C100: looong tele: 100-400 or 150-600 or...?

W

wuffer

Active member
Hi,


probably this has been discussed before, but I didn't found much, sorry.

As mentioned I'm searching for a quite long tele for landscapes for my C100's DAF, a little bit of wildlife, some water sports, mainly b-roll.
While the new 100-400 II is obviously a great lens, I'm would like to buy a used Mk I for half the price or a Tamrom or Sigma 150-600.
Maybe even a 70-200 with a 2x converter, as I'm still on 1080p?

I guess I would preferre f=5.6 instead of selling a kidney for a faster lens. Important for me would be a rugged, reliable workhorse, IS, working AF and overall image quality together with 'good-enough' sharpness (ne need for high mp stills atm).

I would love to hear some first hand experience and advise; maybe even from a seasoned tiger shooter...

Thanks!
 
I use a 300/2.8 IS for technical shooting in areas where I'm not certified to go or don't feel like rigging myself with the proper PPE. I wouldn't trade f/2.8 for anything after using this focal length lens... BTW, I have used a 2x TC on a 70-200/2.8 and it is still very sharp- not to worry.
 
I routinely use the 2x TC with the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. I have both the Canon 2xII TC as well as 2xIII TCs and they work well with that lens with the 2xIII TC slightly better. If you are using a third party TC, then results may be a bit lower. I do a lot of handheld work from boat/elephant back with this lens. This lens gives a lot of flexibility. You can remove the TC and shoot when wildlife is close by or for normal work and then use the TC for distant subjects.

Both these two lenses are rugged, reliable and good. I have used in storm, sand storm, rains, dust etc and don't have issues.

I have the 100-400 version I and I use it as well. Prefer it any day over the third party tele lenses. I have also tried using a 1.4xTC with this lens, but the quality drops a bit. The new 100-400 IS II is even better. I also use a 400 f2.8 IS with tele or 800mm.
 
I have the 100-400 II. I bought it for stills, but have used it on my C300. It is slow and telescopes, but it's ridiculously sharp, fast AF(on a 5D IV, I don't have dpaf on my 300)and close focus is almost in macro range.

Even Ken Rockwell loves this lens ; )
 
I say people are spending too much money on equipment. I suggest instead of buying another lens you buy a spare kidney in case you ever need it.

I have a 100-400 II and a 1.4x III. I like the 100-400 II.

Sigma also has the 120-300 f/2.8 for $3600 (with a free 2x teleconverter currently on B&H) which is almost half the price of the Canon 300 f/2.8, while giving you a nice zoom range, and I believe is supposed to be good quality optically, though perhaps a little step below the Canon.


If you're ever looking for good entertainment, read the reviews of the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ
 
Eric Coughlin said:
If you're ever looking for good entertainment, read the reviews of the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ
Click to expand...

THIS ONE:

I finally got permission to take this lens with me on my last mission to do maintenance on the Hubble Space Telescope. In order to justify the extra weight on-board the space shuttle, I had to agree to eat nothing but rice cakes during the mission, but it was totally worth it. I love taking photos of the earth from the window of the orbiter, and the zoom was so fantastic I finally have photographic evidence that my neighbors dog has been taking a dump on my front lawn. On the mission we took the lens out of the Hubble to clean it, and while we were wiping it off, we all wondered how the Sigma f/2.8 would compare to the normal telescope lens. I space-walked back to the shuttle and grabbed it from my camera bag (it's much easier to maneuver in zero-g) and when I got back we snapped it in place. Turned the telescope a few degrees, and snapped a picture. Once the photo came through, it was completely black, which was a bit of a shock. Turns out we focused past the edge of the observable universe. We were having fun at this point, so we dialed it back a bit, changed the angle again, and took another one. This time we found the origin point of the Big Bang. After a few laughs, we pulled it out, and put the Hubble lens back in. Before we left, we decided to put the f/2.8 on my regular camera and take a selfie in space. That one didn't come out too well because you couldn't see any of our faces because the molecular polycarbonate structures in our helmet windows were in the way. O well, you can't always have it all.
 
^I know. I bought a V1 last time I was in Tokyo. The 100-400 seems like a nice lens though. I don't have any experience with Sigma other than the 24-105 Art I got to replace a 18-135 STM.
 
Seriously, I had no clue that the newer TC's work so well with even a zoom - well done, Canon.
This is indead a very tempting 'one for two' solution as it gives me a reason to invest in another 70-200 (have allready the Nikon).
undoubtly one of the mightiest light weapons in this universe. hm.

