R2D2 wrote:
Alexis wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
Alexis wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
Alexis wrote:
What about option e) Use the money to buy myself a nice long lens for my watersports photography like a 100-400 or similar and rent a second M50m2 for events (which are few and far between)...
From what I've seen, you do quite well with Watersports already!
But since you've mentioned that the need for a second body is in fact quite infrequent, then maybe getting a game-changing lens would indeed be the better option!
Nailed it - that's what I was thinking. Any suggestions? Are there any affordable alternatives to Sigma 100-400?
There's the rub.
There certainly are lenses that out-perform the Sigma 100-400, but they're all bigger and heavier (and way more expensive).
The Canon EF 100-400ii has been my choice on the M6ii, but it's a large lens. And even then, the differences will be subtle.
Just been watching the Dustin Abbot reviews on YouTube (Sigma 100-400 DG OS vs Canon 100-400L mkii) and optically he rates the Sigma better or at the very least equal in optical quality to the Canon 100-400 Mkii. He does (in another video) criticise the focusing speed of the Sigma - he was using a D-SLR (not mirrorless) so not sure what peoples experience with this lens is using M6mk2 or M50 mk2. If it's acceptable then I think option e) wins and I am about to hit the "buy" button on the Sigma 100-400 DS OS lens. Next wedding I am booked to shoot is Xmas so I'll cross that bridge when I get to that... we'll see...
You'd need a combination of lens upgrade + body upgrade to see any significant gains (IMHO). Perhaps your Sigma plus the R7 would be your best bet? (Since M6ii is out of the question).
Oooops. I misunderstood and thought you had the Sigma 100-400 already.
The Sigma does well, and you'd definitely gain an advantage over your 55-200.
However the Abbot review that you mention is the very FIRST I've ever heard of that rates the Sigma above the Canon.
Dustin did 3 videos on this comparison if I'm not mistaken. In the first one he concluded that in terms of optical performance, the Sigma as every bit as good as the Canon. In a subsequent video he compared the 2 lenses for focusing speed and accuracy and concluded that the Sigma was far inferior to the Canon.
If I had a $ (or a €) for every time he mentioned the words "Sigma" and "surprised" in the same sentence, I would probably have enough money to buy the Canon 100-400 that he recommended (as his preference) in his final video!!!
I personally recommended the Sigma to some friends who were looking for smaller and less expensive (than the Canon), and they are very happy with it. But it's still a notch down from the Canon in every respect.
R2