# What's next in 300-500mm primes and zooms?



## chrysoberyl (Jun 10, 2017)

Anything? I don't like TC's or zooms, and I haven't found anything over 200mm that is appealing and affordable. There are fans of the Canon 100-400 II, the 150-600's, The Sigma 120-300. But not me - I want a 300 or 400 or 500mm prime, or an internally-focusing zoom (longer than 200mm).

I note that Sigma is (kind of) trending longer. Is it unreasonable to expect Sigma to upgrade their 300 2.8 and 120-300 2.8 soon? I doubt that those would cannibalize their new 100-400 or the current 150-600's...

I wonder whether this topic will energize the '.... is *******!' crowd.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 10, 2017)

Have you actually _tried_ any of these things you "don't like"?

Incidentally, the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS ticks your boxes for internally zooming ((I assume you mean zooming -
all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?) and > 200mm and - as an owner - I know it to be bloody brilliant.

_And_ it was only fairly recently updated - it's an utterly different beast to the 100-400mm or 150-600mm. Works brilliantly with TCs, too.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 10, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Have you actually _tried_ any of these things you "don't like"?
> 
> Incidentally, the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS ticks your boxes for internally zooming ((I assume you mean zooming -
> all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?) and > 200mm and - as an owner - I know it to be bloody brilliant.
> ...



I haven't tried them all; I just don't like dust and moisture suckers, plus all the complexity, the extra weight, the compromises that zooms entail.

The 120-300 would be a consideration, but the reviews are not stellar (for $3600 US, I want pretty sharp, if not stellar). I am glad you like yours, though! You probably got a golden sample. But for 3 kg hand-held, non-dockable and potentially having AF issues (I've read the stories about that), it is not for me. I have held off for several years; I can continue to do so.

It does seem time for Sigma to upgrade their 300 2.8, so I am optimistic and a bit impatient.


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jun 10, 2017)

I think you should define "affordable" first.

If those huge white primes aren't affordable to you, how about sigma 500mm sport? It cost 6k new, you can wait for the used one and should be near 4k. You also have canon 400mm f5.6L or 300mm f4L IS as another options


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?



No.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 10, 2017)

PeterAlex7 said:


> I think you should define "affordable" first.
> 
> If those huge white primes aren't affordable to you, how about sigma 500mm sport? It cost 6k new, you can wait for the used one and should be near 4k. You also have canon 400mm f5.6L or 300mm f4L IS as another options



OK, to me 'affordable' is $3300 US for a sharp 300 2.8 with reliable AF. Or a 400 4.0. Or a 500 5.6.

I appreciate the input, but old designs that are not very sharp are not appealing. I can match the Canon 400 5.6 with my 70-200 + 2X TC. That is not what I consider an upgrade.

The Sigma 500 is just too much cost. But when a used one comes available for $4K, hmm... Good thought; thanks!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2017)

Your only Canon option is a secondhand 300 f2.8 IS, MkI, but you'll say you don't want secondhand and all the hassle that entails. Which means you are not just going to have to wait, you will never get beyond your 70-200 + TC.

Mind you anybody that overlooks the Canon 400 f5.6 for a fraction of your budget hasn't used one, they are awesome sharp and light lenses.

Third party, I have a pro sports shooting colleague who swears by his Sigma 120-300, indeed he will use that over my Canon prime because he prefers the versatility. As for the rest, take your pick, but $3,300 is over third party options and well under new Canon options you say you'd like.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2017)

Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.

As for your specific concerns about the sigma 300 2.8 zoom, I think you may be confusing previous models with the new sport version which has gotten good reviews and does take the sigma dock.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > ........all AF lenses are internally focussing, aren't they?
> ...



Examples of externally focussing AF lenses, please?


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 10, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



The 55-250 IS II comes to mind. Only one I've had personally.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 10, 2017)

External _focussing_? Not zooming, focussing?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...





Keith_Reeder said:


> External _focussing_? Not zooming, focussing?



