Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Looking For A New Lens For My 400D....  
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6446 times:

hello

currenty i have the canon 400D + 18-55 stock lens, im looking to replace the lens, ive been looking at the following

1. Sigma 50-500mm 50-500 F4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM £449
2. Canon Telephoto Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM £620

also looking at the 100-400L, but funds dont stretch to that amount at the moment...

so what would you suggest

scott

[Edited 2007-10-14 14:52:59]

[Edited 2007-10-14 14:53:34]

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6420 times:

I'd definitely go with the 70-200 f2.8. Never been to MAN but my impression is that you can get quite close to the action.
It's a cracking lens.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6414 times:

If it were me, I'd save a little bit longer and get the 100-400 but I don't know your needs and the 70-200 is certainly a very flexible lens and the better of those two you mentioned.


It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineIlikeflight From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Whatever you do keep the stock lens for wider angle shots

I have heard a lot of great things about the 70-200



Think Different
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6413 times:

Quoting MAN23R (Thread starter):
Canon Telephoto Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM £620

I have the non IS one, it one of the sharpest lens, but since youre in MAN probably wont feel too short of a range as I do over at LAX. I would go for a 100-400 only if you needed that extra range.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6392 times:

I (stupidly, looking back) once bought a 350D with the 18-55 shit... er, I mean kit lens and was very disappointed with the glass (or plastic rather). The camera itself was great but I soon realised the 18-55 would need to be replaced. Almost immediately I purchased a long-range lens - the EF75-300 USM III, which for the price was fantastic. I then bought the EF28-105 USM II (about £200 which, for a full metal/glass lens isn;t at all bad) which directly replaced the kit lens. The quality in comparison is much greater and there has been only two occasions (in the three years I've been shooting digi) where I've needed a lens with a wider angle. I still own this lens, along with the EF70-200 F4 L which I bought to replace the 75-300. If you rarely shoot in low light (I don't press the tit if the sun isn't shining!) then the cheaper 70-200 F4 will perhaps be better for you than the F2.8, as optically both lenses are identical. I personally don't have much use for IS. As for the Sigma, I've heard it's a good lens, if not a bit soft, but I doubt optically it's as good as the Canon. Being a MAN photographer myself I find the combination of my two lenses ideal - the 28-105 is perfect for anything from the mounds at the 23L threshold (from J41s through to 747s) and the 70-200 is just perfect for Joe's field approach shots. a 100-400 wouldn't get anything larger than a 767 from this location, meaning constant lens-swapping. I lost 100mm when I swapped lenses but again have hardly ever needed the extra. The higher cost for a further 100-200mm is in my opinion just not worth it.

First shot taken with the 28-105, second with the 70-200 F4 L:

Big version: Width: 3460 Height: 2307 File size: 1750kb


Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 317kb


Karl


User currently onlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3300 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 2):
If it were me, I'd save a little bit longer and get the 100-400 but I don't know your needs and the 70-200 is certainly a very flexible lens and the better of those two you mentioned

I'd do the opposite. I'd buy the 70-200 f2.8 now, wait until you have some more money, and then get the 2x extender. That way, you always have 2.8 available for low light unless you really need the extra range and with the extender on you still get autofocus and the 400mm you would want.

My roommate did just that recently and he's the happiest guy I know right now.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6352 times:

Quoting MAN23R (Thread starter):
Sigma 50-500mm 50-500 F4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM £449



Quoting MAN23R (Thread starter):
also looking at the 100-400L, but funds dont stretch to that amount at the moment...

Think the Sigma 80-400 is more usable then the 50-500 and it comes with image stabilizer like the Canon 100-400.
It's a good lens for the money but can't be compared to any 70-200/2.8



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4670 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6333 times:

Having owned both lenses (the Sigma still on my desk waiting till I can be arsed to sell it) I think I can add some insight.

I started off with a Tamron 28-300, which I replaced with the Sigma 50-500. It is one heavy lens, but once you get used to it it is stable as hell. Quality is pretty good for it's price and range, although it loves sunshine. It isn't bad in bad weather, but it shines with the sun out. Sharpness wise it is pretty good, but the Canon does do better in that aspect. Where the 70-200 2.8 (I have the IS version) really shines is the colors/contrast. The Sigma gives you great pics, but the Canon blows them out of the water hands down. Don't get me wrong, the Sigma is very much usable but the Canon is just that bit better.

The one thing I really miss with the Canon is the range, you can virtually do it all with the Sigma (which is great), but you do have a bit less quality. It is your call what you want. If you have more questions, please don't hesitate.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
Think the Sigma 80-400 is more usable then the 50-500 and it comes with image stabilizer like the Canon 100-400.

However, it doesn't come with HSM and can be very slow with focussing as I've heard.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6301 times:

thanks for the feedback guys,


think i will go for the 70-200 f2.8 in the not too distant future...

having said that the CANON EF 100-400mm IS USM looks great.....

cheers

scott

[Edited 2007-10-15 10:37:48]

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6289 times:

Quoting JRadier (Reply 8):
The Sigma gives you great pics, but the Canon blows them out of the water hands down.

