The only other alternative that is around the price bracket of the 300mm f4 IS is the 100-400mm L IS. However, that one is a "push-pull" design, and may not be to your taste, some ppl like it, some do not (me included). It costs abt. $2,500 (+/-). Canon 300mm f4 L IS costs abt $2,300 new, 2nd hand ones go for abt $1.6-$1.8k, depending on condition and age. Sigma 50-500 is abt $1550 new, $1,000-$1,200 2nd hand. Assuming the new sets are non-grey and come with warranty. And yes, 300mm f4L IS comes with a tripod collar and built-in lens hood.majere2sg said:Thanks guys for all your advices and comments. Guess I have to make my choice between the Sigma 50-500mm and the Canon 300mm F4 IS.. Does anyone might have any other alternatives that are within the price range of these 2 lens ? Btw, does anyone knows how much does the Canon 300mm F4 IS cost approximately and does it comes or have any tripod collar ? Thanks again !
Which lens will you choose between these 3 ?
- Thread starter majere2sg
- Start date
- Status
Garion said:
Ermm not too sure how does the Push-Pull works cause never seen or use one before... So is it instead of turning the ring to zoom in and out, you push and pull the lens barrel to the focal length you want ? How is it sharpness compared to the 70-200mm F4 lens ? Thanks
majere2sg said:Thanks guys for all your advices and comments. Guess I have to make my choice between the Sigma 50-500mm and the Canon 300mm F4 IS.. Does anyone might have any other alternatives that are within the price range of these 2 lens ? Btw, does anyone knows how much does the Canon 300mm F4 IS cost approximately and does it comes or have any tripod collar ? Thanks again !
u can send an e-quote to cathay photo to ask abt the price
www.cathayphoto.com.sg
yup, it comes with tripod mount
Yes that is quite right. Not sure of its sharpness as compared to 70-200 f4 L as have not used both lenses before, but judging from sample shots the 100-400 L is quite sharp throughout most of its range. Sgt. Pepper I believe uses this lens, maybe u can PM him and find out more.majere2sg said:Ermm not too sure how does the Push-Pull works cause never seen or use one before... So is it instead of turning the ring to zoom in and out, you push and pull the lens barrel to the focal length you want ? How is it sharpness compared to the 70-200mm F4 lens ? Thanks
P.S BTW I like ur new sig...thats the way the forum shld be! No more wars between Canon and Nikon users. Cheers. :cheers:
Garion said:Yes that is quite right. Not sure of its sharpness as compared to 70-200 f4 L as have not used both lenses before, but judging from sample shots the 100-400 L is quite sharp throughout most of its range. Sgt. Pepper I believe uses this lens, maybe u can PM him and find out more.
P.S BTW I like ur new sig...thats the way the forum shld be! No more wars between Canon and Nikon users. Cheers. :cheers:
Sample shots from which website ? Thanks. Yes.. PEACE..
http://pbase.com/gaocus. Mostly shot with the 100-400mm IS. Awesome gallery.majere2sg said:Sample shots from which website ? Thanks. Yes.. PEACE..
I will take all of them if you are giving them free... )..
Jokes apart, I prefer 300 f/4L IS... actually I will prefer the non-IS one which is rated to be optically better than the IS cousin... With a 1.4X I can get excellent 420/5.6 for much lesser cost than the 400/5.6L..
cheers
Addy
)..Jokes apart, I prefer 300 f/4L IS... actually I will prefer the non-IS one which is rated to be optically better than the IS cousin... With a 1.4X I can get excellent 420/5.6 for much lesser cost than the 400/5.6L..
cheers
Addy
It sure is. But sometimes wish that Canon would make a 400mm f5.6 L IS though.MaGixShOe said:
300mm is a bit short for shooting wildlife, can put 1.4x TC to make it 420mm f5.6, but u lose sharpness in the process. From the polls, looks like the 50-500 'Bigma' is leading tho. Guess a lot of ppl like the versatility of a "one covers all" type of big zoom.
had been thinking whether I should get a big zoom lens as well ;p but I don't need it often... so thought of making do with a 1.4x + 70-200 + 1.7x front-mounted B300 (476mm equivalent) ;p had used the 1.4x + EF 100mm macro usm + 1.7x B300 combination and results seems ok (not as sharp as it would be without the teles though).
Below are 100% crops of image straight off camera with no postprocessing.
Below are 100% crops of image straight off camera with no postprocessing.
mpenza said:
The 70-200mm F4 is 67mm thread and 70-20mm F2.8 will be 77mm.. so may not be usable with the B300 (cause vignetting ??)..
I found the 70-200mm + 1.4x not enough for me.. thats why I got the 100-400mm.. ;p
majere2sg said:
yup, might have vignetting but hopefully at the teleend, there's none. I also have a 2x but my own tests seems to indicate that 1.4x+B300 works better than just the 2x.
Hi,
This may be a little bit out of topic. I was wondering which is optically superior when you compared the 400 f/5.6L with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at the 400mm end.
Assuming switching off the IS and both lens tripod mounted.
BTW, what is the $$ difference between this two lens?
Thanks!
This may be a little bit out of topic. I was wondering which is optically superior when you compared the 400 f/5.6L with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS at the 400mm end.
Assuming switching off the IS and both lens tripod mounted.
BTW, what is the $$ difference between this two lens?
Thanks!
kcky said:
I don't own the 400mm F5.6L but I would presume that it will optically superior as it is a prime lens.. I didn't bought any of the 3 lens I listed in this thread and got the 100-400mm IS instead and is quite satisifed with it..
Price of a 400mm F5.6L should be around $2.1k and the 100-400mm IS I bought for $2.6k.
Hi,
I guess that 400mm 5.6L should be sharper than the 100-400mm at the long end.
I've also recently bought the 100-400mm and found it murderous to use it without a tripod when shooting at 400mm, not to say the arm-aches that accompany it when you wake up the next day!
Anyway, I found the lens to be good for my needs. Next step should be getting the 1.4x extender (hopefully a 2nd hand one)! :sweatsm:
I guess that 400mm 5.6L should be sharper than the 100-400mm at the long end.
I've also recently bought the 100-400mm and found it murderous to use it without a tripod when shooting at 400mm, not to say the arm-aches that accompany it when you wake up the next day!
Anyway, I found the lens to be good for my needs. Next step should be getting the 1.4x extender (hopefully a 2nd hand one)! :sweatsm:
- Status
Similar threads
