Is there a lens out there thats better than the Canon 100-400mm!?

[M Greenslade]

OK, I have just purchased a Canon EOS550D with an 18-135 mm lens. I don't have a huge budget and so probably can't afford the Canon Lens 100-400mm as discussed here, what would be a good budget alternative bearing in mind I am a mere amateur. As a marshal I get as close to the action as any photographer, but we obviously don't take pictures whilst on duty, so my position of advantage is as a spectator, any thoughts on a suitable budget lens much appreciated - thanks

Martin

[andrewc]

Sigma 100-300 f4 EX in my experience offers superior sharpness and aperture over the Canon 100-400 but usually needs a contrast adjustment in post processing. If that is too much, then the Canon 70-300IS is worth looking at, and at the budget end Canon 55-250IS is pretty good and not heavy. You can also crop heavily and still get images that will print perfectly at A4 or even A3 or larger.

[M Greenslade]

Originally Posted by andrewc

Sigma 100-300 f4 EX in my experience offers superior sharpness and aperture over the Canon 100-400 but usually needs a contrast adjustment in post processing. If that is too much, then the Canon 70-300IS is worth looking at, and at the budget end Canon 55-250IS is pretty good and not heavy. You can also crop heavily and still get images that will print perfectly at A4 or even A3 or larger.

Thank You

Bladders...............

[andrewc]

The Canon 70-200 f4 L is a great lens as well, but not quite long enough.

[Tim the Grey]

Most makes have a 75-300 in there somewhere. Ideal for 'value' long range shots. They won't be as fast, or as sharp, as some kit compared in here, but they will not cost the earth, and they weigh next to nothing...
Horses for courses.

[M Greenslade]

Within my budget I have gone for a Canon 70-300IS from Amazon at £321.00, they quote the full resale price should be £649.00 this is to go with my Canon EOS550D with an 18-135 mm lens, just got to work out how to use it now, thanks guys...........

Bladders.

[Peter Mallett]

This was taken with the 100-400

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4098191...57626117446049

[Peter Mallett]

Moving on, this set was also taken using the 100-400. As a rank amatuer I'm quite pleased. I think it is stretched at maximum range, which can be seen from the original sized images. But drag it back a little and it is a pretty good compromise.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4098191...7629198051692/

[autoidiodyssey]

I don't think the Sigma 150-500 has been mentioned yet. In the US it runs around $500 less than the Canon 100-400. It is heavy, and not the fastest lens in the world at f5-6.3. But I love mine. I upgraded from a 55-250 with the idea that I would keep the 55-250 as a mid range zoom. After one race I had to upgrade my mid range glass, the 150-500 was so good it put my 55-250 to shame. I think it is the cheapest way to get to 500mm and 500mm is addictive.

Here are a couple examples.

At 500mm

GTA Leads The Way by autoidiodyssey, on Flickr

At 340mm

Jaguar vs. Triumph by autoidiodyssey, on Flickr

At 150mm

Flying Brick by autoidiodyssey, on Flickr

[Tim the Grey]

That first shot looks like Mr. Allenby-Byrne, AKA Zeffarelly on here? Taken in the UK at all???

[Peter Mallett]

It is but I would hazard a guess at Combe.

[gary396]

Or possibly the Goodwood Revival? I think both cars with the same numbers were there?

[Peter Mallett]

I was thinking Goodwood and you may be correct. Just that I don't recall those type of barriers at the venue.

[autoidiodyssey]

That first shot is from the Revival last year. Somewhere around Fordwater I think. The black barrier is what lines the berm, the fence is just out of frame. You can just make out a bit of the white sponsor banner in the top right corner.

[elansprint72]

Originally Posted by autoidiodyssey

I don't think the Sigma 150-500 has been mentioned yet. In the US it runs around $500 less than the Canon 100-400. It is heavy, and not the fastest lens in the world at f5-6.3. But I love mine. I upgraded from a 55-250 with the idea that I would keep the 55-250 as a mid range zoom. After one race I had to upgrade my mid range glass, the 150-500 was so good it put my 55-250 to shame. I think it is the cheapest way to get to 500mm and 500mm is addictive.

As a Nikon man I can't advise on Canon lenses but I'm also using a Sigma (BIGma) 150-500 and am very pleased with it. Costs about £750ish from UK suppliers (stay away from Simply Electronics, who are always cheapest but don't deliver... anything! Check their feedback).

The zoom on the Sigma rotates in the opposite direction to my Nikons, which took one race meeting to adjust to- having a picture editor breathing down your neck makes for fast learning!

For an amateur, with all the associated problems of limited clear view-points and intrusive safety fences, etc. I suppose that one really has to able to justify mega expenditure on equipment. I believe it is about the bloke behind the lens, rather than the tools he uses.

There are an increasing number of lenses which can be used for multi-tasking these days, I've got a 28-300, which would not normally be my weapon of choice for racing shots but it does the job perfectly well. It, along with an 18-35 zoom, would be entire kit for a holiday, or city-centre shoot, for example.

Photos at:
www.petetaylor.org.uk