Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 991
Get a crop sensor camera and enjoy your 200mm at 320mm 
Nothing over 200mm.. What to get?
- Thread starter 413x
- Start date
The 400mm F5.6L lens never really appealed to me because of the lack of zoom and lack of IS but since then I've seen the kind of shots it produces and when you combine that with the size/weight, it does make me want to try one hehe.
The 100-400mm mk2 does cover the same focal lengths that you have but it'll probably be stuck at 400mm when you're using it anyway hehe
That's the thing isn't it
When would I need it lower than 400?
Of I did I'd have the 70-200 with me worth 1.4x and I'd nearly be all the way there with f4
As this would be for flighty wildlife (ie birds) and we live in dreary England I don't think f5.6 is enough.
It's dark in woodland
Does it seem like it's 400mm DO or bust? It seems like it.
Maybe there really isn't anything light and cheap enough in this area when I have a 70-200?
Last edited:
Get a crop sensor camera and enjoy your 200mm at 320mm
I already have a 70d and 60d
Yeah the 400mm offerings aren't plenty or cheap. The 100-400mm is mostly going to be used at the long end like my 200-400 but it's nice to have the flexibility.
400mm DO2 is a very nice option but priced accordingly
But even then, you'll likely want more range sometimes so you might end up sticking a 1.4x on there and getting F5.6 anyway? I guess my point is, unless you plan on getting a 400mm F2.8 or the 500/600mm F4 lenses then you better just get used to the idea that you'll be working at F5.6 quite a lot. Those wild animals are rarely considerate enough to let you get close
Yeah the 400mm offerings aren't plenty or cheap. The 100-400mm is mostly going to be used at the long end like my 200-400 but it's nice to have the flexibility.
400mm DO2 is a very nice option but priced accordingly
I guess my point is, unless you plan on getting a 400mm F2.8 or the 500/600mm F4 lenses then you better just get used to the idea that you'll be working at F5.6 quite a lot. Those wild animals are rarely considerate enough to let you get close
I do wonder if I should just cross it off my photography list
As it's not a job is it worth it? Probably not.
And yep it's crazy there's nothing at 400 beyond super cheap and super expensive.
I want a 2k ish 400mm prime (with IS)
The 400mm f5.6 is pointless it's what my situation sigma did but worse (on paper)
The 70-200 f2.8 is mkii was a great buy I love it.
Shame there isn't a 400mm f4 without the price tag of DO
Last edited:
To the OP, if you're not in a rush to get a lens in the 400mm+ bracket, it might be an idea to wait a little.
There are rumours, that Canon might release an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS Zoom in the Autumn.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-release-super-telephoto-zoom-in-2016-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/more-canon-super-telephoto-zoom-talk-cr1/
It would make sense, since Canon is lacking an affordable zoom in that range and I suspect they might want to mop up the Tamron and Sigma sales.
There are rumours, that Canon might release an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS Zoom in the Autumn.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-release-super-telephoto-zoom-in-2016-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/more-canon-super-telephoto-zoom-talk-cr1/
It would make sense, since Canon is lacking an affordable zoom in that range and I suspect they might want to mop up the Tamron and Sigma sales.
Yes this won't be a this summer purchase I doubt.
A canon 200-600mm is in that range would be amazing
I just ordered the sigma 150-600mm Sports. I'm doubting a canon version would be much better TBH. The siggy is very sharp and focuses extremely quickly and reliably. Plenty of people have compared it to 400/500/600mm primes and it stacks up very well.
I will probably be in the position to buy the Canon near when it comes out.
I've so far had bad experience with sigma lenses
From focus issues on 35mm 1.4 to just generally not living up to my expectations for the 120-300mm (I'm so pleased with my 70-200mm Canon f2.8. Is mkii
I'd really like canons potential new offering to sit slightly higher than the quality bracket it is being proposed for.
Particularly weather sealed.
I will probably wait for the Canon as every Canon lens I have has been quite frankly beyond my expectation. I think a lot is the IS in the Canon lenses seems miles Better than in the Sigma 120-300mm
I'll buy both at same time and compare
I must say I was grateful being out I the lakes for 5 hours to have the Canon and not sigma over my shoulder.
This kind of dismisses the Canon f2.8 300mm + TC option!
Last edited:
I know what you mean about branded vs 3rd party lenses and I have some slight hesitation so will be doing lot of testing in my 30 day return period. However, the Sigma 150-7600mm hasn't really received any complaints form a focus perspective and most people that have compared it to the super exotic tele (600mm f/4) says it holds its own considering price-aperture-sigma.
Brad hill has the most detailed comparisons form a pro photographer with plenty of field usage in real world conditions. He shoots Nikon but has made comparisons with the 400mm f/2.8 600mm f/4 80-400mm f/5.6 as well as the Tamron and Sigma C models and the new Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 which is what Canon will most likely replicate going by the rumours (price less than 100-400, lower weight):
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_2015_GearStuff
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_LongLensWarsI
Lots and lots of posts scattered throughout, looking at autofocus, image sharpness, keeper rates.
At 600mm:
At 400mm
So of course it isn't a 600mm f/4 costing $12,000 nut it does very well. The latest firmware supposedly improves things further.
Brad owns the 400mm and 600mm primes but still has a place for the 150-600mm as a lighter weight more versatile addition, and doesn't for 1 second think the quality will impact his professional images.
Have a look at the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, this sounds exactly like the lens Canon will produce. If canon wants the weight and price to be competitive then they will most likely limit to 500mm, which is absolutely not a problem on a crop camera. The only reason I really went with the Sigma is I am on FF and value the extra 100mm, on crop I would have gone with the nikon 200-500m. The Nikon has very good image quality but most reviews actually show the Sigma to be very slightly sharper at 600mm, however the Nikon is better than the tamron or Sigma C models. Gain, this is related ti keeping the price in balance. when it comes to autofocus most people have found the Sigma sport better than the Nikon 200-500mm, this is because nikon used a cheaper AF unit, again this just coming down to price and nikon wanting to differentiate their more expensive 80-400mm lens.
the Nikon if f/5.6 because nikon officially don't support autofocus at less than that, Canon is the same, so I doubt the canon would be 600mm f/6.3. And due to weight and price I think 600mm f/5.6 is not very likely, I think the 500mm f/5.6 is the most likely long end like the Nikon.
Then there is the build quality, the sigma sport is a tank and the Nikon 200-500mm is a consumer grade plastic lens, adequate for amateures but not in the same League. If Canon go after the same price and weight then it will also have inferior build quality.
Of course I just purchased the Sigma Sports so I am justifying my purchase above, but I thought I would point out that the canon rumored lens is unlikely to be superiors to the Sigma Sports and I wouldn't be surprised to see it being a 200-500mm f/5.6 lens with consumer plastic body and AF that isn't really better than the sigma with a price point higher than the Tamron and Sigma C models, but less than Sigma sports.
Brad hill has the most detailed comparisons form a pro photographer with plenty of field usage in real world conditions. He shoots Nikon but has made comparisons with the 400mm f/2.8 600mm f/4 80-400mm f/5.6 as well as the Tamron and Sigma C models and the new Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 which is what Canon will most likely replicate going by the rumours (price less than 100-400, lower weight):
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_2015_GearStuff
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_LongLensWarsI
Lots and lots of posts scattered throughout, looking at autofocus, image sharpness, keeper rates.
At 600mm:
At 400mm
So of course it isn't a 600mm f/4 costing $12,000 nut it does very well. The latest firmware supposedly improves things further.
Brad owns the 400mm and 600mm primes but still has a place for the 150-600mm as a lighter weight more versatile addition, and doesn't for 1 second think the quality will impact his professional images.
Have a look at the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, this sounds exactly like the lens Canon will produce. If canon wants the weight and price to be competitive then they will most likely limit to 500mm, which is absolutely not a problem on a crop camera. The only reason I really went with the Sigma is I am on FF and value the extra 100mm, on crop I would have gone with the nikon 200-500m. The Nikon has very good image quality but most reviews actually show the Sigma to be very slightly sharper at 600mm, however the Nikon is better than the tamron or Sigma C models. Gain, this is related ti keeping the price in balance. when it comes to autofocus most people have found the Sigma sport better than the Nikon 200-500mm, this is because nikon used a cheaper AF unit, again this just coming down to price and nikon wanting to differentiate their more expensive 80-400mm lens.
the Nikon if f/5.6 because nikon officially don't support autofocus at less than that, Canon is the same, so I doubt the canon would be 600mm f/6.3. And due to weight and price I think 600mm f/5.6 is not very likely, I think the 500mm f/5.6 is the most likely long end like the Nikon.
Then there is the build quality, the sigma sport is a tank and the Nikon 200-500mm is a consumer grade plastic lens, adequate for amateures but not in the same League. If Canon go after the same price and weight then it will also have inferior build quality.
Of course I just purchased the Sigma Sports so I am justifying my purchase above, but I thought I would point out that the canon rumored lens is unlikely to be superiors to the Sigma Sports and I wouldn't be surprised to see it being a 200-500mm f/5.6 lens with consumer plastic body and AF that isn't really better than the sigma with a price point higher than the Tamron and Sigma C models, but less than Sigma sports.
So has everyone including Sigma and Tamron, mostly because software simulation has taken bi strides. Canon, Nikon, Sigma pretty much all use the same commercial optical simulator http://www.zemax.com/ That is why Sigma can make a prime sharper than Canon or Nikon with relative ease, lens design now just comes down to making tradeoffs between sharpness, Bokeh, price, complexity, weight, distortion vs sharpness vs CA.
So I also expect the Canon option to be good, but I don't expect it to be significantly better than the Sigma sport. A lot will come down to what kind of margins Canon wants on their version, if they want an affordable lens with lower cost than their 100-400mm then you will have to expect some compromises.
It will be interesting
I think weight matters as well as AF speed and effective stabilisation
Main compromise will be weight vs aperture really
Ideally 300-500 up to f5.6 would be nice
I suspect I will naturally be in a position to buy towards end of the year anyway and really I think the 400mm do really is unjustifiable.
I will read more on the sigma.
I think weight matters as well as AF speed and effective stabilisation
Main compromise will be weight vs aperture really
Ideally 300-500 up to f5.6 would be nice
I suspect I will naturally be in a position to buy towards end of the year anyway and really I think the 400mm do really is unjustifiable.
I will read more on the sigma.
I came across this earlier
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm
Looks like Canon have produced a 150-600 f/5.6 L lens in the past albeit for the FD mount and L series.
Interestingly it had less elements and groups than the modern Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport and still managed to be a constant f/5.6, quite some achievement considering when it was released.
Problem with Canon is that their lens design isn't what is holding them back, it is their conservatism. Contrast this with Sigma, who do take some bold steps. Sigma are a family run company and their CEO Kazuto Yamaki, from interviews I've read with him, is quite a refreshing change from the usual Japanese corporate figureheads.
Canon really do need someone like Kazuto Yamaki to make those bold moves.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm
Looks like Canon have produced a 150-600 f/5.6 L lens in the past albeit for the FD mount and L series.
Interestingly it had less elements and groups than the modern Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport and still managed to be a constant f/5.6, quite some achievement considering when it was released.
Problem with Canon is that their lens design isn't what is holding them back, it is their conservatism. Contrast this with Sigma, who do take some bold steps. Sigma are a family run company and their CEO Kazuto Yamaki, from interviews I've read with him, is quite a refreshing change from the usual Japanese corporate figureheads.
Canon really do need someone like Kazuto Yamaki to make those bold moves.
Interesting find, love that website. That is one funky zoom mechanism!
I still stand by my assertion that 150-600mm f/5.6 is unlikely purely due to the size, weight and cost with bracket that canon would be aiming for if you believe the rumour. Of course the rumour could be wrong and canon want to push a model that is higher end and more expensive than the sigma sports. I would have happily paid 50% more than the sigma sports for a Nikon lens to 150-600mm f/5.6 with Nikon's best AF and greatest optics. Heck, even a 600mm f5.6 prime for $3000 I would snap up.
Completely agree with you.
I would love a canon f5.6 to 600mm
For me (not sure about nikon) there really isn't anything between cheap and ridiculous in the tele end apart from third party
By cheap I mean 1k, by expensive I mean 4k..as these are tele lenses
Sure, canon have updated the 100-400mm but I see this as a more casual lens.
I really want f5.6 at 600mm or the ability to put a TC on a good 400mm f4
The DO II is just too expensive and the DO I Is awful from what I gather
I'm also willing to pay 50pc more for Canon lens.
Last edited:
I use the 400 f5'6 on my 7D and 5D3. It would work better on a 1Dx with 1.4 TC.
The new 100-400 is supposed to be very Good. The 200-400 is better.
Nothing wrong with the Tamron 150-600 either. If doing birds in flight you switch off the IS anyway, same when on a tripod. 400 DO is a Very Heavy Lens. I nearly dropped a friends one and shatt meself..lol..
The new 100-400 is supposed to be very Good. The 200-400 is better.
Nothing wrong with the Tamron 150-600 either. If doing birds in flight you switch off the IS anyway, same when on a tripod. 400 DO is a Very Heavy Lens. I nearly dropped a friends one and shatt meself..lol..