Which Lens should I use?

Started 5 months ago | Polls thread
TheBlackGrouse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,586
Re: Which Lens should I use?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

JasonTheBirder wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

TheBlackGrouse wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

[...]

Just out of interest I started searching the internet about the IQ of the 150 -600 lenses vs the 100 -400 II (cropped to 600). Again, not to pick an argument but I just want to know

The Digital Picture only shows examples of a 100 -400 II with a 1.4 tele converter and then, looking at the Sigma Contemporary, the Canon wins. However, that's not a fair comparison since the price of the Canon combination is about 2.5 times higher. And with the converter everything is different. For me, Sigma and Tamron did a great job by introducing these 150 -600 lenses, it changed the field of the tele zooms. It showed that is was possible to produce good lenses at a price level we did not expect.

To be fair, I think we should look at the Sigma Sports versus the cropped 100 - 400 II. Same price, same class (weather sealing), same age etc. But it's hard to find images.

Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 100-400 plus the 1.4x could be better than the 150-600 C wide open, however to be fair the 100-400 w/TC is f/8 so the Sigma should also be at f/8 and at that setting based on my own experience, the sigma is at least as good. The 100-400 w/TC claim, however, isn’t the one that I find dubious though. The claim that I don’t buy is that simply cropping the 100-400 mk2 image at 400mm produces a superior result to the Sigma 150-600 C at 600mm. When that claim started floating around the internet I did my own comparisons and found that the Sigma lens actually has a pretty obvious advantage.

That’s also true what you say about price and the difference is even bigger when you bring the 1.4. TC into the picture. Last I checked, those were selling for around $400 which is about half the cost of the Sigma lens. Not only that, using the TC is a lot less convenient than just having the longer zoom. I think that’s exactly the reason Canon made the 100-500 L the way the did. It’s basically like having the TC built in but without the disadvantages of image quality loss at shorter FL’s.

With all this talk of lenses and reach, I really think there is a market for someone to come out with a lens like a 500 f/6.3 that is as sharp as the big exotics when stopped down to f/7.1 and somewhere in between the cost of a 150-600 superzoom and the 500pf. The budget superzooms in my opinion have too many compromises and a lens like the 500pf is too costly for others.

Personally I’d rather just pay the extra and get the f/5.6 but maybe I’m in the minority.

The funny thing about the budget superzoom (Sigma 150-600 C) is that I’ve submitted photos from mine to various publications and displayed prints from them to people who are very serious about photography and they couldn’t pick the images from the Sigma from the ones from my EF 500 and 600mm f/4’s. Maybe they aren’t all that compromised after all.

Greg, looking at your websites, you are not the average birdshooter. Probably you get great results with a cheap superzoom too

Experienced birders/photographers know their gear and adapt intuitively because they already 'see' the end result (including the post processing possibilities) when pushing the shutter.

These comparisons are difficult but it's just fun to find out.

And I really like the way you add the landscape, the bird habitat to the image.

-- hide signature --

TheBlackGrouse
.
Active Outdoor Photographer

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow