automotive photograpers....answer a survey

[yokotas13]

Im not talking about you guys with 70-300 350.00 canon lenses.

this is for guys that REALLY shoot.

do you find yourself shooting UNDER 300 or OVER 300?

im trying to decide between a sigma 100-300 or canon 100-400

sigma whay?
f/4 constant, with a 1.4tx the aperature is still the same as the canon at 400, with a greater reach (420 i think?)
according to EVERTYHIng i have read, IQ is the same, if not better than the 100-400, plus the 100-400 has a tendancy to dust up thanks to the push, pull zoom.

cons?
its not a canon, i have a pet peeve about using canon lenses...but whatever.

Cliffnotes?
Went to full frame, 70-200 sucks dick now.
need new lens, either 100-300 sigma or 100-400 canon...

[Pank]

If you liked your 300, you're going to want something closer to 500. If you like teleconverters, that's your thing.

The Canon 70-300, I dunno why people buy those. For a canon lens, it is really not that good. The Sigma and Tamron offerings in the same focal lengths are way better.

They don't call the 100-400 the "Dust Pump" for no reason. Luckily it doesn't seem to affect IQ until years down the line. also apparently its easy to clean.


anyway, when i shot at the track, I was shooting over 300mm equiv for like 90% of the shots

[yokotas13]

ive only had a 70-200 on a 1.6 crop so a 320 ish
im gonna go to Bic camera i guess and play with both of them. eventually.
Im just worried abotu the aperature for duskish shooting on the 100-400

[GSXRJJordan]

Quick answer - you're going to end up spending a grand to be happy.

I've never owned any Sigma lenses, but have shot them and there are only tiny differences (besides resale) from Canon's non-AF/IS stuff. For AF/IS, you gotta go Canon to get all the perks (so the pros tell me).

I've got the L-series 300mm and on the full-frame 1DSmk3, I find that I'm always trying to get closer - then I remember I'm shooting 20+mp, and cropping is the name of the game.

I'd say go big (fixed focal length) if you can afford it. It costs a fucking lot to go big focal length telephoto.

[Pank]

If you really want to be fancy, you could get the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, on a 2x TC

2k-2.5k new

[yokotas13]

i was going to, but not enough reviews from people, or sample images etc etc
that plus a 17-40, 24-70, and a fish would make life grand. but not enough data for me, and its only 1800 for a refurb one :)

Quick answer - you're going to end up spending a grand to be happy.

I've never owned any Sigma lenses, but have shot them and there are only tiny differences (besides resale) from Canon's non-AF/IS stuff. For AF/IS, you gotta go Canon to get all the perks (so the pros tell me).

I've got the L-series 300mm and on the full-frame 1DSmk3, I find that I'm always trying to get closer - then I remember I'm shooting 20+mp, and cropping is the name of the game.

I'd say go big (fixed focal length) if you can afford it. It costs a fucking lot to go big focal length telephoto.

its not that bad, you can get a 500 5.6 for cheap. its hte 2.8s and 4s that are a grip. i thought about primes, but the problem is the tracks here, you cnat really use a fixed focal. all the spots to shoot form are on the incoming end of S turns, or a straight pretty much. not too conducive to a 300 or a 400 prime honestly. I figure if i run a 100-300 and keep a 1.4x handy, i can cover damn near everything, and still have the focal length of the 100-400. ILl keep my 70-200 of course as well, for like zoo shots and kids soccer etc etc.

But yeah, im still doing my research. my 100-400 was on backorder from ritz camera (kille rmilitary discounts) so i cancelled it until i can make up my mind.

im seriously open to any zoom lens up to 2000.00

[Pank]

how big of an aperture do you need? you could throw a 500 on the 5d and roll with a telezoom on the 40d.

What about the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 on a 1.4xTC? This will be closer to L glass quality
or if you don't need that fast and want more reach, the sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6. This wont be close, but its only a grand.

[yokotas13]

40d isnt with me anymore, or id just throw the 70-200 on the 40d with a 1.4
i was looking at he 120-300 just a second ago. but i really only need f/4 constant for my stuff.