Need a really big lens..?

[Ferry_vO]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

$120.000 USD .. :isadizzy:

[djscoo]

That's small time!

Canon 5200mm Telephoto:
2465
2465
(The little box on the far right is the camera body)

[Matt Wynn]

man thats got some reach... compared to my bigma it's huge... and bigma ain't exactly small... i do love my bigma! another image from my 'portfolio' did you say...? see the very bottom...


Bigma below....
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/393341398_974cc99cbb.jpg

[Henry]

good handle grip you got there also
H

[Ferry_vO]

and bigma ain't exactly small... i do love my bigma!


Been thinking about getting either the Canon 100-400 L IS USM, Sigma 50-500 or the new Sigma 50-500 with IS. Haven't decided yet; will have to feel and see the difference up close before I decide. The Canon had slightly better contrast and colours apparently, but the Sigma has more range. How's the IS speed on the Bigma?
The Bigma is considerably heavier, but I don't think that will be a problem.

[Panther_99FS]

Smoothie,
Nice gear!!! (Pentax :ques: ) :wiggle:

[Kiwikat]

Ferry, I'd recommend the 100-400 if you have the cash for it. :salute:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

+ 1 for the 100-400 (if you can afford it) It's not exactly the most recent lens in Canon's line-up (read: should have been replaced a quite a while ago in my opinion...perhaps they'll update sometime it like they did with the 70-200 f/2.8) but certainly one of the most useful. The Bigma is slow at the telephoto end (f/6.3) and will focus slower...but perhaps Sigma's redesigned Bigma could be better...

By the way, at close focus distances the real focal length at 400mm drops significantly...I reckon, not 500 but rather something like, say 420 to 450 if I remember it correctly. And the quality at 500mm is nothing to write home about...:rolleyes:

I think it's better to save longer for the 100-400 (perhaps you can sell your 70-300, is it a recent copy ?).

[Ferry_vO]

+ 1 for the 100-400 (if you can afford it) It's not exactly the most recent lens in Canon's line-up (read: should have been replaced a quite a while ago in my opinion...perhaps they'll update sometime it like they did with the 70-200 f/2.8)

Did ou notice the f/2.8 II is a whopping 800 euro's more expensive than the original (Which seems to be OOS now..?)


I think it's better to save longer for the 100-400 (perhaps you can sell your 70-300, is it a recent copy ?).

The Bigma 50-500 IS (I know Sigma gives their IS a different name) is more expensive than the 100-400 L is.
The 'old' regular 50-500 is somewhat cheaper. I do plan on selling the 70-300 (2 years old) in the future.

I have to say the 50-500's added range is tempting though... But like I said, will take a drive to my favourite store and have a closer look and try them out before I buy anything!

BTW Joris: I get my stuff at this Dutch store, that also has a Belgian branche: http://www.fotokonijnenberg.be/

[Chacha]

...

Now show us the sample shots.... :jump:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Yeah, I know about 'Konijn' in Turnhout ;). I haven't bought anything there yet, but in the 'paasvakantie' (Eastern holiday for the Englishspeaking chaps around here ;) ) I hope to get my Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70 ZA f/2.8 SSM there. It's significantly cheaper than my local dealer: € 280 cheaper! Thanks for the suggestion though, I appreciate it.

Indeed, the new Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II is way too expensive in my opinion. I know lots of people who will keep their 'old' one since it's still a great performer. Decent to good at f/2.8, great at f/4 (similar performance as the 70-200/4 at that aperture). I have just read this on Dpreview.com:

"Canon Japan has announced a shortage of its recently released EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM lens because of higher than expected demand. The company says it is attempting to boost supply to meet demand across all markets."
Supply and demand...perhaps all future 70-200 f/2.8 IS II buyers should join up and get their copy one by one...lowering demand, perhaps lowering the price as well.

Too bad Sigma makes it 50-500 OS (OS: Optical Stabilisation ;) ) so expensive. In that case, I'd get the 'dust pump' as it is called in English :icon_lol:. It's sharpness at 500mm is really nothing to write home about. You're better off with less millimeters but with more qualitative millimeters so to speak, in my opinion.

By the way, Sigma makes some great lenses...but their quality control isn't that great...

[Ferry_vO]

By the way, Sigma makes some great lenses...but their quality control isn't that great...

Agreed; read the first four paragraphs of this review.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

My first telezoom was a Sigma 100-300 mm lens; rather cheap but it was all I could afford at the time.
First day at an airshow and the autofocus stopped working because the lens warmed up: A problem apparently quite common to Sigma!

Possible issues with the Canon L 100-400 include dust inside the lens due to the push-pull zoom system (Though I've read comments from people who never had issues with that) and wear on the tension ring that adjusts the friction.

[Tracon]

+1 100-400

[JorisVandenBerghe]

By the way, a very nice lens too is Sigma's 100-300 f/4. Sharp, constant aperture and apparently not even that slow to focus.

[Matt Wynn]

i'll agree with a few points here, and i'll show you a shot with the Bigma at about the furthest reaches i'm comfortable hand shooting with... think i shot this around the 450mm mark, Tornado in 450mm hand held, and SU-30MKI using tripod and at the 480-490mm mark...

[Kiwikat]

Possible issues with the Canon L 100-400 include dust inside the lens due to the push-pull zoom system (Though I've read comments from people who never had issues with that) and wear on the tension ring that adjusts the friction.

This seems to be more of a myth (due to its 'dust pump' nickname) rather than the truth. A shooting buddy's 100-400 has absolutely no dust issues at all. However, it is nowhere near as sharp as my 300mm prime.