Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon Lens Query  
User currently offlineRtl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 34 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Advice please..I have the 70-200mm F2.8 and am very happy except on occasion would like a little extra distance..ie Imperial Hill,KLAX. Thinking about the canon 100-400mm but lots of money so any advice on any alternatives ie 1.4 or 2.0 extenders which I'm told will give comparible results ?? Other alternatives Sigma etc but what would give the best results in sharpness and quality ??
Thanks in advance

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 3331 times:


I have the 2.8 IS 70-200 and the 1.4x and it is good, but when i borrowed my buddies 100-400 to go to LAS there was no comparison. If you want to shoot at a distance go with the 100-400. There is too much glass with a converter, I hear stay away from the 2x. Hope that helps,


Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 3318 times:

I own the 70-200 F4 L (love it to bits!) but have toyed with the idea of extra range for over 12 months now and finally decided to avoid extenders. Apparently the 1.4x is very good but it will be detrimental to quality in the long run. I too have heard the 2x is a nightmare!

I've looked so many times at the 100-400L but it's a heck of a lot of money. I'm now looking at the Sigma 120-400 Apo OS which is a lot cheaper (although still not exactly cheap!) but have never used Sigma before and don't know how comparable to the Canon Ls they are. Anyone know how good (or bad) this lens is?



User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 3315 times:

I have the 70-200 F/4, the 1.4 Ext and the 100-400, and I can tell you that unfortunately there is no way around the 100-400 at this stage within the Canon range. The 1.4 Ext is OK but degrades the quality, particularly around the edges, and "only" gives you 280 mm on that lens, and without IS.
So, while the 100-400 is far not perfect (the 70-200 is still the sharpest Canon lens around), there is really no better zoom alternative.
I haven't tried myself the Sigma, but have spoken to people that have and they all say that you can see (and feel) the difference in price.
In the end it's a matter of budget, but if you can wait and save, I would go for the 100-400.

Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineRtl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

one point that has come up using the 100-400 is dust being drawn in due to the push/pull action. Is this a valid point or just a one off ?
If I were to crop a shot using my 70-200 f2.8 how would it compare to a shot taken with the 100-400mm ? Still undecided wether to buy the bigger lens but have decided not to go down the route of the extenders. Any more comments much appreciated.
Thanks to all so far

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

OK, Andres has heard that the Sigma 120-400 is of lesser quality than Canon's 100-400L, that's good enough for me. But what about the 'Bigma' (I believe it's the 50-500?) that lots of people here swear by? I see lots of nice images here taken with it so maybe it's much better than the 120-400?


User currently offlineRtl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Karl, have a read of this review


Looked at this myself but not convinced the cost saving at the expense of image quality is a worthwhile trade-off. Never used it so could be completely wrong.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Having looked at several reviews the best of the Sigmas seems to be the 120-400 F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM. Apparently the 'Bigmas' (50-500 and 150-500) are very soft above 300mm, especially wide open. They also seem to handle colour and contrast not so well.

According to many of the reviews the 120-400 is pretty sharp above about F5.6 and remains so throughout much of the focal length, except perhaps pushing toward the 400mm limit. It also appears to handle colour and contrast better than its bigger siblings, although it still isn't up to Canon L series in terms of contrast quality.

The general consensus is that, while not quite up to the standard of the 100-400L, the difference in price makes it equally attractive.


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...
More Canon Lens Advice... posted Tue Jun 12 2007 07:40:34 by QantasA332
Canon Lens Choice posted Tue Jun 12 2007 00:01:10 by RichPhitzwell
Canon Lens Problem? posted Thu Apr 12 2007 16:48:29 by DC10Tim
Canon Lens Question? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 22:16:52 by FXfan
Canon Lens Questions ... Help Needed! posted Mon Apr 3 2006 20:41:01 by Cosmic
Canon Lens: Whats The Differance posted Fri Mar 24 2006 22:45:16 by AirbusA346
New Canon Lens 17-55 F2.8 Is posted Tue Feb 21 2006 18:19:09 by Bruce
Changing My Canon L Lens...any Thoughts Or Help? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 18:53:49 by Danpio
Canon Lens, Where To Buy? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 17:46:39 by Soups
Which Canon Lens For $400-600? posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:42:08 by MartinairYYZ