help with tele lens

[callmebibin]

Hi All,

I am looking for a tele zoom lens of the range 400mm. 
 Birding and Occational people photography are the pbjectives.

following are the options I am seeing

Sigma 120-400mm
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD    with 2X tele converter.

   
I have tried canon 100-400mm and found it great but its too costly.
Has anyone tried a sigma 120-400mm.Is the image quality compareable to canon 70-300mm IS USM/55-250mm IS .
Any idea of 70-200mm with a 2X tele converter?

Thanks,
Paul

[lightwave]

There is also the Canon 400mm 5.6. One of these is on e sale in the BUY AND SELL section.

[callmebibin]

Hi,
thanks for the reply.
I am not looking for a prime lens(that too 400mm) because I need zoom for people photography.

[Dr.Anand]

AVOID 120-400 its horrible lens i will call it Softy lens. 150-500 its better lens if u cant afford 100-400. Didnt tested 70-200 F/2.8

[lightwave]

Will 70-200 2.8 be really cheaper than 100-400 speciallyafter geting the TC.

[callmebibin]

Hi,
thanks everyone.
So 120-400mm is out of question.
now, anyone tried 70-200mm with a 2X tele converter?


thanks,
Bibin

[toofan]

what about 50-500 mm lens.

But why do you need such focal length for shooting peoples. Or you live near beaches.

[eragon]

Arthur Morris reports that the Canon 70-200 IS II works well with 2x tc II.... better, according to him than the 100...400, but that's even costlier ! 
About the sigma 70 200, found this review....

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_70-200_os_hsm_review.htm

It's tough to go to 400mm (and even tougher for us Nikon folks... )

Like Toofan ji, I'd talk of the Sigma 50 500 OS too, but it costs about the same as 100 400, and 100 400 is reportedly slightly better ! If you forego OS though, the old 50 500 is a good option, better IQ than 150 500 OS, but need to be tripod bound or great light.

[lightwave]

I would only consider either the 100-400 L or the Sigma 150-500 OS if the former is deemed too expensive. 70-200 2.8 with 2x TC is going to be even more costlier than 100-400 so probably will not suit OPs requirements. If this is in budget ... go for it.

[kumarrishi]

other than cost the major issue with faster lenses is their weight. Have you tried holding 70-200 2.8 for 5-10min? If not hold it for 5-10 min atleast as you will be carrying it most of the time so it will give you some idea and then make decision :-). 100-400 and 150-500 are much lighter.

regards

[Brendon]

^^ The Canon 70-200mm non IS weighs 1310g, the Canon 100-400mm L lens weighs 1360g and the Sigma weighs a whopping 1900g !!!

The Canon version doesn't have IS so that's a negative as a monopod becomes a must.

Do note that in grey the Sigma 150-500mm OS costs around 48k which is significantly cheaper than the lighter and better 100-400mm L lens. (Around 85k in grey though not completely sure)

[callmebibin]

Hi,
thanks everyone.
I am not really sure about the sharpness of 150-500mm. Most pictures I found on net were soft.I have tried 100-400mm, sharp(though not as sharp as 70-200mm f/4 or f/2. fast and great IS.
I am thinking of canon 100-400mm. Better wait for a while and get Canon.


thanks a lot.
Keep shooting, keep smiling.
 

[Image]

Check.

[eragon]

Thanks Image for that useful info!
However can't resist complicating things up by mentioning these two reviews..
http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=review&action=display&thread=352 and
http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=review&action=display&thread=353
Those two threads almost made up my mind in favor of the 100-400 IS before I remembered I use Nikon!

One question to be raised is that was Mr. Peiker's lens made before or after 2006... lot's of people say that post-2006 copies (most probably since they started making them at new production lines in Unotsumiya) are sharper..

Regarding the 400 5.6 and 100 400, I see great images all the time from both these lenses, but I seem to think I've seen 'wow' images  more regularly from the 100-400. This may be due to the fact that it requires great technique to bring out the best from the 400 5.6 as it is a non IS lens... or it may as well be a simple sampling bias from the specific people I looked at or 100-400 being more popular and numerous!

Of course I must say I know a few photographers each, using 400 5.6 or 100-400, both parties consistently churning out great images -  so the technique should be the limitation, NOT the lens