Re jiggle my long end?

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,166
Location
Llaneirwg
As per previous thread I'm just not finding I like my sigma lens at 300mm 1.4tc

1) it's not that long
2) it's not that sharp
3) the stabilisation isn't a touch on canons

Also have not actually managed to get to any sports events
Possibly as shots of cars have all been done etc. (there's only so many variations of car you can get)

Also I will hopefully at least be trying a 500mm for the summer


All this leads me to wonder if I'll make much use of the sigma going forward

It's too heavy to just pick up and go out with for a casual walk with the dog
It's too heavy full stop for gf to use
Too long for people/wedding etc and to short for birds
It very much has its place for sports but I don't see me doing this
If I do ever go to the odd event it's a bit unjustified anyway

Getting rid would leave me with only my 100mm f2.8 L macro to fill space between 50mm and 500mm

Photography I do that falls in this range is mainly the dog, probably the zoo

I would have to cover this with 100mm fixed. Impossible for zoo, awkward for those dog action shots.

Should I get rid?
If I do.. Should I fill the void.
 
Looks like it's between

70-300mm L
70-200mm L ii

Main issues being
Weight (1000g vs 1500g)
Length
Aperture
Image quality

With only image quality being non absolute in that list
 
SDK^ said:
Is F2.8 required on the 70-200 zoom, as that is adding a lot of weight.

Or go primes; A Canon 135L F2 is one of Canon's sharpest lenses (The Lord of the Red Rings) it weighs 750g and is around £650. Likewise the 200 F2.8 II prime.
Click to expand...

Is the f2.8 required?
Not sure. It's hard to know. I usually compromise on weight vs aperture. I have no lenses slower than 2.8 except my uwa where it doesn't matter

Primes is probably a no at this point.
Probably the most difficult shots will be animals running

Another point I didn't mention is decent AF
 
No I wouldn't be using it on the 70-300mm. I'm sure I would be disappointed in quality.

I think I need to have a think if I will ever want that long end (200-300mm) in a walk about format

Let's face it. I'm not going to take the 500mm to the zoo.
I would take the 70-200mm f2.8 but would it be long enough?

I'm not experienced enough to even guess!
 
Phal said:
You forgot or you took a pic but you can't see them because of their awesome camouflage eh? Who's the fool now?! :P

I've taken 500mm sized lens to the BWC but it does 200-400/320-560 so it's definitely useful even if everyone stares a bit :P
Click to expand...

When I took my 120-300mm to whipsnade they almost didn't let me in thinking I was going to sell pics.

Big lens /= pro!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom