Thoughts and Comments

phoenixegmh · Post by **phoenixegmh** » 16 Aug 2008, 15:22

I have recently purchased a Canon EOS450D and love it.

However, I only have the lenses shown in my sig and am looking for something a little bigger.

Has anybody any thoughts or suggestions as to a good lens to pick up that'll cover the 400-500mm range? Low price is an advantage but I appreciate you get what you pay for...

Thanks In Advance

Alec

nilsko · Post by **nilsko** » 16 Aug 2008, 21:24

Would you prefer prime (fixed focal length) or zoom? The first category is better quality wise than the second. Only know of the higher range L-lenses from Canon which has some excellent models, but the cheapest prime is the 400mm/f5.6 which starts at 1200~1300 Euro's. The better the aperture the more expensive

Sigma has (or used to have) the 50-500 mm but don't know the price or quality although mega zooms do tend to be softer on the longer focal lenghts which requires some more stopping down to higher apertures. Canon's 100-400 is also an option but there are too many Mondaymorning models around, so be careful with that.

Redskin · Post by **Redskin** » 16 Aug 2008, 22:34

I do have the new sigma 150-500 mm lens with OS and HSM. The price is between 799 and 900 euro's.
Quality is good

Flanker27 · Post by **Flanker27** » 17 Aug 2008, 15:57

I have the Sigma 50-500 and am very satisfied with it. Not a supercam in bad light conditions, but overall good coverage, aup till 500mm. No VR/IS though.

SpotterNL · Post by **SpotterNL** » 17 Aug 2008, 20:13

I guess a second hand Sigma 50-500 would be an inexpensive way to try out something with more reach while keeping adequate quality. This way you can find out what it really is you want.

I've shot with my 50-500 for years and I've been very happy with it. Recently I have replaced it with Canon glass which is quite a bit better but is a lot more expensive. The 50-500 Is about the most bang for buck you can get. The lens is still standing on my desk waiting for a new owner so if you'd like to try it out (no strings attached) at Schiphol let me know.

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 18 Aug 2008, 23:33

phoenixegmh wrote:Has anybody any thoughts or suggestions as to a good lens to pick up that'll cover the 400-500mm range?

Sorry, no advise, but just a small remark / question:

In the early 80’s everybody was happy to have a 135mm as their longest lens. This rapidly changed to a 80-200mm and a 300mm became standard equipment around 1990. At the turn of the century 400mm lenses came into fashion, and with the introduction of digital cameras this focal length was multiplied with a 1.6 factor, resulting in 640 old fashioned mm’s..

What is it that keeps feeding the race for millimetres ?

And wouldn’t it be wiser to invest in better lenses rather than investing in longer lenses ?

Or is it just me who prefers quality over range ?

This is not a flame, but a counter question that came to mind.

Curious regards,
Iwan

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » 18 Aug 2008, 23:42

Iwan wrote:

Or is it just me who prefers quality over range ?

Says the man who owns a 400mm/2.8

Anno

Redskin301 · Post by **Redskin301** » 19 Aug 2008, 10:24

But that one is quality

I would go for a good 300mm if i had the choice

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 19 Aug 2008, 11:05

Hi Anno,

You are right, the 400/2.8L is kind of extreme......

Nevertheless I bought this lens when I was stil in the analog age. The main purpose to buy it was because of my trip to Japan, where one needs at least 400 old fashioned millimeters. Compare this to the current world: Seven years ago this lens equalled a digital 250mm from today!!

By then it was about the longest lens in use in our hobby. Right now they are trying to find 500 x 1.6 = 800mm. Amazing !! With my current camera (1.3 magnification factor) the lens equals 520mm, which is just a 320mm on most other digital EOS cameras like the 350D or 40D.

But if people think the need the 400 - 500 range (= 640 - 800mm digital), why not....... Maybe it's just me getting old.

Cheers,
Iwan

ehusmann · Post by **ehusmann** » 19 Aug 2008, 11:11

Iwan Bogels wrote:Maybe it's just me getting old.

But in all fairness, you shouldn´t forget the pricing fact. Over the years, especially the past 5 years or so, the equipment has decreased in price significantly. Only 3 years ago I bought my Canon 350D for about 1000 euro. Now I can get the 450D (or whatever is the latest) for less than 600! Same with lenses. So if it is not for the ´need´, it is because it is possible.

Erwin

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 19 Aug 2008, 11:42

ehusmann wrote:But in all fairness, you shouldn´t forget the pricing fact. Over the years, especially the past 5 years or so, the equipment has decreased in price significantly. Only 3 years ago I bought my Canon 350D for about 1000 euro. Now I can get the 450D (or whatever is the latest) for less than 600! Same with lenses. So if it is not for the ´need´, it is because it is possible.

Erwin

Hi Erwin,

Your remark about pricing absolutely true, most likely because of a very strong Euro against the Yen and Dollar.

But then again: If all is cheaper, why not invest in quality over range ? Good glass has become a lot cheaper too......so it's a question of upgrading either range or quality.

So what do you prefer.....

Cheers,
Iwan

Tom Tiger · Post by **Tom Tiger** » 19 Aug 2008, 13:09

True, it has. And I want quality glass. So I'm saving up for a 70-200 L from Canon. I have the 100-400L (love that lens). I've seen the quality from the 70-200 and now I want it.

But yes, I started out with a 58mm, then a 135, an 80-200, 75-300 then 100-400....

I never tried the Sigma 50-500.... I really must do this, not for the range but to see how it compares to my 100-400L.

Once I shot with a 500mm Mirrorlens, great lens but not really good for airshows...

frank kramer · Post by **frank kramer** » 19 Aug 2008, 13:26

When I went out shopping for a new lens, I was focussed at first on the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 50-500; however, I am kind of a Murphy-victim: if there's a Monday lens around, I'm bound to end up with one and the Bigma was too much for my liking. So, thanks to advice from fellow-spotter Stefan at a photo-store in Eindhoven I ended up with a neat alternative: the new Sigma 120-400 4/5.6 IS (yes, WITH IS). Bonus: it's quite a bit cheaper than the Canon... First real test was Kecskemet; I was very pleased with the way it handled, but I have not yet found the time to really study the results. When I get to doing that I'll post it.

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 19 Aug 2008, 14:02

Hi Frank,

Het klinkt of je een goed alternatief hebt gevonden. De bewuste Sigma heb ik nog nooit uitgeprobeerd. Wat we wel hebben getest zijn een aantal andere 400mm lenzen, en de resultaten hebben we in een verspringend plaatje op een rijtje gezet.

Let vooral eens op de scherpte, doortekening en donkere hoeken.

Hopelijk helpt dit mensen wat op weg....

Doej,
Iwan

PS: Kijk vooral naar de lijntjes van de ronde panelen in de staart van de Martinair MD11......dan zie je het verschil in doortekening erg goed. En bekijk de stabilo en uitlaat eens om de scherpte te beoordelen.

Tom Tiger · Post by **Tom Tiger** » 19 Aug 2008, 14:34

a very big and very thorough test of the Sigma 120-400 is here

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's the Nikon version but that shouldn't matter

I still got several lenses on my wishlist, the 70-200L (obviously) the Tokina 12-24 and some other stuff. I treat myself to one good lens every year

(not this year.... upgraded to a 40D instead)