Does anyone own or has used both of these long lenses?

Phal

Phal

Phal

Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2004
Posts
4,087
Location
Shoreham by Sea
Canon 400mm F2.8L + converters 1.4x and 2x vs Sigma 300-800mm


Obviously one is zoom whilst the other isn't. One is F2.8 and the other is F5.6. Currently these lenses are a bit more of a wish than anything else but I definitely intend on getting one of them at some point!

I like the idea of having the versatility of the zoom and not having to detach the camera to add/remove converters etc but how different are they in terms of quality? I can look at shots but it's hard to tell what PP has been applied sometimes or whether it's just a crap shot.

Any other lenses to consider?
 
The sigma is a good lens but it wont resolve the detail of the canon when the canon is naked. The sigma might be a little sharper than the canon with a 2xTC on it.


The sigma is popular with the bird photographers because they need the 800mm reach. The canon 400mm is popular with sports because they need the f/2.8. Some wildlife togs will use the 400mm (again due to f/2.8) but for most uses it is too short without a TC. The 500mm f/4.0 tends to be more popular for several reasons: price, weight, size, little extra reach, but still f/4.0 fast. When size, weight and cost are eliminated most wildlife pros go to the 600mm because ultimately you need the reach.

Out of all the super telephotos the 400mm f/2.8s tend to be the sharpest.


Also have a good look at the older models. The optical quality of the previous gen lenses are very close to the current models, the difference tends to be with things like IS performance.


I'm personally saving towards a 500mm f/4.0 due to size, weight and cost. Had everything lined up to go with a D800 then found out my wife was expecting and bought a house instead!

There are rumors sigma will bring out a line of super tele, 400mm and 400mm f/2.8 and 500 and 600mm f/4. They definitely have the capabilities to make such lenses to quality at or near Nikon and canon for less than half the price.
 
Thanks for that :) I do find myself using my 100-400 at 400mm and I still want more reach so I need something eventually!

The Sigma really appeals to me despite the size and weight. Having used my 100-400mm quite a lot I know how convenient being able to zoom is.

That new Tamron 150-600mm might be tempting to tide me over for a while as it's likely to be reasonably priced but F6.3 will mean it's only much good on a sunny day!

Maybe some new magical lens will be released by the time I can afford one lol
 
You would need to budget for a sturdy tripod and a gimbal head as forget shooting those beasts handheld all day. For birds or wildlife reach is king, if it was me the 500mm f/4 gives the best balance between reach and being able to carry it without needing a Sherpa.
 
Well I rarely use my 100-400mm without the tripod so I definitely wouldn't be trying to handhold anything longer too often hehe.

Current tripod is rated high enough for the weight of bigger stuff but I know it wouldn't be stable enough for any longer exposures. It would be there more just to stabilise things.

I plan on renting a 300-800mm for a weekend or something to see what's involved in using it. I can then see if I'm manly enough to cart it around lol
 
Phal said:
Well I rarely use my 100-400mm without the tripod so I definitely wouldn't be trying to handhold anything longer too often hehe.

Current tripod is rated high enough for the weight of bigger stuff but I know it wouldn't be stable enough for any longer exposures. It would be there more just to stabilise things.

I plan on renting a 300-800mm for a weekend or something to see what's involved in using it. I can then see if I'm manly enough to cart it around lol
Click to expand...

What tripod do you have? The weight rating alone is unlikely to be a good indicator.

Highly recommend you use a Gitzo 55 series or equivalent. You will also need a good gimbal head, something like the wimberly side kick.
 
Manfrotto 055CX Pro4 which is rated up to 8KG according to the Manfrotto site and the Hydrostatic head is rated to 16KG

It would hold the weight without any issues imo but clearly it wouldn't be steady enough for a 30 second exposure at night or something daft! Fair enough trade-off as far as I'm concerned! If the lens is 6KG then I don't need much more to lump around.

I guess when I rent it then it'll be a good test to get an idea of what I can expect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom