Chat > Photography

Brighter days = photography

<< < (2/5) > >>

zpyder:
Problem with the 400 +teleconverter is cost, when the 100-400 MkII is more than the sigma without the telecoverter on top, you'd also end up with an f-stop less light.  Depending on what you read as well there are some comparisons that suggest that there really isn't much in it in terms of image quality.

Last I checked Adam still did a bit of wildlife photography as well so yeah, it's all personal choice. The weight is an issue but for what I do its my best option.

Binary Shadow:
Not sure on the sigma, I have had:

70-200 F2.8
150-500

Both were complete sh*t and so soft it was pointless using them.

Yep still into wildlife as well as motorsport and air shows. Using a crop body helps with the focal length.

I believe the noise on the 7d2 is better than the 7d but I haven't done a direct comparison.

Binary Shadow:
When you look at this comparison between the 100-400 mk2 and the sigma 150-600 sport it looks pretty awful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

zpyder:
Yeah, must admit I am now rethinking things a bit and am seriously considering trading in my Sigma due to the weight and size, as we'll be finally going on our honeymoon in June and there's no way I can lug the sigma around the world!

Having said that, I still maintain that it is a damn good lens for the money. Yes it may not be as sharp as the Canon, but the difference is only really noticeable at pixel peeping levels, the main difference to me is the size and weight. I'll be having a play with the 100-400 and an extender in a shop sometime in the near future, if I can get the OK from the other half haha.

zpyder:
So I ended up biting the bullet, as my wife and I still plan on doing a nature blog in the future, and our looming honeymoon is too good an opportunity to miss in terms of getting photographs of more exotic species. As a result the Sigma 150-600 is out and has been replaced with the 100-400mkII + a 1.4x II extender.

Initial thoughts:


* It's so much easier to carry around, I can actually fit it in my backpack without issue, and have it on a neck strap all day. In comparison, when I took my Sigma in to be part-ex'd, the only bag I had big enough for the box was a bin bag!
* Autofocus is very fast and accurate, more so than the sigma, which to be fair was perfectly adequate anyway.
* The 1.4x II extender brings the focal range almost in line with the 150-600...and it's fine for static, large, or slow moving subjects. Small fast moving subjects are a no go, could not achieve focus on some sand martins against a clear blue sky. without the extender the lens kept up easily. On the bonus side, my MP-E 65mm 1:1-5 macro can now be extended to 1:7 macro, which is pretty nuts.
* Unless pixel peeping, image quality isn't improved enough to warrant the upgrade. The main thing is size and weight.
So ultimately, I've given up some convenience of an all in one lens, for a lighter smaller package. The rest of the differences are minor enough to not factor in the decision making process really.

I am curious as to whether I'd have noticed any significant performance boosts if I'd bought the 1.4x III extender, but a second hand II model for £100 was too good an opportunity to miss.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page