You are at netAirspace : Forum : Spotting and Photography Forums : Aviation Photography

It's not really a dilemma. More like a decision.

I switched to full-frame. So my lenses suddenly went from:

27-64mm to 17-40mm
112-320mm to 70-200mm
480mm to 300mm

I like wide-angle with the 17-40, so I'm going to keep that one. This decision is mostly about long telephoto lengths, which is where I'm now lacking.

Yes, I said I'm lacking in length.

Choices:
Sigma 50-500 (heard some moderately good things)
Sigma 150-500 (haven't heard much either way)
Canon 100-400 Mk 1 (no autofocus with the 1.4x)
Canon 400mm F5.6 (no IS; no AF with the 1.4x)
Tamron 150-600 (I've read several reviews that are pretty positive)

There may be other choices that I've forgotten or don't know about. But I can't really afford anything more expensive than the above.

After reading a bunch about the Tamron 150-600, I'm actually quite interested. It's cheaper than the 100-400, and quality seems to be pretty good through 500mm.

Thoughts?

P.S. I don't remember why I decided to post this in AvPhoto, except that my telephoto lenses are primarily used for that.

P.P.S. I have a 1.4 extender, and use it now and then with the 300. But while I can get decent, if reduced, sharpness, results are inconsistent. And the contrast hit is very significant, which then brings up more noise, etc. And since 400mm is still a bit short, I'd probably need to use the 1.4 with a 400mm max lens. Which then brings up the lack of AF.

I've read reports that the stabilisation on the Tamron 150-600mm is not good for aircraft in flight (which would be similar to my experience with the Nikkon 80-400mm).

Another option could potentially be the Sigma 150-600mm Sport? 1kg heavier than the Tamrom, but better corner performance which is needed for full frame? I'd also believe the stabilisation performs much like the Canon, which will work well for aviation.

I have actually ordered the Sigma 150-600mm however there is a confusion about the availability, and Amazon have redrawn it from sale leaving my order in limbo, hence my temptation to switch to Canon with their new 100-400mm.

mr chips wrote:I've read reports that the stabilisation on the Tamron 150-600mm is not good for aircraft in flight (which would be similar to my experience with the Nikkon 80-400mm).

Hmmm, that is certainly something to look into, especially given the amount of low-light shooting I do.

mr chips wrote:Another option could potentially be the Sigma 150-600mm Sport? 1kg heavier than the Tamrom, but better corner performance which is needed for full frame? I'd also believe the stabilisation performs much like the Canon, which will work well for aviation.

Unfortunately, $2000 is out of my price range. Trying to go up to around $1100-1200 max (and some of the lenses I may have to buy used, which is OK). But not many used copies of the Sigma 150-600 floating around yet.

mr chips wrote:I have actually ordered the Sigma 150-600mm however there is a confusion about the availability, and Amazon have redrawn it from sale leaving my order in limbo, hence my temptation to switch to Canon with their new 100-400mm.

Well that sucks. Why did Amazon withdraw it? Due to availability from Sigma? Did they at least give you the option of getting your money back?

Anyone have experience with the Bigmas?

vikkyvik wrote:Hmmm, that is certainly something to look into, especially given the amount of low-light shooting I do.

I've read of someone buying the Tamron and using it once at an airshow, and selling it again due to the dissatisfaction. Many users claiming the stabilisation is not good, but great for stationary objects like birds.

vikkyvik wrote:Unfortunately, $2000 is out of my price range. Trying to go up to around $1100-1200 max (and some of the lenses I may have to buy used, which is OK). But not many used copies of the Sigma 150-600 floating around yet.

It is a bit pricey however in the UK, the Tamron is £1000 and there Sigma is £1350ish, so not too big of a price difference of us.

vikkyvik wrote:Well that sucks. Why did Amazon withdraw it? Due to availability from Sigma? Did they at least give you the option of getting your money back?

Anyone have experience with the Bigmas?

They still list the Sigma mount Sigma 150-600mm for sale, but removed the Nikon and Canon mounts as they have no expected shipping dates from Sigma. There are rumors that Sigma recalled the lenses, hence a large delay in shops receiving any copies, despite being released in September.

No experience of the Bigma, I did have the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 which handled a 1.4x. Great lenses, albeit quite big and heavy.

mr chips wrote:I've read of someone buying the Tamron and using it once at an airshow, and selling it again due to the dissatisfaction. Many users claiming the stabilisation is not good, but great for stationary objects like birds.

That's funny - I think I read that exact same comment on dpreview about 20 minutes ago.

Sell the 70-200 and the 300, get a 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS and a 400 f/5.6L.

Too bad you recently upgraded with another Canon body because you could have had this rare offering from Nikon...



http://petapixel.com/2014/12/21/theres-nikon-2000mm-f11-ebay-complete-lens-cap-carrying-case/

KFLLCFII wrote:Sell the 70-200 and the 300, get a 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS and a 400 f/5.6L.

In theory a good idea, and I'd probably do it. Problem is I don't think I can afford both those lenses, even if I sell both of mine. The goal here is sort of to only buy one lens.

But it is something to consider.

JeffSFO wrote:Too bad you recently upgraded with another Canon body because you could have had this rare offering from Nikon...

That might be fun for astrophotography, except for that pesky F11 max aperture. The Canon 1200mm is F5.6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens

Any decisions made Vik? I just pulled the trigger on a new Canon 100-400mm II thus initiating my change from Nikon back to Canon.

Already sold the Nikkor 80-400mm, just need to sell the D800. Torn between the 5D mk iii and the 6D, as well as the 7D mk ii. Would eventually like both a crop and full frame camera but that is probably a while off.

mr chips wrote:Any decisions made Vik?

No, not yet. Honestly, I'm really not sure what I'll do at this point. 400mm just isn't quite enough for the shots I've been doing, and all of Canon's affordable lenses end at 400. So that leaves me with 3rd-party lenses. May try and rent a couple of them to try out.

I love the 5D2 - the photos are beautiful (mostly the non-av stuff...av stuff doesn't really need it). But this decision is going to take years off of my life!

I really need Canon to release a 500 F5.6.

mr chips wrote:I just pulled the trigger on a new Canon 100-400mm II thus initiating my change from Nikon back to Canon.

Already sold the Nikkor 80-400mm, just need to sell the D800. Torn between the 5D mk iii and the 6D, as well as the 7D mk ii. Would eventually like both a crop and full frame camera but that is probably a while off.

Congrats! That offsets Ryan (Silver1SWA) switching from Canon to Nikon.

What prompted your switch? And why'd you switch to the dark side in the first place?

vikkyvik wrote:What prompted your switch? And why'd you switch to the dark side in the first place?

I originally had the Canon 7D and a range of lens, but I wasn't happy with the 7D image quality. Too much noise in the lower ISO range for my liking. I was also tired waiting for Canon to update their 18 year old 100-400mm lens.

Nikon had just released their new 80-400mm lens which is was tack sharp and combined with the Nikon D800 full frame SLR, I figured this might be a perfect spotting set up as:

1) I would have the 80-400mm range on a full frame 34MP camera

2) I would also have the 1.2x and 1.5x in camera crop factor options giving me 20+ MP and 15MP images resepctively, meaning the D800 effectively moonlights as a crop camera as well as being a full frame camera.

Between these two points, I thought I'd have 80mm on the short end of my range and 600mm on the upper end of my range despite only having one camera body and one lens.

The downsides to all this... At full frame, 34 MP images are just ludicrously massive for aviation images. Memory cards fill up quickly, etc. And of course as previously mentioned, the VR on Nikon's 80-400mm was not good for panning, and keeper rates went down.

Another downside, the Nikon is a pain to get the colors correct, they always had a slight greeny blue cast which I found difficult to remove when processing RAW. Canon images have a nicer color in my opinion having used both systems now.

Looking forwards now, to cover my spotting needs with as little equipment as possible, I think the the following will do:

Canon 100-400mm II
Canon 1.4x iii
Canon 7D mkii
Canon 6D or 5D mk iii

So I had a big day dilemma-wise today.

Was meeting someone up at Imperial Hill, and I figured, hey, let me go by the camera shop and see if they have any long lenses to rent.

Well, they did, and so I rented a used 100-400 Mark 1. I'd had a completely illogical mindset dead against this lens. I'd never used one, but never wanted to use one.

