Another which lens thread

[roy e6]

I am thinking of treating myself to a new lens, i have 2 to choose between they are :-
Canon EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM at £870.00 Or Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5,6 DG OS HSM for £570.00
Does anybody have any of these if so what are they like? got any sample pics? I will be using it for motorsport and wildlife.My thoughts are they are basically the same spec,so is the canon worth the extra cash. It will be attached to a 400D any advice greatfully received. Cheers Roy

[RobDickinson]

roy e6 said:

I am thinking of treating myself to a new lens, i have 2 to choose between they are :-
Canon EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM at £870.00 Or Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5,6 DG OS HSM for £570.00
Does anybody have any of these if so what are they like? got any sample pics? I will be using it for motorsport and wildlife.My thoughts are they are basically the same spec,so is the canon worth the extra cash. It will be attached to a 400D any advice greatfully received. Cheers Roy

Havnt tried the 120-400 OS yet, have to checkout some reviews, its new(ish). But I doubt its opticaly anywhere near as sharp as the canon.

If you get a good 100-400, they seem like evry nice lenses with near 400f5/6 prime sharpness.

IMO USM seems faster and more solid than HSM, quieter and tracks better.

The canons IS is old school 2 stop though it works well - do you get along with push/pull zooms?

I tried the 100-400 against the 100-300 and 50-500 sigmas and, even though the 100-300 was faster opticaly the canon was better to hand hold, better reach etc and I felt more confident with its AF.

The sigma 100-300 and 120-300 are supposed to be pretty special opticaly though.

[Flying Trotter]

if you decide on the 100-400 IS L then Ian at Kerso will beat the price you quote in your thread - just bought one for my wife - see thread on US import for details - she will post her impressions when she has put it through its paces on her 40D - the reviews we read suggest its a very impressive lump of glass

[Bernie-the-bolt]

You could try a 70-200 2.8 IS L with a 1.4II converter.

You end up paying around a grand all in but you'll then have a better lens (IMO!) and with a converter a similar lens to the 100-400 when required.

[roy e6]

Ok Canon it is then, any reason why the 70-200 with 1.4II or 2II converter is a better option than the 100-400 ? cheers Roy.

[RobDickinson]

roy e6 said:

Ok Canon it is then, any reason why the 70-200 with 1.4II or 2II converter is a better option than the 100-400 ? cheers Roy.

Flexability.

70-200f2.8 with the 2* is opticaly poorer than the 100-400. 1.4 its ok I think.

[roy e6]

RobDickinson said:

roy e6 said:

Ok Canon it is then, any reason why the 70-200 with 1.4II or 2II converter is a better option than the 100-400 ? cheers Roy.

Flexability.

70-200f2.8 with the 2* is opticaly poorer than the 100-400. 1.4 its ok I think.

Which would you get? what could i do with the 70-200 i couldnt do with the 100-400 ? might be a stupid question but i am new to dslr. I have a sigma 70-300 which is ok, but could do with more reach.

Edited by roy e6 on Friday 25th July 22:14

[4hero]

The 100-400 is a beauty, I use mine a lot. Can't recommend it enough really.

[roy e6]

4hero said:

The 100-400 is a beauty, I use mine a lot. Can't recommend it enough really.

Have you used it with an extender? got any sample pics? cheers Roy.

[RobDickinson]

The 70-200f2.8 is 2 stops faster than the 100-400.

4 * as much light, so usefull when theres less available light. It only has half the reach.

Plenty of agument to have them both.

[roy e6]

RobDickinson said:

The 70-200f2.8 is 2 stops faster than the 100-400.

4 * as much light, so usefull when theres less available light. It only has half the reach.

Plenty of agument to have them both.

why do i always seem to pick expensive hobbys?