Selling Nikon gear? hm.
no. way.
With the exception of an old 8o-2oo/2.8 AI/S in prime condition... yeah

So, G'men, as allways it was a great idea to post my question here, thank you very much for your valuable help once more.
 
300 seemed to fit my line-up. 70-200, 70-200 w/TC and 300 w/TC. 300 is max I can handle with minimal equipment and still capture pay shots. Guy in Japan pushed me to take a 500mm out on the street and try it. I think I was gone all of 5 minutes and collect rubbish footage for that time. Street signs don't really double as a monopod...
 
I had the 100-400 but sold it. It gave great results with the C100 but wanted lenses that don't extend...especially big lenses like the 100-400 which shifts the weight of my set up too much forward when fully extended. Also, I don't really need to go beyond 200mm. Bought the 70-200 and never looked back. But image wise, the 100-400 is really good with the C100.
 
I had the 100-400 II and it is a fantastic lens. I also have a 70-200 2.8 II and the newest 2x Canon TC. At 1080p on the C100, I didn't notice a difference in resolution and only a slight decrease in fine contrast on the 70-200 with the TC vs the 100-400 II. I did notice a difference on a full frame camera, though. I ended up selling the 100-400 II despite loving the lens. The 70-200 2.8 II with teleconverters is just fine.
 
control4userguy said:
300 seemed to fit my line-up. 70-200, 70-200 w/TC and 300 w/TC. 300 is max I can handle with minimal equipment and still capture pay shots. Guy in Japan pushed me to take a 500mm out on the street and try it. I think I was gone all of 5 minutes and collect rubbish footage for that time. Street signs don't really double as a monopod...
Click to expand...

I was fond of the 18-135 STM. Being a one-man show however, I zoom in/out quite a bit as subjects move around during their work. Zooming on the STM was mechanically poor on my sample, stiction-city. The Sigma 24-105 ART is a wonderful lens. Buttery smooth rings, fixed-aperture, sharp, good looking/excellent build. Strange filter size but I'm over that by now. I shot at Red Rocks a few weeks back with this lens and client loved the look. After that job I took same lens to Keystone for a ski promo and it did fantastic with the challenging lighting/reflections. I don't understand why I didn't score this lens before this...

Forgot to mention, I don't feel the IS, on the Sigma, is as effective as on the STM. Might be a little early for me to compare though...
 
Last edited:
control4userguy said:
I use a 300/2.8 IS for technical shooting in areas where I'm not certified to go or don't feel like rigging myself with the proper PPE. I wouldn't trade f/2.8 for anything after using this focal length lens... BTW, I have used a 2x TC on a 70-200/2.8 and it is still very sharp- not to worry.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I used the 70-200 2.8 IS II to shoot footage of Neil DeGrasse Tyson for Cosmos, standing on a cliff edge at Sunset Meteor Crater from about 200-300 yards away from me a few years ago and I saw a noticeable different in sharpness between my shots with just the 70-200 2.8 IS and with the 2X Canon extender. But it was a rental lens and extender and sometimes rental stuff gets dropped and beaten into submission. I bought a 70-200 2.8 IS II finally, I will have to try the extenders again to see what they do on my lens but this shoot shied me away from them. I still would like to buy the 100-400 IS, GREAT lens. I've never tried the 150-600, but I know a lot of birders use it. This shot is of Neil with just the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Unfortunately I don't have any shot with the extender available (that footage is buried in the vault somewhere) but they were noticeably softer than this.

NeilDeGrasseTyson.jpg
 
The OP mentioned the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 f/5-f/6.3. I just realized Canon had a 150-600mm zoom as well, constant at f/5.6. It's FD mount but an adapter can solve that. And apparently they don't make it anymore so you have to go to Ebay or whatnot. I found one on Ebay for $9799.00, so we may be talking a lot of kidneys, but you get the Canon L brand.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-15...ns-/321817313933?_trksid=p2385738.m2548.l4275




wp9a47747b_05_06.jpg


index.php
 
One thing to note about the off brand lenses is the f6.3 aperture at 400mm. You can't shoot wide open at f6.3 in those lenses. You get what you pay.

The benefits of the Canon 2xIII TC and 1.4xIII TC can be seen in the newer lenses like 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lenses. If the TC is off brand or previous version there would be different results.

Some lenses get misaligned due to hits. Rental lenses take their fair share of knocks. People generally don't realise that. After servicing the results improve a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top