In a perhaps fortunate change of mindset, I'm actually pretty impressed. Quality at 400mm is not spectacular, but it is between good and very good - easily good enough (and the majority of my shots from the hill are at 400mm, so that's important). Vignetting is quite apparent, but Canon's Peripheral Illumination Correction (geez, why can't they just call it Anti-Vignetting) deals with that well enough.

Then came the real test - performance with the 1.4x (I have the Mark 3). This would be interesting, as I'd lose autofocus.

I actually didn't do too badly! And logically, manual focus with a push-pull lens is quite easily done; in fact, it's much easier than with a standard rotating zoom. Quality with the 1.4x was generally good, if I managed to nail the focus. Contrast of course took a hit, but not quite as badly as it does with the 300 F4L IS. My major complaint about the 1.4x is that it really does screw up the colors - everything has a pronounced yellow/green cast - very unnatural-looking. But since I shoot RAW, that's again relatively easily-fixed in post.

So if I decide to go the 100-400 route, I already have a good copy that I will buy from the store. Now I just have to talk the price down a bit, as I think I could get a new one for what they want for the used one.

Stay tuned for the latest developments (and some uploaded shots)! Or don't stay tuned. Or stay half-tuned. Or tune into something more interesting. I wouldn't blame you.

(the downside to all this is that I would part with my 300 F4L IS - the love of my life, lens-wise )

mr chips wrote:

Ah, I see. Always interesting to read about why people switch (and switch back!). Outside of giving people crap, I'm not actually pro-any system. Whatever works!

vikkyvik wrote:So I had a big day dilemma-wise today.

Was meeting someone up at Imperial Hill, and I figured, hey, let me go by the camera shop and see if they have any long lenses to rent.

Well, they did, and so I rented a used 100-400 Mark 1. I'd had a completely illogical mindset dead against this lens. I'd never used one, but never wanted to use one.

In a perhaps fortunate change of mindset, I'm actually pretty impressed. Quality at 400mm is not spectacular, but it is between good and very good - easily good enough (and the majority of my shots from the hill are at 400mm, so that's important). Vignetting is quite apparent, but Canon's Peripheral Illumination Correction (geez, why can't they just call it Anti-Vignetting) deals with that well enough.

Then came the real test - performance with the 1.4x (I have the Mark 3). This would be interesting, as I'd lose autofocus.

I actually didn't do too badly! And logically, manual focus with a push-pull lens is quite easily done; in fact, it's much easier than with a standard rotating zoom. Quality with the 1.4x was generally good, if I managed to nail the focus. Contrast of course took a hit, but not quite as badly as it does with the 300 F4L IS. My major complaint about the 1.4x is that it really does screw up the colors - everything has a pronounced yellow/green cast - very unnatural-looking. But since I shoot RAW, that's again relatively easily-fixed in post.

So if I decide to go the 100-400 route, I already have a good copy that I will buy from the store. Now I just have to talk the price down a bit, as I think I could get a new one for what they want for the used one.

Stay tuned for the latest developments (and some uploaded shots)! Or don't stay tuned. Or stay half-tuned. Or tune into something more interesting. I wouldn't blame you.

(the downside to all this is that I would part with my 300 F4L IS - the love of my life, lens-wise )

The original 100-400mm was always considered one of the best lenses for aviation photography thanks to it's push-pull zooming system and decent all round sharpness, how do you find using the push-pull?


When deciding between the Sigma 150-600mm and the new Canon 100-400mm II, one of the main deciding factors was size of the front element. I often shoot through wire fences, meaning I need a lens with a small front element as to keep the amount of wire in the frame corners to a minimum. The Sigma's front element was just too large at 107mm.

mr chips wrote:The original 100-400mm was always considered one of the best lenses for aviation photography thanks to it's push-pull zooming system and decent all round sharpness, how do you find using the push-pull?

I've always heard mixed things about the 100-400.

The push-pull is weird, but honestly only took about 10 minutes to get used to. And like I said before, it made manually focusing while zooming in and out very easy.

mr chips wrote:When deciding between the Sigma 150-600mm and the new Canon 100-400mm II, one of the main deciding factors was size of the front element. I often shoot through wire fences, meaning I need a lens with a small front element as to keep the amount of wire in the frame corners to a minimum. The Sigma's front element was just too large at 107mm.

Now that I'm shooting down at SNA, I shoot through a fence a lot too. But I can't shoot between the links at the angles I'm at, so I just rely on a wide open aperture to hide it.

vikkyvik wrote:The push-pull is weird, but honestly only took about 10 minutes to get used to.

One thing I did think of. The adjustment ring for push-pull resistance was kind of cool. But I needed it totally loose to have decent push-pull feel.

Uh, anyway. Having the adjustment ring loose meant that whenever I let the camera hang down, the lens would extend. So basically, I just had to hold the camera by the zoom-part of the lens, to prevent it from continually extending.

Vikkyvik,

you will not be disappointed by the canon 100-400 - when i first went digital the majority of people i knew had that lens for aviation photography. The majority of my Oshkosh shots here were taken with it. Yes it is not stunning at the 400 end but everywhere else i find the image quality to be excellent. The push pull zoom is very easy and helps support the weight for better stability. Am thinking of getting the Mk2 of this lens but not 100% sure if the twist zoom is going to be as intuative. Will have to wait and try it I guess.

Paul Chandler1 wrote:Vikkyvik,

you will not be disappointed by the canon 100-400 - when i first went digital the majority of people i knew had that lens for aviation photography. The majority of my Oshkosh shots here were taken with it. Yes it is not stunning at the 400 end but everywhere else i find the image quality to be excellent. The push pull zoom is very easy and helps support the weight for better stability. Am thinking of getting the Mk2 of this lens but not 100% sure if the twist zoom is going to be as intuative. Will have to wait and try it I guess.

Thanks Paul. I certainly haven't been disappointed by the 300+ shots I took with it on Saturday. The only thing that surprised me was the extent of the vignetting - there is a LOT of it. But no big deal, software handles that just fine.

I've never had an issue with twist zooms. But my twist zoom (70-200 F4L) doesn't extend while zooming or focusing, so the weight distribution stays about the same.

Dilemma #1 solved ( ): I am the proud owner of a (used) Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS.

Dilemma #2 begun ( ): Anyone want to buy a used Canon 300 F4L IS? Great lens in great working order - works just as well as when I bought it new. You'll get the NAS discount. I don't know what that discount is, but it's probably something.

Hmm... I have the 100-400, 70-200 f2.8 w/ 1.4 extender, and a 24-105.... so I think I'm covered otherwise I'd be interested.

CO777ER wrote:Hmm... I have the 100-400, 70-200 f2.8 w/ 1.4 extender, and a 24-105.... so I think I'm covered otherwise I'd be interested.

Aw come on - you can never have too many 300mm options!

1.) 100-400
2.) 70-200 + 1.4x
3.) 300 F4L IS

I mean, it really sells itself in that situation!

I just got my new 100-400mm II in the post this morning. First impressions, the IS seems pretty good, and the lens itself is nicely balanced. Sharpness seems on par with the Nikon 80-400mm I gave up so that's a good start. Focus also seems quite nippy. Won't be able to give it a work out on big metal birds until the the weekend.

Thanks to my stunning pay level now, I have the money to get one fantastic lens...wipe.

mr chips wrote:I just got my new 100-400mm II in the post this morning. First impressions, the IS seems pretty good, and the lens itself is nicely balanced. Sharpness seems on par with the Nikon 80-400mm I gave up so that's a good start. Focus also seems quite nippy. Won't be able to give it a work out on big metal birds until the the weekend.

So you've had it for a couple months now - what's the report on the 100-400 Mk2?

Also, what camera(s) are you using? 7D2 I assume, and full-frame also?

vikkyvik wrote:So you've had it for a couple months now - what's the report on the 100-400 Mk2?

Also, what camera(s) are you using? 7D2 I assume, and full-frame also?

I've only just recently got to put the lens and camera (Canon 5D mk iii) through it's paces during a trip to Heathrow. I've only flicked through the images but so far the results are promising. The 100-400mm seems to have performed extremely well, sharp in all parts of the image, even with a lower F number, and the stabilisation is already noticeably better than my previous Nikon lens.

Focus was lightning quick and I'd go as far as saying the images are as sharp as my Canon 300mm prime I had a few years ago.

Editing the Canon 5D mk iii images are taking a bit of getting used to, but I'm getting to the point where I am happy with the results.

Anyone looking to purchase a used 100-400? I'm thinking about getting the new version.