Canon 400 2.8 or Sigma 300-800 5.6?

Which lens would you choose if I price and weight were not an issue? (I know that this may sound like pure fantasy, but in certain circumstances these factors may not be the deciding factors.) My concerns are primarily image quality, and then convience in use. I imagine using either lens mounted on a sturdy tripod with a Wimberley Gimbal head, and as such weight doesn't seem to be an issue - both lenses/camera(Canon 1DII or 1DSII) tripod rig will weigh a lot to transport, but once set up it would be a non factor as I will not be moving from location to location once in use. I also would envision using the 400 2.8 with either the Canon 1.4X tele-converter or the Canon 2X tele-converter to approximate the focal length capabilities of the 300-800 zoom. The Sigma 300-800 5.6 lens could also be used with the tele-converters to further extend its reach, with manual focusing and a dimmer viewfinder. (I assume that the zoom is combatible with the Canon tele-converters. Whether or not they are better with this lens than Sigma's own tele-converters is a discussion for another day.)

I understand very well that the Canon 400 2.8 lens is one of the sharpest lenses made by any manufacturer. I also understand that the 2.8 aperature will enable a lot of photos that will not be possible with the 5.6 aperature of the zoom lens. My thoughts are that the convience of the zoom lens in choosing the proper focal length for framing may outweigh the benefits of lens speed and possibly quality of the 400, also that when used with a tele-converter, the zoom lens will give a range that is not available with the 400. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

I should add that the intended purpose and subject matter will be sports from an elevated position (press box), some Bird/wildlife photos, and some surfing photos. I thank you for your input.

400 2.8L IS 100%, don't even consider it...

no zoom can top it...never... not even when you use the extender...
--
have a nice day

IMHO - I'd go 400 for
(1) 2 stops faster at 400mm, one stop faster at 560mm
(2) IS. Press boxes in grandstands are not always rock-steady platforms.

Tom Carmody said:

...
I should add that the intended purpose and subject matter will be
sports from an elevated position (press box), some Bird/wildlife
photos, and some surfing photos. I thank you for your input.

Click to expand...

Agreed with 65 & 51!

I have the 400 for only 2 months, and got to enjoy it for the two full months. Imagine with 2xTC you could get to 800mm at f/5.6, pure power f/2.8 at 400mm, the results are awesome. Since you do most sport, EF400mm is the lens!
--
Regards,
Kevin Tat

Will give you 1200mm with 2x TC & still AF on your 1dMK2.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

bobbyz said:

Will give you 1200mm with 2x TC & still AF on your 1dMK2.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Yes, if f/2.8 is not needed, then seeing they are the same weight and price I'd get the 600. With a 1.4x TC and 1D2 you effectively get 1092 f/5.6L IS compared to 1040 f/5.6L IS with the 400 f/2.8 and 2x TC.

The 400 is the weapon of choice for sports photographers, the 600 birders and wildlife shooters.

Tom Carmody said:

I should add that the intended purpose and subject matter will be
sports from an elevated position (press box), some Bird/wildlife
photos, and some surfing photos. I thank you for your input.

Click to expand...

I've been using the DG version of the 300-800 for almost two months now, and it's sharper and contrastier wide open than my copy of the 400 5.6L at 400 mm (bare) and 560 mm (with a 1.4x TC).

I like to use the Sigmonster as a fixed big gun (at birds) where the extreme reach and zoom flexibility are put to good use.

Here's my impression at FM:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=106&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

Cheerps,

--
Liquidstone
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/my_favorites

If you're talking about buying second hand, be very wary.

The original EF 400 f2.8L can generally be described as a woofer... it was NOT good. That is why it was the only one of the first series of Great White Lenses to make it to a version II (which was a perfectly good lens) before the IS version came along (which is also perfectly good).

--
I have too many expensive hobbies.

Tom Carmody said:

The Sigma 300-800 5.6 lens could also be used with
the tele-converters to further extend its reach, with manual
focusing and a dimmer viewfinder. (I assume that the zoom is
combatible with the Canon tele-converters)

Click to expand...

Actually the Canon Extenders will not be compatable with the Sigma lens. For that, you'll need the Sigma APO converters. Cheaper, and yes, the quality is slightly lower.
Did you also consider an L zoom, like a 28-300?

--
Matt Swift
Warsaw, Poland
photoSIG supporter

Both Canon extenders works perfectly on my Sigma 300-800 and 120-300.

And no, there is no visible difference in picture quality if you use the Sigma or Kenko extenders. Same goes the other way, my Sigma or Kenko extenders works perfectly well on my Canon 500 4 and 300 4.

