left hand on a surface or fence and actually use my camera hand to pull the body away. The supporting surface may not be there all the time but it works quite well if you have one.

[user111]

suggest u use the 300 f4 IS . it can still pair up with the 1.4x tc

[Terence]

Originally Posted by user111 suggest u use the 300 f4 IS . it can still pair up with the 1.4x tc

I think he prefers the flexibility of a zoom over the prime. The 300mm does provide some killer images with the TC though, both the 1.4 and 2x

[doodle]

Originally Posted by Terence I think he prefers the flexibility of a zoom over the prime. The 300mm does provide some killer images with the TC though, both the 1.4 and 2x

Thanks for the feedback guys, really appreciate it.
You r quite right about flexibility as I would have difficulty framing an aircraft doing a close fly-by without chopping off bits here and there. A zoom really helps with the wide end in close fly-by, and then zoom in as they approach or when they peel off. These are fast action in which ease of handling is important.
You guys seems like quite seasoned, how do find hand-holding and zooming at the same time while trying to follow the aircraft. And how's the AF. I've tried the BIGMA (although at low light) and it seem to focus hunt abit. Does the 100-400 has the focus limiter to infinity range?
I suppose at the end of tthe day, I'll need to find out for myself if I can hack the handling of either lens. Anyone know where I can loan or rent one?

[user111]

hmm that means my idea of flexibility is ony 2 focal lengths: 300 mm and 400mm.. hehe

[studiolabmaster]

i vote for the sigma 50-500,cheap and good,but quit heavy,but full coverage.min focus dist is 3m if not wrong.good for sports................

[Terence]

I think a telezoom is essential for aviation photography, especially when there's lots of action involved in an airshow or even shooting at a runway. I'm a great admirer of primes myself but I continually find myself leaving those lenses at home when Im out at the airport.

[John Tan]

So is Canon len better or Sigma one?

[Terence]

Originally Posted by John Tan So is Canon len better or Sigma one?

IMO, got the $$, get the Canon if not the Sigma is a good alternative.

Btw, the singular noun of lens is "lens", not "len".

[doodle]

Originally Posted by studiolabmaster i vote for the sigma 50-500,cheap and good,but quit heavy,but full coverage.min focus dist is 3m if not wrong.good for sports................

Hey..this sounds like a poll potential.
Those out there with similar interest in aviation photography (or similar) and has considered these 2 lenses, how about a vote?

[lhjz]

i used both 50-500(sold) and 100-400(owned)
here'e some shots of D30+50-500 handheld(cropped away 40% approx)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=286501
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=285608
its a versatile and reasonably sharp lens for its price

50-500
- experience slight vignetting on the corners, AF slower, heavier
100-400
- push pull is harder to control(to me), almost twice the price of 50-500,

go for the 100-400 if money is not a concern, you get better quality(sharpness, color), lighter and comes with [IS] function which means you dun hav to lug a tripod for spotting,

juz my personal opinion