I've used the 50-500mm Sigma (albeit on a Sony body) and it was awful. Image quality is mediocre. The Canon 100-400 is a very versatile lens with much better IQ.
I'm with Neuro though - the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is spectacular. I've been using it with the 2x III teleconverter and getting some pretty good results.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ www.methodicallymuddled.wordpress.com
Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 5D Mark II | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM |Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |Canon 2 x Teleconverter III | Canon 580 EX II Speedlite | Really Right Stuff TVC 34L | Really Right Stuff BH55 LR | Gorillapod Focus | Really Right Stuff BH 30
Don't have experience with the 50-500. Do have the 100-400. When I picked it up it was for the reach and versatility of the range in a compact lens for transporting in a regular shoulder hung camera bag. I very quickly learned that with a C sized sensor that it was a challenge for me to hold it steady enough at full extension for consistently sharp shots. A comparison of hand held and tripod mounted shots of a distant brick wall confirmed this. On a full frame body this is not as much of a problem. For me the point of diminishing returns is around 500 mm equivalency. With an ef300 f4 I have no similar issues due to the shorter lens length and superior balance.
The other lesson that I learned shortly after is that it is a lens that likes good light. The combination of narrower apertures, longer focal lengths, and earlier version of IS requires faster shutter speeds than a 70-200 IS lens to capture sharp images of still subjects.
In case this sounds too negative I'd also like to point out that it is one of my most used lenses. I regularly go hiking and use it to capture wildlife shots as well as detail images of landscape features some of which I can't get closer to. I have also used it for daytime sporting events, on a tripod, with a C frame body with excellent results. Once you learn what the lens is capable of doing and learn to use it within its limitations, the images captured will be most amazing. For the money, the 100-400 delivers quite a lot.
Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the H-Bird shot with a 50D and the 100-400Not sure about Bob's hummingbird, but this is a 100% crop from the 100-400mm on a 7D
Bob
Damned nice - and not nearly so creepy as looking at a 8" eyeball on my screen - even if it is my own kid! After seeing the two 100% crops from you and Neuro clearly the 100-400 has at least the resolving power of my 70-200 f/4 IS. Maybe I'll take it off the "never to be considered again" list of lenses. Besides, the odds of me buying a 400 f/2.8 II are slim...Originally Posted by bob williams
Out of curiosity, what did you use for Raw to JPEG conversion? There's a bit of texture added to the background that looks like an artifact. I was (once again) shooting only JPEGs with the shot of my son so that was the in-camera conversion (on faithful).
Last edited by ChadS; 01-27-2012 at 03:49 AM.
@ChadS I am assuming you are comparing just the 70-200mm using a cropped section, and not the 100-400mm at 100-200mm. At 100-200mm I thought the 100-400mm was weak, and I think the 70-200mm would outperform the 100-400mm at anything close to 200mm. I found my copy of the 100-400mm did a good job at 300-400mm. It seemed to have a sweet spot at 320-350mm. However the IQ was not so good that it would hold up to a large amount of cropping, of course I say this from my perspective and no one else’s because how much you can crop really depends on the final use of the pic will be. I think as far as cropping goes the 70-200mm will give you more usable image to work with, but definitely not enough to crop a pic to match the IQ of the 400mm's framing.
@Neuro, A quote from Arthur Morris when someone asked about selling their 100-400mm and going strictly 70-200mm F2.8L II with TC’s. “I can never know if anything is “worth it” to someone else.... I do know that the 70-200 II is far more versatile than the 100-400, far more rugged, and, in the right hands, will consistently create sharper images. I recently sold my 100-400 and will be selling my last 400 5.6 when the person who borrowed it returns it. And I will likely be selling my 400 DO soon....” While the charts do not support his claims at 400mm, the 70-200mm II deffinetly wins with the 1.4x compared to 250 and 300mm. I wonder if the real benefit that Morris realizes is in the superior IS system. I have yet to actually try the 70-200mm II with the TC’s to test out his claims in real situations. I was wondering if you have.
@HDNitehawk you are correct. I'm comparing the results of a 2x crop of the 70-200 @ 200 to a 100-400 @ 400. When I did this with shots from my son playing football the results were very similar. Perhaps the 100-400 had a bit of an edge but not by much - certainly not by the factor of two that one would expect if each lens were equally sharp (as a fraction of the sensor). Again, it's likely the problem was lack of AFMA on the T2i.
A 70-200 f/2.8 II + TCs is $2.6 or $3k (for both). That's quite a bit more than just the 100-400. If you're also adding in a 400 f/5.6 to the comparison then I'd say that's valid. I wonder what the AF speed comparison is vs. the prime.
Not specifically, although I've been pleased with the results delivered by the 70-200 II with a 2x II. Here are a couple of examples of that combo:
EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400
Those are impressive. Is the AF speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x on par with the 100-400L? I've always assumed that the AF of the 100-400L, or any lens without an extender, was much faster than a lens with an extender.
I don't think the "factor of two" logic would apply. While it might sound logical when it comes to L series lenses and the amount of improvement you get from one set up to another is fractional. The only relationship I have found in whole numbers is the price; to get fractional better IQ it seems you have to pay 3 times as much. You are probably correct, it was a AF issue that you were having.
I think the AF would be much slower. I think the advantage of the 70-200mm II would be the IS system, and a slight advantage from the new coating technology that the new 70-200mm II has that the older 100-400mm does not. You are correct as well about the price, however, many that may be making such a decision already own the TC’s and it wouldn’t be a factor. Keep in mind the quote from Arthur Morris and who it is coming from, he probably carries a lens like the 70-200mm II around as a walk around lens, when he goes out and is serious he takes an 800mm or something similar. He wouldn’t be considering the 100-400mm or the 70-200mm as his main lens, only as something to fill a spot in his kit.
Yes, the AF is slower with the extenders, especially the 2x. With the 1.4x on the 70-200 II, it's on par with the 100-400; with the 2x it's slower. It's all relative, though - even 'slower' is pretty darn fast with the 70-200+2x.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