Jan

I'm just going on this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html

--
Matt Swift
Warsaw, Poland
photoSIG supporter

As others posters said, it's one of the sharpest lens ever build by Canon or any other manufacturers.

This lens, is the best sport telelens for pro. Two stops more and IS made a dramatic difference on a monopod.
If weight and money are not an issue, enjoy it.
-
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

That Compatibility chart only includes Canon EF lenses, as far as I can see.
--
Antonio

I have never held one, but I was convinced it would be too heavy and bulky for use with a monopod. Do you used it like that?
--
Antonio

I see folks using this lens with monopods all the time. It is heavy in terms of lenses but really isn't all that heavy in abosolute terms. There are some pretty stout monopods out there.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Pedagydusz said:

I have never held one, but I was convinced it would be too heavy
and bulky for use with a monopod. Do you used it like that?
--
Antonio

Click to expand...

No I don't own one, but when I look at Tennis at Rolang Garros or elsewhere, I see plenty of these lenses on a monopod. I don't think it's possible to do nice shots of Tennis with a tripod.
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

I would rather have the 300-800 even over the 600 f4 imo.

The 100-400 has been invaluable for framing opportunities and I assume the 300-800 would be similar in that respect.

I am not a fan of buying a lens for a single purpose (But i guess thats just becuase of my budget )

--
Charles -300D -
http://www.pbase.com/h4rdluck/ (Pbase Supporter)

Thanks to all for expressing their thoughts on this matter! Believe it or not, I actually forgot about using the Canon 400 2.8 as a stand alone lens in other situations - i.e. on a monopod while moving about in other situations when I'm not in the press box! (See what happens you become too focused on a certain aspect of a problem!) For Isaac Sibson: I was planning on purchasing a new 400 2.8 L IS lens, but I appriciate your input on the differences in quality between the three versions of the 400 2.8. Also for Liquidstone I especially appreciate your input on the 300-800 (Your beloved Sigmonster!) I was wondering though about a DG version of this lens. I have not heard of any offiial announcement of a DG version of this lens, and could not find any information about a DG version on the Sigma USA website. I am certainly not doubting your sanity or veracity, but I was wondering what differences there may be between the DG and non-DG versions of this lens. On most of the other Sigma lenses where there was an upgrade to a DG version, Sigma has made claims of an improved multi-coating process, and on some lenses an improved optical design. Do you know what the difference is between the two versions of this lens? Are the differences worth the price increase?

Thanks Again!

Clearly the 400 f/2.8L IS, no question, hands down.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Consider this... (as I have for well over a year!)

The 300/2.8 is cheaper and light enough to hand hold, perhaps even a hair sharper, and only 25% shorter. If the 400/2.8 is for reach with TC's, then as someone said, why not a 600/4. And if a 600/4, why not a 500/4 - only 20% shorter, but a heck of a lot easier to handle and hand-holdable for a short time. IMHO, the 400/2.8 and 600/4 are the ultimate, but at too high a price in terms of size/weight/cost. The 300/2.8 and 500/4 are probably the best solution... as many here will testify. (BTW, the 300/2.8 + 1.4x is sharper and longer than the 400/4 DO... though the DO makes for a very easy to use lens)

Now the Sigmonster still has a place, since it's way longer and zooms, and is almost as sharp. But consider that the front element is ED glass, so don't scratch it! You WILL need a gimble head and with no IS and f5.6, reasonable lighting is useful.

I own the 70-200/2.8 IS L, 100-400/IS L and 300/2.8 IS L... one day I may add the 500/4 or Sigmonster, but I'm not feeling the need the give myself back problems right now and I don't like tripods... too restrictive for my shooting style.

I have owned and sold the 400/5.6 L - nice, but the 100-400 was more useful with the IS and just as sharp IMHO. The 400/5.6 was better with TC's of course, but the 300/2.8 IS L was better still, so the 400/5.6 L had to go (lacking IS). If it had IS, I would have kept it I think. I keep considering adding the lightweight 300/4 IS L to get a slow by small/lightweight 600/8 with IS, but the 300/2.8 isn't THAT heavy/big, so I haven't yet... but I sure notice when I go from the 300/2.8 to the 70-200/2.8 just how heavy toy like the 70-200 feels! So I might well get the 300/4 IS L soon - at 420/5.6 it seems the equal of the 100-400. The trouble comes as a 600/8... samples I've seen show it to be sharper than I get from the 100-400 + 1.4x, but the Canon MTF's are almost identical. Until I own one I will never know I guess. The downside is no zoom. And taking TC's on and off every other shot means a lot of wear and tear on the mounts and it becomes a bit of a nuisance.

Anyway, I hope that's given you some food for thought...

Excal