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

[JAMRacing]

...and cheaper!

I looking to upgrade my camera lens from the Canon 55-250mm. It's a good lens, but the restriction of only 250mm does stop me capturing some brilliant close up shots on certain corners. So I am looking to upgrade, to a proper, pro lens, so i can really capture motorsports at its best!

Looking around, it seems the Canon 100-400mm lens is the 'daddy' when it comes to a motorsport lens, but was wondering if anyone has experienced a lens for a Canon camera, that is cheaper but,produces the same image quality, or a lens of simular price that produces better images?

[EastonNeston]

For an all round motorsport lens, when you only want to have one long lens the 100-400 is probably the best solution.
However on a day with less than ideal lighting I'm more likely to us the 70-200f2.8L and the 400f2.8L as they are better in low light conditions, however it is a bigger financial commitment and a lot more weight to carry around.

Judgeing by the number of Canon 100-400's that are seen trackside, and in spectator areas, its fair to say it's the most popular option.

[Peter Mallett]

I have 100-400 lens and used it and the 7D for the first time at the Silverstone Classic in July. If you look at this stream http://www.flickr.com/photos/40981912@N03/ you can see the limitations. I was really just pointing and pressing as it was mostly experimental. The fading light in the Group C race could have been taken up by adjusting the iso number.

[David Stallard]

I use just the 100-400 on my 7D and at brands for the BSB the light was awful to say the least and for the first time ever I stuck it on auto iso [cringe] but was quite surprised how well it worked out. Yes you can see the noise if you want to be really pedantic but for 'real world' use / prints it's fine (very little PP in this shot - sure with a bit of fettling you would never know)

example - under the tree's at clearways. 340mm iso 3200


Worth every penny in my book, I have covered a few events now since changing over to the canon and apart from putting the 24-105 on for a few paddock shot's the 100-400 hasn't come off the body.

.DAVID.

[TWRv12]

How would the 70-200f2.8L with an extender rate against the 100-400mm f/4.5 ?

[Peter Mallett]

I've just taken the time to check one of my shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/4098191...n/photostream/ - Taken in evening light on 1/250 with an ISO of 250. This is a very good lens.

[andrewc]

I always consider an extender as being fine for occassional use, but no substitute for having the focal length required in the main lens.

Sigma 100-300 f4 EX is as sharp as the 100-400 from 100-300, and is faster. Given the cropping power of modern DSLRs its worth considering.

[bella]

how does the cost compare (2nd hand availability?) for a 100-300mm vs the 100-400mm?

[andrewc]

If you can find one, the Sigma 100-300 seems to sell for £ 400-£ 500 secondhand, compared to £ 800 ish for the 100-400 from Canon.

[bella]

hmm. this thread is interesting to me cause i'm considering investing in canon kit over the winter that's at least the equal of my nikon stuff, which is the nikon 80-400mm lens and a d70. thinking about the shots i've taken this year at the circuit i've ended up using the far reach of zoom more often than not so i guess a 300mm lens with extender wouldn't cut it.

is there a difference in autofocus between the canon and sigma?

[andrewc]

I've used the Sigma 100-300 for several years and its been great with my 30D/40D/50D. I hired a 100-400L once and I think the colours and contrast were slightly better out of the camera, but in terms of AF speed and accuracy they were equal, and sharpness was on a par as well. From 300-400mm the 100-400 held a small advantage when comparing with the Sigma with a teleconverter attached, but now with a 7D I can crop heavily.

I've now switched to a 300mm prime but still keep the Sigma 100-300 for those occasions where versatility is useful - eg race starts and pack shots.

[bella]

(apologies for thread hijacking)

i have small hands and can't hold the big pro bodies (stop sniggering), so i'm stuck with the smaller slrs so your experiences with both are greatly appreciated, thank you.

i try and stay away from photoshop and processing images so i think i'm stuck with going for the canon lens. is there a noticeable difference in weight?

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by bella

(apologies for thread hijacking)

i have small hands and can't hold the big pro bodies (stop sniggering), so i'm stuck with the smaller slrs so your experiences with both are greatly appreciated, thank you.

The new Nikons are quite compact, I was looking at the D7000 and was impressed at how small it is compared with my old D100 yet it's light years ahead of it.

[Peter Mallett]

I have a D50 and a 7D. Both are equal in size but the 7D is possibly a little heavier. Of the Canons the 600D is possibly the best in the smaller body. The Sigma 100-300 is substantially lighter than the Canon 100-400.

[andrewc]

Canon have three sizes of body

the xxxD and xxxxD range which are quite small.

the xxD and 5D / 7D range which is traditional 35mm sized

and the 1D pro bodies which incorporate a battery grip and are bigger and heavier.

I much prefer the 7D size to the older 350D I had, my hands are bigger and I found it more comforable to use, in the cold, wearing gloves. Trying in the shop is advisable, but take some gloves as a warm shop is different to Snetterton in March.

The Sigma 100-300 EX f4 weighs 1480 grams, the Canon 100-400L is about 100 grams lighter. I tend to use mine with a monopod.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by andrewc

The Sigma 100-300 EX f4 weighs 1480 grams, the Canon 100-400L is about 100 grams lighter. I tend to use mine with a monopod.

