C300: Has anyone used this lens yet with their C300?

Curious to know which project you are going to use this long zoom. Though this lens is cheaper, I find the Canon's longer lenses to be better. Because of the zoom range and price many people use this Sigma lens.
 
Buying or renting? If you're going to buy, the Canons are better but obviously a lot more money. If you're renting, why not rent the best? 600mm is out there, what are you shooting? Surfing? F1? Nature stuff? I've been shooting quite a bit lately with the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS II, what a great lens, especially for just $2k.
 
Figured the 70-200 F2.8 II with the 2x extender might be an option. These folks say it’s actually better in sharpness and doesn’t breath like the 100-400:
Others report the 100-400 is a bit sharper and has faster AF.

Sigma has the edge with 600mm, so if no issues with IQ, worth it.

Works on the C300 II: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58589591
 
Last edited:
The 100-400 L has better IQ than the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the newest extender, but it is marginal.

I think it is hard to find video reviews of longer lenses because they are so difficult to use. You need a damn good tripod and head to get any use out of those lenses. The longest I have shot with is 400mm on a crop frame and it requires a lot of practice and a really careful touch even with my O'Connor head and sticks.
 
The 100-400 L II is a great lens. I shot a feature a few weeks ago on a college baseball player and for all of the b-roll I used my 17-120(mostly up-close handheld work) and my 100-400 for pretty much all of the shots of him playing in the outfield and when batting. I was shooting on my F55 and not my C300 and shot "center punch" a lot, which gave me a FoV on the top-end, equivalent to what an 800mm would.

It's a very sharp lens with quick AF(if shooting stills, I can't comment on its AF on a video camera) and close-focus that makes it feel almost like a macro.
 
A potential issue with the 150-600 Sigma (Sport), is it weights 6.3 lbs (the Contemporary version of the lens is 4.3lbs and almost 1/2 the price. Both lenses highly rated on BHPhoto. C version on sale now for $100 off). On a tripod that's a good thing re: stability. Carrying it around all day/hiking could be an issue. Saw reports that the Canon 100-400 II is sharper, so much so that if you crop the Canon at 400 to look like a 600, it is as sharp as the Sigma at 600. If you already have the 70-200 2.8 II, and if (+) the 2x Extender III is really almost as good as the 100-400, perhaps a used extender makes sense. At $429 the extender is a tough call. The 100-400 II is $300 off on sale right now: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html ($1899) till June 2nd.
 
puredrifting said:
Buying or renting? If you're going to buy, the Canons are better but obviously a lot more money. If you're renting, why not rent the best? 600mm is out there, what are you shooting? Surfing? F1? Nature stuff? I've been shooting quite a bit lately with the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS II, what a great lens, especially for just $2k.
Click to expand...

Yeah for that length range and price, seems like a no brainer. How's the AF on the c200? Have you tried it with an extender?
 
rob norton said:
Yeah for that length range and price, seems like a no brainer. How's the AF on the c200? Have you tried it with an extender?
Click to expand...

A few years ago, I was shooting BTS footage for Cosmos and I did a sequence shooting Neil DeGrasse Tyson at Sunset Crater in Arizona. I used the 70-200 2.8 IS I and the Canon 2X extender (This was C300, not 4K) and I was unpleasantly surprised at how much the extender softened the footage, it looked pretty bad. Ever since then, I don't really like tele extenders. The AF with the C200 is pretty good with the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS II, that's a nice lens and body combo.
 
puredrifting said:
A few years ago, I was shooting BTS footage for Cosmos and I did a sequence shooting Neil DeGrasse Tyson at Sunset Crater in Arizona. I used the 70-200 2.8 IS I and the Canon 2X extender (This was C300, not 4K) and I was unpleasantly surprised at how much the extender softened the footage, it looked pretty bad. Ever since then, I don't really like tele extenders. The AF with the C200 is pretty good with the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS II, that's a nice lens and body combo.
Click to expand...

There is a noticeable difference in extenders and lenses. The newest version (III) of the extender is noticeably better than the early versions and off brand extenders. Also, the version I of the old lens may not have worked well with the extender. I did a side by side test the 2.8L II and the 2x extender III and the 100-400 II L and decided to sell the 100-400 II L despite having an infatuation with the lens. When pixel peeping at 4K, I could noticeable just a touch of additional CA with the extender combination wide open, but it wasn't a bid deal. I had an older 2x extender and that made a mess of the image.
 
I owned until recently the Canon 100-400 L II and have shot with it all over the world, shooting a lot of wildlife pieces and outdoor content. I absolutely loved the lens and felt that not only was the IQ great, but the IS on the lens really helped me get stable shots. Even with my Sachtler FSB-8 on good sticks, long lenses are just hard to get stable shots with, as mentioned above by cpreston. The 100-400's IS however made it much easier.

I've shot with several long lenses, Canon's 100-400 L II, Sigma's 50-500, Sony's 70-400 A-mount and now Sony's 100-400 GM. My two personal favorites are the Canon 100-400 L II and Sony's 100-400 GM. I highly recommend the Canon 100-400 L II and would get it over the Sigma 150-600 Sport if I were you.
 
I have the (C) version of this lens with the 1,4 tc and its a great lens for the money, os and focus work great on the c200 so if you need the reach it is a great option.
The canon 100-400 would be a great choice as well together with a tc 2.0 you'll get the same reach but at 2,5X the cost.
I own the canon 70-300L and love that lens with similar quality as the 100-400 but the sigma's have a lovely image as well.
So if money is no object go canon all else go sigma
 
cpreston said:
There is a noticeable difference in extenders and lenses. The newest version (III) of the extender is noticeably better than the early versions and off brand extenders. Also, the version I of the old lens may not have worked well with the extender. I did a side by side test the 2.8L II and the 2x extender III and the 100-400 II L and decided to sell the 100-400 II L despite having an infatuation with the lens. When pixel peeping at 4K, I could noticeable just a touch of additional CA with the extender combination wide open, but it wasn't a bid deal. I had an older 2x extender and that made a mess of the image.
Click to expand...

Great review here at Bryan Carnathan's the digital picture (dot) com

"Because it is such an amazing lens, many have opted for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens plus extenders to gain the longer focal lengths contained in the 100-400mm lenses. Even with a 2x extender mounted behind it, the 70-200 L II was nearly as sharp as the 100-400 version I at 400mm. While the 70-200 L II retains the significant wide aperture advantage in its native range, the 100-400 L II has the clear image quality advantage at 400mm. The comparison at 300mm/280mm (w/ 1.4x) is closer with the 100-400 L II retaining a modest advantage. If the wider apertures are appealing to you and/or you only occasionally need focal lengths longer than 200mm, the 70-200 L II makes a lot of sense. If you will be using the mid 200 to 400mm focal lengths much of the time, the 100-400 probably makes more sense to have in the kit. Having both of these lenses is of course optimal."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top