Extravagance Or Actually A Worthwhile Upgrade?

mav said:
Also have you calbrated the sigma to your camera ,
Click to expand...


To be honest, I've not really felt the need to, it seems sharp enough when I nail things. The AF seems pretty accurate on my 5d and M5, I rarely have to tweak it.


Mike.P said:
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, just watched that. Caveats seem to abound with lenses. I'm still stuck on the 100-400 Mkii but that 100-500 is tempting. Shame it can't be adapted to EF mount, it would be game over. I'm suprised by the Mkii only zooming to an estimated 360mm, I'd expect better for an L lens, 400 should be 400 for that money.


Nod said:
So, Dale, how's the new lens? :)
Click to expand...


Lol, not got it yet. I needed to sleep some more on it before I decide, especially after seeing the above video.

LCE haven't got back to me with a quote on my Mki yet, something must've glitched as it's not like them.

I'm in no huge rush, I'd rather hang on and get this right.
 
Dale. said:
To be honest, I've not really felt the need to, it seems sharp enough when I nail things. The AF seems pretty accurate on my 5d and M5, I rarely have to tweak it.




Thanks Mike, just watched that. Caveats seem to abound with lenses. I'm still stuck on the 100-400 Mkii but that 100-500 is tempting. Shame it can't be adapted to EF mount, it would be game over. I'm suprised by the Mkii only zooming to an estimated 360mm, I'd expect better for an L lens, 400 should be 400 for that money.





Lol, not got it yet. I needed to sleep some more on it before I decide, especially after seeing the above video.

LCE haven't got back to me with a quote on my Mki yet, something must've glitched as it's not like them.

I'm in no huge rush, I'd rather hang on and get this right.
Click to expand...

I think the RF 100-500 is the same optical formula as the EF 100-400 - just with more zoom and poorer construction.

The EF 100-400 breaks the mould in a lens as cheaply priced as this - the optical quality is on par with much more expensive lenses ie Fluorite lens element - so something has to give.

You won't buy much better and the field of view between 400 and 500 isn't massive.
 
Good video although I expect the light in Australia to be better than here. I’m a bit surprised with his comments on the EF 100-400 f4.5 - 5.6 L II, perhaps it or over priced.

He mentIoned IS a lot but I am nor clear if he turns if off when using a tripod.

​

 
Dale. said:
:LOL:

I think the 100-400 is now becoming a very pressing upgrade, one that must happen and is no longer an 'extravagance'. ;)
Click to expand...

Attaboy! We can help you justifying essential purchases!
Dale. said:
I did think about the 100-500 RF and it would be very handy on an R7, with 800mm FF equiv. In my position though, still having the 5Div and with no plans to upgrade that anytime soon, I think staying with EF glass is better (for me) as EF can be adapted to RF bodies, but RF can't be adapted to EF bodies. The depreciation also concerned me and because of that, I think I would probably do the upgrade as second hand (as new or ex) or possibly grey.




I need to sleep on this but I'm convinced now the 100- 400 upgrade has to happen.
Click to expand...

There's nothing like a good night's rest to affirm your previous evening's decisions. Possibly....

Dale. said:
I tend not to do many landscapes at the moment and when I do, it's becoming during the Autumn and Winter, rather than all year round now.

One question I have, whilst I'd rather stick with Canon L, are there any other 3rd party lenses in that range, (16-100mm ish) worth a mention, to replace (in time) my 17-40 and 24-105 Mk1?
Click to expand...

STOP RIGHT THERE!!! Open that can of worms and you'll still be thinking this over in 2023.

My advice? I think you've worked out which lens length you will get most use from. I, for my naivety, traded a 17-40 F4 for a 16-35 F2.8 and frankly spent more time telling myself it was the right decision than seeing a difference in the results. The lens rarely sees daylight whereas my 100-400L mk1 gets plenty of use but not as much as the 70-200 F4 USM which is my "take it everywhere" lens. Not that I haven't spent plenty of time thinking about an upgrade to the f2.8:headbang:
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Attaboy! We can help you justifying essential purchases!


There's nothing like a good night's rest to affirm your previous evening's decisions. Possibly....



STOP RIGHT THERE!!! Open that can of worms and you'll still be thinking this over in 2023.

My advice? I think you've worked out which lens length you will get most use from. I, for my naivety, traded a 17-40 F4 for a 16-35 F2.8 and frankly spent more time telling myself it was the right decision than seeing a difference in the results. The lens rarely sees daylight whereas my 100-400L mk1 gets plenty of use but not as much as the 70-200 F4 USM which is my "take it everywhere" lens. Not that I haven't spent plenty of time thinking about an upgrade to the f2.8:headbang:
Click to expand...


There's much common sensage here. :LOL:

I've still not pulled the trigger, I'm mindful that I still have an R7 to pay for, less the deposit.
 
Hi Dale

I can see this thread has been going on for a while now, I own a 5Dmk4 - the 100-400mk2 and the 16-35 F4

You need to buy both these lenses and perhaps a 1.4x, but if you have an EOS R7 coming I would hold off on the 1.4x

TBH I am considering an EOS R7 for the frame rate and the what seems remarkable focus tracking (along with the 1.6 crop) but the 100-400 mk2 is an amazing lens, borrow a 100-400 on the Canon free rental scheme if you've not had a chance to properly play with one yet. I hired one a couple of times and that was it - bought. You won't be disappointed.

HTH

David
 
Very boring, but how about waiting until you get the R7 (in Dec), try your existing lenses before buying new ones. If the Sigma 150-600 C does have a pulsing issue with the R7 which Sigma do not fix, I would have to seriously rethink my next update.
 
Willid1 said:
Hi Dale

I can see this thread has been going on for a while now, I own a 5Dmk4 - the 100-400mk2 and the 16-35 F4

You need to buy both these lenses and perhaps a 1.4x, but if you have an EOS R7 coming I would hold off on the 1.4x

TBH I am considering an EOS R7 for the frame rate and the what seems remarkable focus tracking (along with the 1.6 crop) but the 100-400 mk2 is an amazing lens, borrow a 100-400 on the Canon free rental scheme if you've not had a chance to properly play with one yet. I hired one a couple of times and that was it - bought. You won't be disappointed.

HTH

David
Click to expand...


I may look into borrowing the 100-400 and go from there. The problem is, I may not want to give it back. :LOL:


Brentor said:
Very boring, but how about waiting until you get the R7 (in Dec), try your existing lenses before buying new ones. If the Sigma 150-600 C does have a pulsing issue with the R7 which Sigma do not fix, I would have to seriously rethink my next update.
Click to expand...


I think this is about where I am, LCE haven't got back to me and the lens I asked for a trade against seems to have gone. No biggy though, it just wasn't meant to be.

I may 'live' with what I have for now, certainly tele wise and when the R7 comes, maybe trade in my Mk1 and possibly the Sigma too.

I'm in no rush now, the initial excitment has passed, which is what I usually do to avoid impulse buys. I do see the 16-35 and probably the 100-400Mk2 in my near future though.
 
Mike.P said:
Unlike the R7 :naughty:
Click to expand...


I know, it's getting boring now, if it wasn't for the free adapter, I'd cancel and get the R7 from elsewhere.

I don't mind the wait, it's the lack of updates that annoy me.
 
What are the thoughts on the 24-70 f4L please? I already have a 70-200 f4L. I'm thinking possibly the 24-70 rather than the 24-105, as I'd have 16-200 covered.

(y)
 
Dale. said:
What are the thoughts on the 24-70 f4L please?
Click to expand...
It's a bit a faiL. Like 24-105s are. Ok RF version is probably a bit better if you want to go there. EF 24-70 2.8 ii is better but you may still have issues with extreme edges, but at least for portrait and event work it's nearly flawless. Nothing beats a good prime for sharpness here
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It's a bit a faiL. Like 24-105s are. Ok RF version is probably a bit better if you want to go there. EF 24-70 2.8 ii is better but you may still have issues with extreme edges, but at least for portrait and event work it's nearly flawless. Nothing beats a good prime for sharpness here
Click to expand...


Cheers,

Crossed that one off.


LongLensPhotography said:
Like 24-105s are.
Click to expand...

Even the Mk2?

I might need to look for something else that covers 35 - 100.
 
When researching lenses I tend to go search on Flickr for samples taken with my intended purchase rather than take other peoples word as gospel.

By all accounts the 24-70mm f/4 is a pretty good lens and has a useful macro mode but I couldn't really see any point in swapping it for my 24-105mm f/4 as the longer zoom range gives a lot more leeway.

Depends on what you want it for really.
 
Last edited:
Dale. said:
Even the Mk2?
Click to expand...
It is definitely better than mk1 and acceptable on "low" MP bodies like R6 / 5D mkIII. There is no chance you will be happy with it on 50MP (may as well just shoot on R6 and make life easier) and particularly at long end. Wide end is mega distortion so it is really 28-100mm. It s a superzoom at the end of the day, made for convenience with acceptable IQ, and probably the best lens for run and gun 4K video in good light. You are much better of with 24-70 II which is again not perfect and then some primes (cheapo 50mm f/1.8 STM is perfect for landscapes by the way; crap for portraits, or Sigma ART) and then 70-200 f/4L IS. I don't see you needing 400mm every day. I barely use mine at all. 16-135mm is my most used range.

Dale. said:
I might need to look for something else that covers 35 - 100.
Click to expand...
Again this might be a big compromise if you want a single lens solution. BTW recent 16-35 lenses are optimised for wide end. That's a good thing but You may want a nice and sharp 35mm lens to be honest.
 
LCE have just got back to me with an offer of £450 for my 100-400 Mk1. That's quite good for a trade price.
 
Brentor said:
Very boring, but how about waiting until you get the R7 (in Dec), try your existing lenses before buying new ones.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a sensible idea.

One other idea to throw in the mix, if you like the 100-400 range, but not the price of the Mk2, why not try out the Sigma 100-400 or Tamron 100-400, both are newer glass than the Mk1 and should be sharper. But if you are going for RF mount, then it's not such a simple decision.

If you have an R7 on the way, wait till that arrives. Then you can try a range of EF and RF options from the Test Drive service.
 
All I can say is that I have the 100-400mk ii and love it, although I cant compare to the mk1 as I've never owned that lens. The mkii is a great lens and very sharp across the entire focal range. Well that's my experience with it.
 
ABTog said:
If you have an R7 on the way, wait till that arrives. Then you can try a range of EF and RF options from the Test Drive service.
Click to expand...


I think that makes sense. Despite having the 5D, it would be nice to see how different glass works on the R7 too.

I looked at some photos yesterday that I'd taken last year, some with the 100-400 Mki and some with the 150-600. There really is nothing in it, infact, I would say the Sigma has the edge when it comes to sharpness, even with it at 600mm. Now the excitement has worn off, I'm wondering if I need the Mkii at the moment. Maybe I will sort my landscape lenses out first and sell my Mki in the meantime and 'live' with the Sigma for now.
 
I know a pro who uses the EF 24-70/4 on an EOS 5Ds............so that lens on a 50MP 'monster' works for some...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top