User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 100-400 & 80-400 owners, do you pine for a faster zoom?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Jul 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    100-400 & 80-400 owners, do you pine for a faster zoom?

    Howdy all,

    This is a bit of a cross platform discussion, so please bear with me.

    I have been looking at a longer zoom, to either compliment or replace my Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I have looked at the 150-500 Sigma and the Sony 70-400G F4-5.6 lens (FYI, the Sony 70-400 would be equivalent (in market position and intended usage) to the Canon 100-400 and I am assuming the 80-400 Nikon lens, but is slightly faster wide open (F4 V F4.5)).

    The big issue for me is that the Sony lens is approximately $1000 more then the Sigma 150-500. If I went for it I may have to sell some other equipment.

    For those of you who own the OEM Canon or Nikon lenses, do you still own a 70-200 F2.8? Do you find that you really do not use (or you have no use for) a 70-200 F2.8?

    Any advice or comments welcome (please do not let this become a gear fan boi thread, please keep it general)

  2. #2
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    28 Jul 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FriedChicken View Post
    Would you consider faster telephoto primes?
    At this stage, faster tele primes are out of the question, purely due to cost (To get something, even like the Sigma 300 F2.8, is another $1000 on top of that and even more if I go OEM)

  3. #3
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My move is to drop the 80-400 and replace it with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and a 200-400 f4.

    The 80-400 is too much of a compromise to get the added zoom range. You sacrifice aperture, AF speed, poor quality stability and IQ.

    What do I sacrifice to change?

    $3k for the 70-200 and $7k for the 200-400.

    I now have the less costly 70-200 and now just waiting for my funds to recharge for the longer glass. This is a really costly exercise

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've had my 100-400 for a couple of weeks now, and love the extra length and the quality images it produces, what i have noticed is that the focusing is a little slow when shooting on coming subjects such as the kids footy and birds in flight, and this seems to slow down the fps as well, my 70-200 2.8 is much faster and the fps seem to stay up, also with a max aperture of 5.6, you really need good light to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO down, another thing is the bokeh you get from a 2.8 lens, in saying that, the bokeh you get at 400 5.6 is great when you're close enough, so i guess what i'm saying is that I won't be giving up my sigma 70-200 2.8., unless i replace it with a canon 70-200 2.8.
    Jayde

    Honest CC whether good or bad, is much appreciated.
    Love and enjoy photography, but won't be giving up my day job.

    Flickr

  5. #5
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I removed it

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    28 Jul 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You guys are making it hard!! I was hoping that people would say, "Yeah, that 70-200, just gathers dust..."

    Hmmm, I suppose I really need to determine what I use these lenses for. I know that my 70-200 has only been used outdoors for sports, but its not uncommon for myself to open it up to at least F3.5 to minimize DOF.

    Decisions, decisions

  7. #7
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hoffy are you trying to justify using the 70-200 lens for motorsport? cause I don't think thats it real niche. To me its a general purpose lens with very very good quality. The lens you take on holidays as the general walk round when doing a tour of some place that you want to remember with beautiful images. You tripod it and stitch your panoramas for wide angle. I wouldn't give up the 70-200.

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    28 Jul 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was always told that for a first off lens for motorsport, 70-200 should be the first to go in your kit and up until now I tended to agree. I have found that the only place it is lacking is when you are stuck deep down in the runoff of a hairpin turn. The only problem is that at places such as Mallala, just about everything is deep down in the runoff of a hairpin turn! I have never had a problem with it when I have done offroad, or rally, or hillclimbs or even places such as Phillip Island, Eastern Creek or even the Adelaide parkland.

    The bonus of the Sony 400ish zoom is that it covers the same focal range as the 70-200. If I had a choice and the money, I would definitely keep it, but life dictates otherwise.

  9. #9
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    I was always told that for a first off lens for motorsport, 70-200 should be the first to go in your kit and up until now I tended to agree. I have found that the only place it is lacking is when you are stuck deep down in the runoff of a hairpin turn. The only problem is that at places such as Mallala, just about everything is deep down in the runoff of a hairpin turn! I have never had a problem with it when I have done offroad, or rally, or hillclimbs or even places such as Phillip Island, Eastern Creek or even the Adelaide parkland.

    The bonus of the Sony 400ish zoom is that it covers the same focal range as the 70-200. If I had a choice and the money, I would definitely keep it, but life dictates otherwise.
    I don't know much about the Sony lens and I not sure which 70-200 you have, but having only recently purchased my 70-200 VRII you would have to pry it from my cold dead fingers before you got mine - but then thats me and that new lens it he best zoom I have ever stuck on the front of a camera.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular JimD's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2009
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm really happy with my 100-400mm
    .
    .
    .
    .
    f o t o w o r x

    People taking the time out to give me CC is always very much appreciated

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    28 Jul 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JimD View Post
    I'm really happy with my 100-400mm
    But, do you have a 70-200 F2.8? Do you have a need for one?

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Regular JimD's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2009
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    But, do you have a 70-200 F2.8? Do you have a need for one?
    Sorry...I see your question now in the proper light.

    Yes...I do own the 70-200mm f/2.8

    I wouldn't want my 100-400mm to be my only long lens.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •