PDA

View Full Version : 70-400 G - Who's contimplating it?



hoffy
14-03-2009, 11:33
So, who is contemplating the g\big silver beast. I promised myself that I wouldn't lust over high end equipment this year, but what I have seen thus far on Dyxum has me wallet pocket getting hot....

TEITZY
14-03-2009, 13:09
Yikes! I thought Nikon lenses were expensive. Looks like a nice lense but pretty expensive for f4-5.6. Have you tried any third party options?

Cheers
Leigh

MarkW
14-03-2009, 13:17
Its big, its fat, its ugly and silver?????

Thank god I own a Nikon :D

hoffy
14-03-2009, 16:03
Yikes! I thought Nikon lenses were expensive. Looks like a nice lense but pretty expensive for f4-5.6. Have you tried any third party options?

Cheers
Leigh

I suppose if I was contemplating a third party the heading of this thread would be "Sigma Bigma.....

and price? The other Brand lens that I would compare it to is the Canon 100-400L (both are F4.5-5.6), which compared to the B&H pricing is within $40

davesmith
14-03-2009, 16:04
I don't really have that much of a need for 400mm to justify the cost. I've been using the old Minolta 100-300 APO a lot lately and find it plenty long enough for what I do. Actually, I've been that happy with the 100-300 that I've even put off getting the 70-300 G as well.

bigdazzler
14-03-2009, 16:27
I just dunno if I would use the reach ..

I was seriously considering a 70-200 2.8 of some breed but after visiting the zoo the other day with my kit 55-200 I found longing for just a tad more reach ..

dont mean to hijack Ash but has anyone looked or considered this (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3273&navigator=3) .. ive never seen one anywhere .. Sony mount also NA in HSM

hoffy
14-03-2009, 16:30
I looked at one a few years ago, but decided to save my pennies for a 70-200 f2.8 instead.

In time, there will be HSM available for Sony on most of the Sigma lenses.

An 400, I want the reach for ball sports (if I ever get around to doing it again)

I am, though, thinking of getting the sigma 1.4TC for my 70-200. I suppose I could go the 2x, but I am afraid that the loss of IQ would be too great (I have heard that the 1.4 is OK, but the 2 is marginal).

bigdazzler
14-03-2009, 16:53
the 100-300 f4 seems like it would be a very handy lens .. and reasonably fast as well across the range, i wonder how it stacks up IQ wise against the 70-300G .. mmmm, something to maybe research .. i really did find myself looking for a little more than 200mm at times at the zoo so im reconsidering the 70-200 now ..

the 70-400 would be great for ball sports hoffy .. fast enough at night though at the long end, f5.6 ??

I dont really know much about TCs apart from ive been told ALWAYS buy 1.4xs and NEVER 2x, because of IQ loss .. and dont you lose a stop of light with a 1.4 and 2 stops with a 2x ?? Is that right ??

hoffy
14-03-2009, 17:43
Thats correct

Seesee
14-03-2009, 18:44
70-400 range is very good I think, very handy so long as the IQ is V good as well...not sure how often you would use it with sports etc, 300mm would be more suitable I think and steadier on your tripod. Primes are expensive, heavy and the bit of focal length scope is often needed.

However for something like birding 400mm would be very nice. :rolleyes:

CAP
17-03-2009, 15:22
In my case it will be just another one of those lenses to lust after.
Not quite in the class of "G" but desirable all the same.

ving
17-03-2009, 15:30
70-400 range is very good I think, very handy not as handy as a 10-600mm f2.8-5.6. no it doesnt exist... maybe i should make one :)

hoffy
17-03-2009, 15:56
not as handy as a 10-600mm f2.8-5.6. no it doesnt exist... maybe i should make one :)


for a mobile phone of course!

DzRbenson
17-03-2009, 16:36
I have the 70-300G, would like to look at the 400 however I cannot justify the cost for the reach.

Looks like a good lense, but from what I have read its not as good as the 70-300g fully zoomed, not sure on that though.

JohnB5319
10-03-2010, 10:01
I have a 70-400G. Had a Tamron 70-200 2.8 but found the reach wasn't far enough although it's a very nice lens. And 70-300 didn't seem much of a gain.

It might be big, not sure about ugly and I wish it wasn't only available in silver (although that's no worse than white!) but I have found it amazingly easy to use in the short time I've had it. On a recent trip to NZ, I was lucky enough to catch the Albatross flying off the Otago Peninsula and was surprised how easy it was to keep up with the birds in the strong winds there.

JohnB5319
16-03-2010, 12:17
I've put a few photos up on pBase at www.pbase.com/jb53. Most are with an 24-70 mm, but some are with the 70-400.

John

MattyJKirk
25-03-2010, 13:09
I too have a 70-300G and unless a good trade-in was on offer you need to be selling some pics to justify the cost of the 400, extra reach would be handy for the footy though..

Linnie
06-04-2010, 19:45
Yep I love my footy pics and Id LOVE some more reach (Ive only got 200mm so stop complaining!) but theres no way I can afford it atm, I would kill for that 400mm beast, I dont care how big and silver it is :p
Luckily for me my reserved seat is in the front row so I just have to be a little more patient and wait for the play to come to me

dowden photography
19-05-2010, 22:53
really been thinking about it the last few days/weeks.
I now work at a camera store there for get "dealer" price.
Looking at it because at 200mm it would be around a ƒ5 or even less. Thats enough light now the noise is better at higher ISOs.

at 200mm of the 70-200mm its not that sharp and for its price not worth. I shoot sport, aussie rules, horse racing, cricket and other long range sports. the 70-400mm is better than 140-400mm with a teleconv. and you lose at least 1 ƒ-stop.

I think the price is not that bad if you are going to use it. I can see this lens being used a lot on my cameras.