I stand corrected. Thanks for that piece of info.

[lauryn]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I have a D50 and a 7D. Both are equal in size but the 7D is possibly a little heavier. Of the Canons the 600D is possibly the best in the smaller body. The Sigma 100-300 is substantially lighter than the Canon 100-400.

I agree that the Sigma 100-300 is lighter than the Canon 100-400, but one is 300 and the other one 400
So I really prefer a Canon 100-400, it covers a lot more!

[TerribleWone]

Canon 100-400mm is not really a daddy when it comes to motorsports. In fact I have never seen any full time staffer use one. Even the two guys I know who have one refer to it as the canon dust pump. For that kind of money save up more and just get a 70-200mm F2.8 IS2. The 70-200 can be used for taking awesome driver portraits, pit lane, the gird walk and race action. Where as the dust pump would only be track-side use and its not even very good at that considering its a F5.6 at longer focal lengths. With the 70-200mm you can snap on a 1.4 TC and so long as you stop it down a little it will still return sharp shots with little degradation to AF speed. I would not recommend anything more than a 1.4 on a zoom lens. If you need longer optics I would opt for a 300mm F2.8 but I would take a guess that's way out of the budget.

70-200 with 1.4 TC (before I owned a 300mm F2.8)

[David Stallard]

Originally Posted by TerribleWone

Canon 100-400mm is not really a daddy when it comes to motorsports. In fact I have never seen any full time staffer use one. Even the two guys I know who have one refer to it as the canon dust pump. For that kind of money save up more and just get a 70-200mm F2.8 IS2. The 70-200 can be used for taking awesome driver portraits, pit lane, the gird walk and race action. Where as the dust pump would only be track-side use and its not even very good at that considering its a F5.6 at longer focal lengths. With the 70-200mm you can snap on a 1.4 TC and so long as you stop it down a little it will still return sharp shots with little degradation to AF speed. I would not recommend anything more than a 1.4 on a zoom lens. If you need longer optics I would opt for a 300mm F2.8 but I would take a guess that's way out of the budget.

With the 100-400 being SO bad I guess I had better sell mine then









On the other hand - may as well keep it for now

.DAVID.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by David Stallard

With the 100-400 being SO bad I guess I had better sell mine then

I think you should give it away David. It would be unfair to foist it in some unsuspecting snapper.

I could help you to dispose of it sustainably. Probably hide it on a third body .....

[TerribleWone]

Originally Posted by David Stallard

With the 100-400 being SO bad I guess I had better sell mine then

I never said it cant produce good photos, just that I think the 70-200mm is a better investment despite being more money. I just feel that the 100-400 is somewhat of a specialized lens, and that perhaps a 70-200 would be more universal in terms of using it outside of shooting cars. I never gave it the nickname dustpump, its just what the two guys who own it call it. One of them openly admits the AF speed is not ideal for racing. Given that the thread is called "is there a better lens out there" I think my original response was perfectly acceptable. If you want a even better answer, if you are only shooting one or two races a year just save yourself the money and rent. For cost of $60 you can rent a $5,000 lens for a weekend.

[andrewc]

Originally Posted by lauryn

I agree that the Sigma 100-300 is lighter than the Canon 100-400, but one is 300 and the other one 400
So I really prefer a Canon 100-400, it covers a lot more!

Are you referring to the 100-300 f4 EX which is heavier than the 100-400 or the cheaper Sigma 100-300?

[bella]

the 35mm sized ones are about my limit - the problem isn't so much small hands, it's that i essentially have non-opposable thumbs. i can't use them to grip unless i use the joint at the very base of the thumb, which isn't made for that purpose! but i do agree that if you go for a really small body it doesn't feel balanced. plus with a heavier lens it can't be good for the lens mount either.

the only problem with acquiring new toys during the off season is the itch to try them out trackside is overwhelming, so it might have to wait until the other side of winter at least though!

[David Stallard]

Originally Posted by bella

the 35mm sized ones are about my limit - the problem isn't so much small hands, it's that i essentially have non-opposable thumbs. i can't use them to grip unless i use the joint at the very base of the thumb, which isn't made for that purpose! but i do agree that if you go for a really small body it doesn't feel balanced. plus with a heavier lens it can't be good for the lens mount either.

the only problem with acquiring new toys during the off season is the itch to try them out trackside is overwhelming, so it might have to wait until the other side of winter at least though!

Bella: the other advantage for you with the 100-400 is it's a push / pull zoom so no gripping / twisting (only the focus ring if you want to do any manual focusing) just 'cup' the end of lens in the palm of your hand and away you go - I use it this way a lot more than I realised.

.DAVID.

[Woolley]

7D is heavier as it has a metal frame as opposed to the plastic and polymers lower down the range. In terms of use, the 60D is not disimilar from the 7D (although you might consider the focusing options and higher frame rate of the latter to be crucial). The lens mount on the plastic bodies is stronger than used to be the case, so you should have no problem with all but the largest lenses.

Going back to the original question, the Canon is probably the cheapest and most convenient way to reach 400mm, although the prime options (400 or 300+1.4x) will generally produce a slightly better IQ.