It's not fair to compare a 50-500 against a 70-200 I think.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 8):
However, it doesn't come with HSM and can be very slow with focussing as I've heard.

True but it surprised me how quick it still is compared to the 50-500, never had a problem with it other then that it drains the battery very fast.
As said it(both) should not be compared to any 70-200/2.8 whether it's a Canon or Sigma in terms of speed and optical quality.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4670 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6263 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 10):
It's not fair to compare a 50-500 against a 70-200 I think.

tell me about it. However, that was exactly the question from the startpost so I did it anyway  Wink.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Quoting JRadier (Reply 11):

i didnt compare anything, i was merely putting forward the lens i am considering purchasing...


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 50-500 and a 70-200 are two different lenses for two different purposes.

FWIW, I own both in my respective system. You can't take the Bigma indoors, for example. Too dark and unwieldy. An alternative might be the Sigma 100-300 f/4 which is highly regarded.

Also don't forget that all that reach can't make up for you getting up close and personal with the aircraft. The farther away you are, the more heat, distortion, and atmospheric effects come into play.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6256 times:

so its either the 70-200 f2.8 or the 100-400L,

which one?


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4670 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

Quoting MAN23R (Reply 12):
i didnt compare anything, i was merely putting forward the lens i am considering purchasing...

I know, but the choice was between those 2 lenses, so it makes sense to compare them. My last reply was badly worded tho.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6252 times:

Quoting JRadier (Reply 15):
I know, but the choice was between those 2 lenses, so it makes sense to compare them. My last reply was badly worded tho.

no problem


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 6):
That way, you always have 2.8 available for low light unless you really need the extra range and with the extender on you still get autofocus and the 400mm you would want.

True, but using a TC means you lose stops anyway as well as sharpness given you're putting more glass between you and the subject. Thats why people opt for the 100-400 over teleconverted 70-200's. Not to mention that it has an IS which helps in lower light levels (although a bit of a gimmick).



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineMAN23R From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6245 times:

think im going to go for the 100-400L

User currently onlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3300 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 17):
Not to mention that it has an IS which helps in lower light levels (although a bit of a gimmick).

So does the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM.

I stand by my recommendation based on photos I've seen and on the experience of friends and colleagues who have both lenses, but, MonteyCarlos, you are right by all means that the 100-400 affords the benefits of sharper images and larger aperture at 400mm. I just think the versatility of the 70-200 would be better seeing as the OP already has the 18-55, and this would give him much less of a gap in focal lengths.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6228 times:

Quoting MAN23R (Reply 18):
think im going to go for the 100-400L

I think you're in a similar position to me in that you need to buy quality lenses now to save in having to buy them in the future. Honestly, over the next couple of years you'll probably end up with the 70-200 f/2.8 but its whether you want that now, or later.

ANITIX87 does have a valid point in that the 70-200 can essentially act as two lenses, however remember that with a 2X teleconverted 70-200 f/2.8 you really have a 140-400 f/5.6 and a non-IS one at that. For my mind, that 40mm difference and the use of an IS would be more important than the extra functionality of having a 70-200 f/2.8. That is why I have the 24-105 to complement my 100-400. Also remember that you're still going to have to do a lens change to get the TC off when you don't want to use it. For me, its just not as much of a flexible option as the alternate combinations.

You could always go for the f/2.8 IS version... if you've got a spare £1250.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 19):
I just think the versatility of the 70-200 would be better seeing as the OP already has the 18-55, and this would give him much less of a gap in focal lengths

But how long will he have that for?



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

A good website to look at and compare the various options is this one...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...2&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

It uses the ISO-12233 resolution chart sample crop comparison tool to compare various lens options with a teleconverter.

By selecting the options and moving your mouse over the image you get a good indication of how the lenses will perform.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently onlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3300 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 20):
however remember that with a 2X teleconverted 70-200 f/2.8 you really have a 140-400 f/5.6 and a non-IS one at that.

The 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM has IS. And, according to the Canon website, IS and AF are maintained when using the 2x converter with a f2.8 lens.

Also, the 100-400 is f4-5.6, so at 400mm, the two lenses have the same minimum aperture, even with the converter on the 70-200.

This is an argument that can go on forever, and while MonteyCarlos and I both have our choices, it's ultimately up to you.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 22):
The 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM has IS. And, according to the Canon website, IS and AF are maintained when using the 2x converter with a f2.8 lens.

Yes I know but thats not the model in question.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 22):
Also, the 100-400 is f4-5.6, so at 400mm, the two lenses have the same minimum aperture, even with the converter on the 70-200.

Yes, again I know. You're not telling me anything that I haven't already stated above. The key difference here is the overall resolution when using the TC. Check the link I posted. I am trying to help the guy get value for money, whereas you're trying to make him buy a lens and TC that cost more money, and IMO don't give as good of a result.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 6):
and then get the 2x extender

I wouldn't bother, loses too much quality. If you're gonna go down that road you may as well just buy the Sigma 50-500.

