Tweet
Re: canon 40D welke zoom lens groot bereik ?
Ik had eerst een 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, en nu de 100-400 EF L , en moet zeggen dat er echt enorme verschillen zijn tussen de twee... ik zou niet meer zonder de 100-400 kunnen.
De snelheid van de autofocus is een wereld van verschil (zelfs tussen de twee USM lenzen), schuifzoom werkt enorm snel, en je hebt je lens ook beter vast (moet niet herpakken om verder en minder ver te zoomen.) De IS op deze lens komt ook stukken beter over als de IS op mijn 17-85mm IS.
verder kan ik je alleen maar aanraden om dit eens door te nemen: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...500_50-500.htm
Ik had eerst een 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, en nu de 100-400 EF L , en moet zeggen dat er echt enorme verschillen zijn tussen de twee... ik zou niet meer zonder de 100-400 kunnen.
De snelheid van de autofocus is een wereld van verschil (zelfs tussen de twee USM lenzen), schuifzoom werkt enorm snel, en je hebt je lens ook beter vast (moet niet herpakken om verder en minder ver te zoomen.) De IS op deze lens komt ook stukken beter over als de IS op mijn 17-85mm IS.
verder kan ik je alleen maar aanraden om dit eens door te nemen: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...500_50-500.htm
The big surprise in this test has been the Sigma 50-500: it is a 10x zoom, but it is about on par with the more expensive, 4x Canon 100-400 IS! The zoom range is truly amazing, it allows to take photos of a wide range of subjects and it has a good AF, that helps for wildlife photography. Considering the price, I recommend this lens, if you don't mind using it almost always on tripod - if you want a lens for handheld photos, I'd suggest to choose one of the stabilized zooms.
The Canon 100-400 L IS gives very good image quality at every focal lenght; it has fast autofocus and good image stabilization: if you don't need the extreme versatility of a 50-500 zoom and the higher price is not an issue, I recommend the Canon.
In terms of value for money, the Sigma 150-500 and the 120-400 are the winner of the test; they are much cheaper than the Canon 100-400 and they offers good image quality. The 50-500 is a little shaper in the studio tests, but in the field I think that the image stabilization of the 150-500 and 120-400 will compensate for the slightly lower sharpness. At $800, the 150-500 it is the cheapest 500mm that I know, and it has both stabilization and ultrasonic autofocus! If you want a lot of reach and you have a tight budget I recommend this lens.
The 120-400 performance is very similar to the 150-500, and it is even cheaper. If you compare it to the Canon 100-400, it is almost 50% less expensive, and it offers the same reach! In terms of image quality, the Canon is slightly better, but if you have a limited budget the Sigma is a bargain at its price.
The Canon 100-400 L IS gives very good image quality at every focal lenght; it has fast autofocus and good image stabilization: if you don't need the extreme versatility of a 50-500 zoom and the higher price is not an issue, I recommend the Canon.
In terms of value for money, the Sigma 150-500 and the 120-400 are the winner of the test; they are much cheaper than the Canon 100-400 and they offers good image quality. The 50-500 is a little shaper in the studio tests, but in the field I think that the image stabilization of the 150-500 and 120-400 will compensate for the slightly lower sharpness. At $800, the 150-500 it is the cheapest 500mm that I know, and it has both stabilization and ultrasonic autofocus! If you want a lot of reach and you have a tight budget I recommend this lens.
The 120-400 performance is very similar to the 150-500, and it is even cheaper. If you compare it to the Canon 100-400, it is almost 50% less expensive, and it offers the same reach! In terms of image quality, the Canon is slightly better, but if you have a limited budget the Sigma is a bargain at its price.
Comment