70-300 IS --> 70-200 F4 IS + 1.4TC

Well its certainly extremely temping!

2.6kg is bloody heavy tho.

Does it internal focus? Does it extend when changing focal lengths?

I think im going to get it, but not this year... 70-200 + 1.4 is more probable :(
 
Yup internal focus and it doesn't change length.
Compared to Canon 70-200 F2.8, Sigma 100-300 F4 and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 (bottom)

75384139_bx919Rlt_IMG_8097ed.jpg



Next to a 100-400 fully extended

75466035_3wXGPCLv_IMG_8631ed.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hmm have to say this 120-300 is catching my eye as well !!! Internal Focus, Internal Zoom, non rotating front, (hmm 105mm PL sounds expense ! :eek: )same length as 100-400 extended, ......Constant F2.8, Fast, sharp !!..... works great with TC's !!! .......

Ohh and is expensive :(
 
Another potential alternative would be a Canon 70-200F4L IS and a Canon 400mm F5.6.
The 70-200 is rated as being one of the better Canon L's and makes a great general purpose lens, for one thing it's light enough to be easily used.
The 400mm is often overlooked, but from reading around it's MUCH lighter than say the Sig, has very fast AF, is relatively cheap and makes the 100-400 look soft. It's also got the additional reach on say the Sig, meaning that you don't need to use an extender, thus avoiding the negative impact of using one. Some of the chaps on the FM forum believe that the 400mm has the edge when compared to the 300mm F2.8 with a x1.4. The only downside is the the F5.6 limitation, though bear in mind that the Sig with an extender ends up as an F4 lens, and being fair, you could always stuff a 1.4 on the 400, although you'd lose AF unless you have a 1 series.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Another potential alternative would be a Canon 70-200F4L IS and a Canon 400mm F5.6.

The 400mm is often overlooked, but from reading around it's MUCH lighter than say the Sig, has very fast AF, is relatively cheap and makes the 100-400 look soft. It's also got the additional reach on say the Sig, meaning that you don't need to use an extender, thus avoiding the negative impact of using one. Some of the chaps on the FM forum believe that the 400mm has the edge when compared to the 300mm F2.8 with a x1.4. The only downside is the the F5.6 limitation, though bear in mind that the Sig with an extender ends up as an F4 lens, and being fair, you could always stuff a 1.4 on the 400, although you'd lose AF unless you have a 1 series.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of images from the Canon 400 F5.6 and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with a 1.4x fitted.
Looking at the MTF charts the Canon has lower sharpness and contrast at 400mm F5.6 and even F8 than the Sigma does at 300mm F2.8 in the centre of the frame but the Canon holds it out to the edge where the Sigma drops away a bit - not really an issue on anything but a full frame camera.

The only two advantages I can see for the Canon is it's half the weight and half the price but it's slow and doesn't have IS.

MTF chart comparison

mtf_Canon-400_Sigma-120-300.JPG(2)
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of images from the Canon 400 F5.6 and Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with a 1.4x fitted.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
My comment was simply based upon feedback from a user on the FM forums who'd compared his owned 300mm F2.8L with x1.4 vs the 400mm. His view was that the 400mm gave better IQ. I'm guessing that however good the Sig is, that it's not going to be better than the 300mm F2.8L.

It really does come down to usage. When you need the reach, the 400mm is more than a little useful and I've used it to good effect say recently at a kart racing event.

For shorter ranges, I think that's when the 70-200 comes into it's own.
My personal opinion is that the Sig is probably the better "single lens" solution, but if you're happy to change lenses when required, the combo of the 70-200 and 400 have the edge.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Agreed.
My comment was simply based upon feedback from a user on the FM forums who'd compared his owned 300mm F2.8L with x1.4 vs the 400mm. His view was that the 400mm gave better IQ. I'm guessing that however good the Sig is, that it's not going to be better than the 300mm F2.8L.

It really does come down to usage. When you need the reach, the 400mm is more than a little useful and I've used it to good effect say recently at a kart racing event.

For shorter ranges, I think that's when the 70-200 comes into it's own.
My personal opinion is that the Sig is probably the better "single lens" solution, but if you're happy to change lenses when required, the combo of the 70-200 and 400 have the edge.
Click to expand...

I think the 400 option is abit much :p Im more likely to get the 300mm + 1.4...

Decisions decisions eh!?

Edit: Actually, the 400mm is less than the 300 :o Although if Canon give it IS then I'd be getting that which will be a good £200 more.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Agreed.
My comment was simply based upon feedback from a user on the FM forums who'd compared his owned 300mm F2.8L with x1.4 vs the 400mm. His view was that the 400mm gave better IQ. I'm guessing that however good the Sig is, that it's not going to be better than the 300mm F2.8L.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if the Canon 300mm F2.8 with 1.4 and 2x stacked didn't out perform the 400mm F5.6.

The feedback I've seen of the 400mm F5.6 is that it's pretty much a standard telephoto prime; nothing special.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
I'd be surprised if the Canon 300mm F2.8 with 1.4 and 2x stacked didn't out perform the 400mm F5.6.

The feedback I've seen of the 400mm F5.6 is that it's pretty much a standard telephoto prime; nothing special.
Click to expand...

Go have a scan at the FM forums, I was surprised by the view on the 400mm. Whilst it's dirt cheap (in relative terms), it's well noted by a lot of users on their for being very sharp and having excellent and fast AF.
Personally I've never compared mine to any similar type lens, but some on them have, and like yourself, I was surprised that it was capable of competing with a 300mm F2.8 mated with a x1.4 extender. From my knowledge of how good the 300mm is, that's probably a more indictive statement of how bad the x1.4 extenders are. I know that I'd rather avoid using mine wherever possible.
 
400mm F5.6 is known as a cracking lens by pretty much most wildlife photographers. AF speed, weight and corner-corner sharpness are the reason its been around for so long, I'd say its usage is pretty specialised though, I want one to go on a bushhawk with a 40D for my trip to Canada in January for Snowy owls.
Looking at the many pictures which have been taken by it over such a long time, i'd struggle to critisize its images.

In terms of the 120-300 it'll do a lot of things better than the 400, for example low light, closer subjects etc, but its expensive.. I imagine it works very well with a 1.4x, whereas I wouldn't bother with a 1.4x on the 400 F5.6..
 
I picked up a sigma 120-300 recently and it's a lovely lens, seems to be built like a tank (and weighs nearly as much). Cost me about £1100 from Hong Kong, figure if I ever get bored of it then I could sell it without too much of a loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom