100-400l series lens
Oct 29, 2013 18:41:40 #
billozz
Loc: Birmingham, England
friend of mine is selling one of the above and wants about £650 for it. is there an alternative to this lens from another maker and is that a good price for it
thanks
Bill
thanks
Bill
Oct 29, 2013 18:44:00 #
billozz wrote:
friend of mine is selling one of the above and wants about £650 for it. is there an alternative to this lens from another maker and is that a good price for it
thanks
Bill
thanks
Bill
Many will tell you Sigma. I don't agree with that. Do you need a zoom?? I love my Canon 400mm f/5.6.
Oct 29, 2013 18:56:02 #
billozz wrote:
friend of mine is selling one of the above and wants about £650 for it. is there an alternative to this lens from another maker and is that a good price for it
thanks
Bill
thanks
Bill
Bill, if that is less than a $1000, it's a bargain, even for an old lens.
I would not get a substitute. That lens in 5 years will still sell for that. Excellent lens. LIGHT and COMPACT.
SS
Oct 29, 2013 19:03:44 #
billozz
Loc: Birmingham, England
SharpShooter wrote:
Bill, if that is less than a $1000, it's a bargain, even for an old lens.
I would not get a substitute. That lens in 5 years will still sell for that. Excellent lens. LIGHT and COMPACT.
SS
I would not get a substitute. That lens in 5 years will still sell for that. Excellent lens. LIGHT and COMPACT.
SS
sharpshooter its a bit over at 1043 dollars according to a currency converter
Oct 29, 2013 19:08:23 #
billozz
Loc: Birmingham, England
pigpen wrote:
Many will tell you Sigma. I don't agree with that. Do you need a zoom?? I love my Canon 400mm f/5.6.
pigpen,
thanks for the reply. do you mean you dont think sigma is as good? i have a 70-300 f/4-5.6 which i really like using and i get some great shots with it just looking to improve my equipment and wondering if there is anything other than canon, which would come highly recommended.
Oct 29, 2013 19:11:40 #
billozz wrote:
sharpshooter its a bit over at 1043 dollars according to a currency converter
Bill, that's still very cheap. If they look like new, they go for $1300. Mine was old with a lot of dirt in it, and I paid $1100. The dirt does not affect the pics. And if your're so inclined, they are easy to take apart and clean.
Look on Craig's List in San Francisco or LA. There are lots of them. See what they go for.
Good luck
SS
Oct 29, 2013 19:49:55 #
All that I can tell you is that I have a friend who uses this lens almost exclusively on Antelope Island and gets fantastic photos. What does the lens sell for new in the U.K.? You might want to check B&H and see what they're selling the same lens in like new condition.
Oct 30, 2013 04:04:51 #
1. Fixed primes like a 400mm are too restrictive, Sigma reviews regularly beat canon
Oct 30, 2013 09:10:39 #
Bill, to be clear, when the folks here talk about the Sigma lens, they're talking about either the 50-500mm (nicknamed "Bigma), or the 150-500mm, both of which give you an extra 100mm of reach on the 100-400mm, and sells for about 60% of the cost of the Canon. They get very high reviews.
An alternative would be to purchase a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-300mm, for a whole lot less than any new lens purchase. The Canon 1.4x teleconverter will NOT work with the 70-300mm, but the Kenko will.
An alternative would be to purchase a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-300mm, for a whole lot less than any new lens purchase. The Canon 1.4x teleconverter will NOT work with the 70-300mm, but the Kenko will.
Oct 30, 2013 09:27:16 #
JR1 wrote:
1. Fixed primes like a 400mm are too restrictive, Sigma reviews regularly beat canon
Who's rewiews, yours?
I have both, Canon L is much better.
Oct 30, 2013 09:57:52 #
Canikon Guy wrote:
Who's rewiews, yours?
I have both, Canon L is much better.
I have both, Canon L is much better.
Ahhh, but you own both. When is it, then, that you break out the Sigma, even when you know the Canon is the better lens?
Oct 30, 2013 12:23:42 #
Bob Yankle wrote:
Ahhh, but you own both. When is it, then, that you break out the Sigma, even when you know the Canon is the better lens?
I bought the Nikon mount Sigma 150-500 used from a fellow airplane spotter at a very good price, that I could not pass up.
I use the Sigma for shooting birds and animals in the back yard.
It is not a bad lens, just needs a lot of light and higher ISO settings.
For anything else like aviation pictures, the Canon L is my go to lens.
Oct 30, 2013 14:48:53 #
Canikon Guy wrote:
I use the Sigma for shooting birds and animals in the back yard. It is not a bad lens, just needs a lot of light and higher ISO settings.
For anything else, the Canon L is my go to lens.
For anything else, the Canon L is my go to lens.
You and I share similar experiences, just in different lens sizes. Before Canon came out with a usable 18-200mm lens, I used a Sigma 18-200mm. It was much darker, and had a grey/green cast in the color spectrum, so I sold it when the Canon proved it didn't share the same propensity. For the really good stuff, I use Canon L(s) (16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300), but for an everyday walk-around (slumming) lens I mount the 18-200mm on my 7D and catch gorgeous photos.
I was curious about the Sigma 150-500mm because I'm slowly building up to purchasing a long lens myself.
Oct 30, 2013 15:03:53 #
Bob Yankle wrote:
You and I share similar experiences, just in diffe... (show quote)
If you are looking for a long zoom for Canon, can't go wrong with the 100-400L :thumbup:
Sigma 150-500 is the longest lens I have for the Nikon.
Including the EF100-400L, I also have a collection of other L lenses. EF100 f/2.8L macro, EF70-200 f/2.8L IS II, EF70-300L.
To save weight and being a little "low keyed" for walk around, I will use the EF 70-300 DO lens.
How do you like the EF70-300L?
Oct 30, 2013 15:12:21 #
Canikon Guy wrote:
How do you like the EF70-300L?
How do you like the EF70-300L?
Until 2 weeks ago, I didn't have much to go on, as I used it so rarely. That changed when I shot a Reenactment for the Battle of the Hook in Gloucester, VA. (see: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-158124-1.html ) That opened my eyes considerably .... the sharpness and color capture were superb, "almost" as good as the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II. I started shooting with it mounted on my 5D MK III, but switched it over to the 7D when I realized I wanted faster response time when shooting in burst mode.
But now you've piqued my interest ..... do you have any examples taken with your EF 70-300 DO lens?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.