Lenses - the popular buys

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Just a general question aimed at photography folks:-

What telephoto lens/es are you using at present and what are your thoughts on sharpness, ease of use and price?

Be grateful for any feedback - good or bad Smile

Location : N E Jockistan Spotter Watch Member : No

Canon EF 100-400L is - Love it, but it is a bit of a handful.

Whilst it is a great lens, I'd rather have a twist zoom than push-pull - Canon please note.

Subject: Re: Lenses - the popular buys 2009-06-07, 02:43

Another 100-400L user here, and love it! Especially the push pull design, which I find much easier than a twist zoom. Good quality optics all the way up to 400 (where it is SLIGHTLY softer, but not as bad a reviews say). Doesnt handle well in low light though, especially at the long end.

Location : Solihull

I've got the Sigma 50-500mm "Bigma" it's heavy and is sharp at anything up to 450mm where it become soft. If you can handle the weight, it is a viable lens on any body due to its price.

Also the Nikkor 70-300mm VRII AF-S; this is a superb lens that is very sharp throughout the range and has a very fast focus motor. The only thing that I think detracts from it is the price. I bought mine as they came out and Paid £350 which, is comparable to its cheaper rivals. However, its now over £450 is some places which is too expensive!

Andy

Location : Norfolk Spotter Watch Member : no

50-500 here also!, fantastic lens once you get used to its weight!
Does tend to suffer when the light get low though!

Location : N E Jockistan Spotter Watch Member : No

I used a friend's "Bigma" recently whilst trying to photograph dolphins in the Moray Firth, we swapped, him having a go with my 100-400. I liked the "Bigma", my only reservation being the lack of optical stabilisation - if Sigma added OS to the "Bigma" I'd buy one, but until then I'll stick with the 100-400 as I love stabilised lenses having owned various IS lenses since getting my 28-135mmIS which I still use, when it was first launched around 12-13 years ago.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Thanks for the feedback guys - keep 'em coming, I am reading them all!

Moderator Location : In a layby

Canon 70-200mm F4 non IS (sometimes with the 1.4 extender) at bases this lens is fantastic. very sharp and minimal post processing.

In the past ive had 100-400mm, didnt like it so sold it. This lens really seems to be like marmite. The images are pretty decent and usable at the 400mm end.

Bigma (50-500mm) very useful range and if I lived in the states or somewhere where the sun shined more than a week each year this would be my personal choice. Yes its heavy, yes it lack IS, but when it gets it right the image quality is at least as good as the 100-400mm if not better and at a cheaper price. That said grey or low light and its a bit hit or miss.

400mm f5.6 prime - only really had this a week or so and not really had the chance to put it through its paces. will update after Brize familes day next weekend if you want Wink

Location : Glasgow

Sony 70-400mm G SSM. Almost the perfect "all-in-one" lens for aviation enthusiasts.Very sharp even wide open at 400mm.Like the 100-400mm L you have to pay a bit (£1000 ) to get the quality though.

Subject: Re: Lenses - the popular buys 2009-06-09, 11:25

Sigma 120-300 f2.8. Purchased it in March 2009 before the price explosion and haven't looked back, just a fantastic piece of kit, especially for low level which is mainly what I wanted it for. I have been using a Canon 100-400L IS for the last 4 years and it is a great lens, but I wont use it any more because the Sigma is a far superior piece of glass, it is heavy though but I am a big strong lad. Laugh

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Interesting! I was always kinda shy of any non-Canon stuff but I borrowed a lens off Sigma and I was quite impressed by it. You not so impressed with the 100-400IS? I had one but I sold it after less than a year as it was just too cumbersome, at least I thought so. I'm not a great fan of standing in one place all day and lugging that great monster round just bugged me and I was never entirely convinced that the optics are all that great, considering the price?

On a wider note, do most of you actually use longer-end telephoto all that much? My experience was that 400mm seemed a bit excessive most of the time and I often resorted to using an old 300mm. What's the deal with low level photography? Is 300mm enough? What about extenders? Do they retain optical quality?

Do keep the feedback coming guys - it will all have a useful end purpose - hopefully!
Smile

Location : Oxfordshire Spotter Watch Member : no

Bigma it does take a little getting used to and although i am looking upgrading it i will still keep it as a back up if i am honest i cant realy fault it but dont tell the wife Whistle

Location : Gloucester Spotter Watch Member : No

Canon EF 500 F4 L IS USM, sharp as a tack, great with converters, price well depends on your own individual budget, worth every penny in my opinion.

Location : Northwood

I have had the 50-500 but within 2 months had sold it and bought the 100-400. I listend to all the hype about the sigma and went for it. It is very heavy compared to the canon therefore dificult to keep still in breezy conditions especially with the hood on. It was slow in auto focusing and did not track the aircraft well. It was soft after 450, decent shots were difficult to come by if it wasnt sunny and the worst thing of all is the coating on the outside of the lens, this has a habit of pealing off. I have seen a lot of Sigmas suffer from this, I know it dosnt affect the operation but itlooks tatty when this happens.

The 100-400 on the other hand is constantly on my 40D (I shoot approx 100 shots a day). It tracks well, It works well in low light, images at 400mm are sharp when the weather is clear(be it sunny or overcast/lowlight). I have no trouble with the push/pull zoom. I have noticed that when images are soft it is not always the lens at fault. It can be the weather, the subject, your stance. I shoot a lot at 400mm but also at the other end, images within 100-300 are the sharpest.

So in the end I paid an extra 250.00 when I bought my 100-400 Embarassed

Subject: Lenses - the popular buys 2009-06-18, 16:15

I have the Sigma APO 150-500mmf5-6.3 OS

It’s a fantastic lens quick on the auto focus

Plus you can twist or push and pull the zoom The OS is incredible - 3 stops at least

It’s a bit heavy and pin sharp up to about 450/460 ish

Works best around F7.1 F8

I have tried the canon 100-400 IS it’s nice but I don’t like the friction ring and the cost.Sigma is all so £400 saving over the Canon

Ian

Location : Henlow, Beds

I have a:

Canon 24-105 F4L for (more or less) static stuff.
Canon 200mm F2.8L (take-off shots low level).
Canon 400mm F5.6L (airshows and some lowlevel)
Canon 1.4x TC

The 1.4x TC only really ever gets put on the 200mm and only ever so slightly degrades the image quality on that lens. AF is still very fast. I have used it on the 400mm, image quality is still acceptable on that, given a bright day but on my 40D its manual focus only so of limited use to be honest.

I simply prefer primes to zooms, I admit you loose flexibility, but I don't have to think about zooming in / out just on composing the frame I have. The 200mm is also very very fast focusing and the 400mm knocks the spots off the 100-400mm in this respect also. Also, don't care what anyone says, if you get it right a prime shot is always sharper than that from a zoom!

BTW - neither the 200mm or 400mm have IS. On the 200mm its not a issue, I can hand hold that down to 1/125th sec. More of a issue with the 400mm, I need 1/500th to be safe with that and that can be a issue with light.

Next purchase 300mm f2.8L IS!