70-400 G - Who's contimplating it?

[hoffy]

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]

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]

Its big, its fat, its ugly and silver?????

Thank god I own a Nikon

[hoffy]

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]

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]

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 .. ive never seen one anywhere .. Sony mount also NA in HSM

[hoffy]

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]

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]

Thats correct

[Seesee]

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.

[CAP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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]

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.