Tweet
The sensor crop does not really count. And I can not say good things about the Sigma 135-400 either. This is reach without quality.
-
-
It doesn't count?
He could be using a 5D (Full Frame), a 1D (1.3x), or a 20D, 30D, 350D, 300D (1.6x).
It counts.Tanner Johnson - Owner
twenty53 PhotographyComment
-
But he is not lookibng for a new body.Comment
-
Ah but i'm using 400D so it does count. And with the teleconverter. More money... I'm a bit cost limited. Thanks for all the opinions so far everyone.
-PhilComment
-
Yes it counts, the 400D has the 1.6x crop factor. If you get 300mm lens you shouldn't need a telecoverter in most cases. With a 200mm I would get one.Originally posted by TS L1011Comment
-
I'm looking for a similar lens, my Phoenix 100-300mm has worked wonders, but its become clear to me that it can only do so much. I'm looking for anything in the 100-500 market, then I'll start saving up once I have an idea.Comment
-
With low price 550$, the Sigma 135-400mm is greater than Nikon or Sigma 80-400mm...Originally posted by seahawkComment
-
Originally posted by haitrieu
Price does not determine how great a lens is. In this case the 135-400 is not as good as the Sigma 80-400 OS, the 80-400 includes more features and a more practical minimum focal length. Not to mention the Optical Stabilization feature, like IS (Canon) and VR (Nikon). Although why do you compare it to the Nikon 80-400?? He uses a Canon and is looking for a replacement.
Phil and Chasen on the subject of Sigma lenses you may also consider the 100-300mm maintaining f/4 throughout the focal length. If you are willing to spend that extra dosh you may also be interested in the 120-300 maintaining f/2.8 throughout the focal length.
If it is the canon 'L' glass that you desire if you can get your hands on 35-350 in good condition that would that be appropriate? As I believe Canon don't make that anymore.
There is also the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6, but again I’m not sure if Canon still make it.
Hope you find what you’re looking for
Cheers
Neil.
Comment
-
An intersting alternative is the Sigma HSM 100-300 4.0, which is superb for its price.
I have a very low opinion of the Sigma 135-400 (which I do own), if it is not sunny and you can shoot at 8.0 it is very soft. Well perhaps it comes from the fact, that it is not often so sunny here.Comment
-
Thanks for all the advice, the PPL training doesn't leave much money for anything else, but I'll see what I can scrape togeather. Before I replace my 100-300, I'm probably going to get a fisheye, I'm very curious to see what I can do with that in the Cessna 172.Comment
-
And here I was thinking I had pretty much decided to go with either the Canon 70-300 IS or the Canon 70-200 L. Now i'm looking at other ones again. Will have to figure it out.
-PhilComment
Comment