advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

[devilgas]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

nice. let's hope the lens i get is on a par with that

[devilgas]

[Patrick]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

You have now reminded me why I gave up my 80-400, focus speed on the slow side. The 150-500 is very much faster, not quite the speed of the Canon but not fare behind.
Looks to me you got a good deal at that price, new or second hand? sorry pre-owned.

Patrick

[devilgas]

[Patrick]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

My experiments with converters was very similar to your, but a Sigma 2x.

I haven't noticed my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to be particularly slow, but then that might be I don't use it where speed counts very often.

Patrick

[devilgas]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

sorry for lack of updates. have used the new lens in anger at a couple of cricket games, the latest being the welsh cup final @ the swalec stadium on sunday. the 'reach' is perfect for cricket, with the players filling most of the frame (landscape orientation). mid range (40m or so) detail, when fully open, is slightly soft (i'm used to the 70-200 2.8L), but can be improved with a bit of USM. close range detail is very good, long range again is a bit soft, but perfectly usable. stopping down to F7.1 or F8 improves the sharpness. those are all at the 400mm end of the zoom.

overall conclusion is that i haven't wasted my money as i'm getting better results than upscaling or TC's produce, but that the canon 400 L is still the one to go for if the coin is there.

i promise i'll try to get some comparative shots up at some point

[Patrick]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

sorry for lack of updates. have used the new lens in anger at a couple of cricket games, the latest being the welsh cup final @ the swalec stadium on sunday. the 'reach' is perfect for cricket, with the players filling most of the frame (landscape orientation). mid range (40m or so) detail, when fully open, is slightly soft (i'm used to the 70-200 2.8L), but can be improved with a bit of USM. close range detail is very good, long range again is a bit soft, but perfectly usable. stopping down to F7.1 or F8 improves the sharpness.

overall conclusion is that i haven't wasted my money as i'm getting better results than upscaling or TC's produce, but that the canon 400 L is still the one to go for if the coin is there.

i promise i'll try to get some comparative shots up at some point

Sounds as if the story is much the same as with my 150-500.
Sigma will calibrate the lens to the camera, this may improve performance. I have been tempted to get it done myself, the down side is that the camera & lens are away for a couple of weeks.
The newer Canon and Nikon cameras have the ability to calibrate in camera yourself for up to ten lenses , when done the camera recognizes the lens fitted and applies the profile accordingly.

Patrick

[ash]

Re: advice: sigma 150-500 OR canon 100-400L OR canon 70-200 2.8L with 2x TC?

Ive had the sigma 120-400 os, and found it very good optically, the os is a little noisier than the vr on my 18-200 but again it works very well at what its supposed to do. Very well built and I would recommend sigma to anyone.

This is a cropped shot at 400mm from silverstone last year.