Quoting MAN23R (Reply 9):
think i will go for the 70-200 f2.8 in the not too distant future...

Like I say, consider the 70-200 F4 L if you rarely shoot in low light, as the optics are identical to the F2.8. IS, as mentioned above, is a bit of a gimmick in my opinion and I know people whose IS has frequently malfunctioned.

The 100-400 is a brilliant lens but coupled with the 18-55 kit lens you are left with a 45mm gap - and believe me at MAN that gap will give you big problems! As I've said, there really is no need for a 400mm lens at MAN - 200mm is plenty. I would recommend however that you replace the kit lens sooner rather than later, perhaps with something like the 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM II.

Karl


25 Post contains images INNflight : For what it's worth it....Canon announced a 800mm f5.6L IS yesterday....I'd sell my cam and my 100-400 for it, but then again - no cam   You will not
26 Post contains images Monteycarlos : Ouuu with a 2X thats 1600mm f/11... Thats a friggin telescope!
27 MAN23R : abit of an update... please bear in mind i like taking contrail shots so the 100-400L would surfice? plus people have stated the gap in lens, so im al
28 MAN23R : think ive made may decision... 1. canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM II 2. canon 70-200 f/4 IS L USM will i kick myself not going for the f2.8 or the 100-400L?
29 Post contains links and images KMB : Good choice I use both the above at Manchester, I sold my 70-200L f2.8 for the F4 IS version, for me its much lighter and sharper. View Large View Me
30 MAN23R : the answer i was looking for, great!!i thought the f4 was crap conpared to the f2.8, buy in next few days! scott
31 KMB : Don't forget to claim your cashback on the 70-200L from Canon UK.
32 MAN23R : im buying off ebay brand new for £560... scott
33 KMB : I will send you a PM, you may be able to get it cheaper with the cashback.
34 MAN23R : cheers kevin
35 KMB : Information sent to you Scott, so if the contact member works you should have received it. Kevin
36 MAN23R : thanks kevin for that info,ill check it out now, scott
37 JakTrax : Indeed. You will find yourself changing lenses almost from shot to shot, which is not only time-consuming but allows more opportunity for dust to set
38 Silver1SWA : This is very reassuring to hear. I was just looking at that lens. It sounds like it is a really great value. I am still debating some lens choices. I
39 KMB : I have had three of them and all have failed at some point despite me being a very careful owner. I know most think this is the best lens for aviatio
40 SNATH : (apologies if this is a stupid question) I was under the impression that, if the extenders were used, then you had to manually focus. Is this wrong?
41 KMB : There have been rumours for sometime but I don't see Canon to be in a hurry to upgrade since it has always sold so well.
42 MAN23R : cheers everyone for your help is much appriciated, i know what im going for now... 1. canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM II 2. canon 70-200 f/4 IS L USM maybe
43 LHRjc : Sorry to post in this thread but I figured it's kind of related. I'm off to Florida next week and have decided to take the plunge and buy the 100-400m
44 MAN23R : good idea, though i do not know of any retail outlets in america, as i a m from england, just try a search on google.com see what it comes up with,mi
45 NA : Just two weeks ago I made my decision between the Canon 70-300 IS F4,5-5,6 and the Canon 70-200 F4. After testing the first I was not happy with the
46 MAN23R : my new 28-105 USM II just arrived from hong kong, better start experimenting! scott
47 Orl777 : Hello!!! I just Asking for a new lens for my 400D too, I have a budget of 580$, I looking at the 70-200F4 and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS the problem for the
48 JRowson : I'm a bit late joining this one, but as a regular MAN spotter I shoot with a 70-200 f2.8LIS and a 1.4x attached all the time. Gives me a viable 90-300
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Looking For A New Lens..28-300.. Or What? posted Wed Jun 8 2005 23:01:37 by GRZ-AIR
Looking For New DSLR. Comments? posted Wed May 2 2007 04:38:34 by MidEx216
Rookie Looking For A New Lense... posted Wed Apr 25 2007 19:29:12 by Ulfinator
New Spotter Looking For Suggestions posted Thu May 25 2006 20:04:06 by Pilot3033
Looking For A New Camera posted Sat Mar 19 2005 05:15:57 by Squirrel83
Looking For A New Camera, Part 2 posted Fri Aug 15 2003 15:43:01 by UTA_flyinghigh
Airliners.net Is Looking For New Photo Screeners! posted Thu May 8 2003 01:14:28 by Administrator
My First Upload Rejected, Looking For Some Tips posted Tue Feb 11 2003 05:29:30 by Bronko
I'm Looking For A New Scanner... posted Wed Jul 18 2001 21:47:25 by Zhukov
Looking For New Camera posted Sat Apr 8 2000 21:23:48 by Nscaler