Which lens?

[Rookie 300d]

Thanks to everyone for the advice given, i,m leaning very strongly to the 100-400 is. But just have read the last couple of threads and just looked up the 80-400 os by Sigma, has anyone had any experiance of this lens?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Rookie 300d

Thanks to everyone for the advice given, i,m leaning very strongly to the 100-400 is. But just have read the last couple of threads and just looked up the 80-400 os by Sigma, has anyone had any experiance of this lens?

i tried one out recently - I have a tame camera shop which lends me stuff to review it is a good lens and a couple of hundred notes cheaper than the 100-400 IS based on RRP

However if you go to our freind kerso - he can do you a 100-400 at a very keen price which is competitive with the shop bought sigma.

[nigelryan]

i have used both of the lenses your thinking about and they both have there pro's and con"s if your going to be working close in get 70-200 but if you want distance get the 100-400 because with a 2x converter on you will still be at f5.6 on the 70-200 and then you got to pay out more money for a 2x converter, ive got both lens and i use the 100-400 more than the 70-200 it stays at home most of the time the lenses that stay in my bag are 16-35Lthe24-70Lthe 100-400Land a macro the 70-200L gets used manly for studio work as it gives good results when photographing people.
nigel

[Raffman]

I have seen a few nice pictures from the sigma 80-400 OS but the general feeling amongst most reviewers is that the lens performance isnt where it should be. The OS system is of Sigmas 1st gen and suposed to have some delaying characteristics especially when shooting continuous, the AF is also reported to be on the slow side. Image quality is meant to be good be that doesnt help if you cant get the shot.

If you can get a Canon 100-400L IS for simular money and to be honest I'd still rather pay the extra I'd stick with that.

Okay here come the 80-400 OS owners to get me....

Raff

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Raffman

Okay here come the 80-400 OS owners to get me....

Raff

if there are any sigma 80-400 owners on this site could i ask that when you have finished beating raffman up , you pop over to the reviews section and review the thing - it is one of only two long (zoom) lenses that we dont have reviews for (the other being the Tamron 200-500)

[colincurry]

I have a Canon 100-400 L IS USM. I did an awful lot of research and looked at the somewhat contraversial comparison between that and the 400 prime. My understanding is that there might have been a problem with early editions of the 100-400 at 400mm. I did find a forum that gave a means of dating the lens. My recollection is that if the serial number contains the letter U (possibly as the second letter in the overall number) this means that the lens was produced in 2006; T means 2005 and so on backwards. The lens I got from Kerso was a 2006 edition and certainly seems sharp to me.

This is the only lens I have and I cannot compare it with anything else.

Colin

[Blackdog]

I restarted my photography hobby a couple of years ago after a good few years away from it - (growing family, work, divorce, work and more work). My first DSLR was the Canon 300d which was very good indeed, coupled with a Sigma 170-500 zoom I was getting good results. Then I found I could afford to trade up a bit and so I got a Canon EOS5D and a Canon 100-400L IS to hang it on. The results from this are superb. The dodgy images I do get are more often than not through me trying to 'push the envelope' too far
If it's within your budget, I would sugest the Canon 100/400.
Warren

[Marvellous]

Another point worth considering is the resale value, the Canon 100-400 will sell all day second hand at a tad under £800, not a bad cost of ownership when you can pick it up new at £880 (plus P&P) eBay.co.uk: New Canon EF 100-400mm 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM UK (item 280049191967 end time 12-Feb-07 20:29:00 GMT)

Can't see the Sigma matching that!!
Just bought the Sigma 150 macro off this seller, best price & next day delivery!!


Mick

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by colincurry

I have a Canon 100-400 L IS USM. I did an awful lot of research and looked at the somewhat contraversial comparison between that and the 400 prime. My understanding is that there might have been a problem with early editions of the 100-400 at 400mm. I did find a forum that gave a means of dating the lens. My recollection is that if the serial number contains the letter U (possibly as the second letter in the overall number) this means that the lens was produced in 2006; T means 2005 and so on backwards. The lens I got from Kerso was a 2006 edition and certainly seems sharp to me.

This is the only lens I have and I cannot compare it with anything else.

Colin

I think the newer ones are mostly ok but there are a few copies that are better than others. If you get a good copy its a great friend, if you get a bad one its a good mate up to 300mm and then it gets on your nerves a bit as the image becomes softer. I have got a prime for most of my use but I may get a copy of this lens in the future. I have heard they are going to add a few changes to it this year but this is probably just new year rumours like always. Canon are supposed to have a new pro body 8.5 frames and 12.3 megapix to replace the Canon EOS-1D mark II N too, we will see.

Best wishes
Kris

[JeffH]

There's a review of the Canon 100-400L IS in this month's edition of Digital SLR User magazine (out yesterday). It's by professional wildlife photographer Ben Hall - check out his excellent work on his website - Ben Hall Photography.
I wouldn't want to breach copyright by quoting directly from a newly published mag but he says he uses it for about 80% of his work, takes it with him on every shoot and generally considers it to be the bees knees

Jeff