Telephoto Lens Requirements for Shots like KJFK Canarsie Climb

[pawelm]

Yes, you are right. The example photo of Korean 777 that you've posted in your first post, was taken with full frame camera and 100-500mm lens. Even if it was taken on the longest focal lenght of 500mm, you with your crop sensor camera and 100-400mm will have the equivalent of 640, so you should be able to get similar results.

This is what may expect focal wise. Taken at 400mm with crop sensor, I was standing around a mile from this jumbo. I know the quality isn't best, but as I said earlier, quality of air is a major factor in long distance shooting,

[raceface29]

Yes, you are right. The example photo of Korean 777 that you've posted in your first post, was taken with full frame camera and 100-500mm lens. Even if it was taken on the longest focal lenght of 500mm, you with your crop sensor camera and 100-400mm will have the equivalent of 640, so you should be able to get similar results.

This is what may expect focal wise. Taken at 400mm with crop sensor, I was standing around a mile from this jumbo. I know the quality isn't best, but as I said earlier, quality of air is a major factor in long distance shooting,

fantastic - the quality of air would effect me anyway regardless of whether I had the 100-400 or the 150-600mm lens, right? So, then I'm just as well off with the 100-400mm canon/sigma/tamron and not really ever in need of the 150-600mm. And with my crop sensor camera body, I effectively have to keep my current 75-300mm lens to get some of those shots where I'd be less than 150mm since the 100-400mm effectively is 160-640mm. As I write this, I'm getting a bit more pleased with the situation because I hate having extra or unnecessary items in my camera bag.

[hkgaviationspotting]

I use the Sigma 100-400 with the Nikon D7100, which is a crop sensor camera with a 1.5x crop factor which makes my lens the equivalent of a 150-600mm which I would say is plenty if not overkill for many types of plane spotting. As mentioned before by other members the third party lenses are on the same level, if not better than original manufacturer lenses. So I would definitely recommend that since the Canon one is really expensive and especially since I would think that money would be well spent upgrading your camera body to a mid-range DSLR than buying a OEM lens that is really expensive.

[JakTrax]

The Canon EF 100-400L II is the daddy of the DSLR long lenses, period. It stands alone, with nothing to match it exactly (and that transcends brands). The Sigma and Tamron 150-600s are pretty good but they're not 'true' 600s (about 580mm by most accounts), and they aren't as sharp as the Canon. Be aware that, while the two Sigmas (C and S) and the Tamron are similar optically, the Sigma 150-600 S has better AF and stabilisation, which at longer focal lengths and/or narrow apertures could be the difference between nailing and failing the shot.

The Sigma 100-400 is apparently excellent for the price. But there's the key phrase: for the price. It's not the EF 100-400L II, but it doesn't claim to be. It's very comparable to the MkI, which is a lens I'd avoid due to its many known issues, including those outlined above (as well as frequent failure of the IS unit, which can render the lens unusable until it's fixed — about $300-400).

Bottom line? If you want the very best, fork out for the EF 100-400L II. If you need 600mm and want the best zoom option, get the Sigma 150-600 S. If, however, you're on a budget, go with the Sigma C/Tamron 150-600 or the Sigma 100-400.