Off the top of my head 100 Macro non L, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4 but I am sure there are plenty of others, like the MP-E 65, etc.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 10, 2017)

At the very least I wish Sigma would just bring back their 400f5.6 Telemacro lens, supposedly that lens was already sharper than Canon's 400f5.6.
Just adding IS and a closer MFD would be a huge deal for a 400f5.6 prime, but Sigma should be able to make it significantly sharper too.
The same would apply to 500f5.6, but at least we know that 400f5.6 is a well proven popular design.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 11, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> External _focussing_? Not zooming, focussing?



Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think the MP-E 65 can be excused for not being all internal.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 11, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.
> 
> As for your specific concerns about the sigma 300 2.8 zoom, I think you may be confusing previous models with the new sport version which has gotten good reviews and does take the sigma dock.



I fully agree on the popularity of zooms. In another year, I may give in and buy one. Possibly the Sigma 120-300 S. I usually go to LensTip and Photozone for reviews, but they have not reviewed the S version. Which other reviewer has reviewed this lens?

I very much appreciate the input, all.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Modern zooms are very close to primes in sharpness and much more popular, so you may be waiting quite some time fore the "affordable" primes you want. Keep in mind that one major factor for affordability is the volume of lenses the manufacturer expects to sell. Zooms sell better, thus they can amortize the development and manufacturing costs over more lenses.
> ...



The Digital Picture.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 11, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The Digital Picture.



I haven't visited that site for several years, because there seemed to be a Canon bias. Having reviewed the image quality charts just now, the Canon 70-200 II + 1.4X TC clearly wins. I wonder why anyone would buy the Sigma 120-300 instead.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 11, 2017)

1. you likely looked at the wrong chart. Sigma 120-300 Sports clearly much better across the frame than Canon 70-200 F2.8 + 1.4 Extender at the long end. here is at 280mm F4 / 300mm F4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
On 75" screen the difference is striking.

2. the reason people do buy Sigma 120-300 Sport lens: if you shoot indoor sports in low light situation or even PJ when your subject is fairly distant. you can also stay farther than the rest of of the photo crowd and still get the same framing. you do want that extra stop of light to keep your iso reasonable and shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. yes, Canon 300 F2.8 can be a smidge sharper but the convenience of the zoom in dynamic situations is obvious. The price: I bought my Sigma 120 300 Sports barely used, if at all, for A$1950.00 (US$1,470.00). The cheapest Canon 300 F.28 II I have seen sold at A$5,000.00. That's nearly x3 more expensive lens.

3. AF quality of the Sigma120-300 Sport lens is quite excellent. accurate, snappy, with 2 sets ofd custom settings.






chrysoberyl said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The Digital Picture.
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 1. you likely looked at the wrong chart. Sigma 120-300 Sports clearly much better across the frame than Canon 70-200 F2.8 + 1.4 Extender at the long end. here is at 280mm F4 / 300mm F4:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
> On 75" screen the difference is striking.
> ...



Thanks, I was comparing the Sigma and Canon wide open, rather than both at f/4, and extender II, rather than III. It does look pretty good. Not like the charts show the Canon 300 2.8, but sharp.

Sounds like the 120-300 is worth renting at least.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 11, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.



OK, I think we're thinking about "external AF" in different ways - I get that some lens bodies move when AFing, but they're still doing the AF internally - the glass elements doing the focussing .


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Off the top of my head 100 Macro non L, 85 f1.2, 85 f1.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4 but I am sure there are plenty of others, like the MP-E 65, etc.



I've been asking about AF lenses, though.

That said - fair point about the likes of the 85mm f/1.2: I wasn't really thinking about lenses where the front element extends when focussing when I asked about "external AF", but I should've been.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 12, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.
> ...



There are some AF lenses that focus externally though. My old (old) Nikon kit lenses that came with my D40 moved the front element forward and backward during focusing. I'm 99% sure that's what the Canon 50/1.4 does that makes it so fragile; because the front element moves during focus, if it's bumped in the front while not at MFD it can break the AF motor itself.

To flip it around, what are you thinking of as "externally focusing"? Because the only way I can take that is being able to watch the front element move during focusing, and that absolutely happens with some lenses.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 12, 2017)

I have compared my 400mm f/5.6 to my 70-200mm II with 2X TC III. For static shots in the central part of the frame, I see more variation from frame to frame (AF before each test shot) than between the two lens combinations. On the other hand, if I am shooting BIF, the prime wins hands down. The zoom can get lost in the blue sky and focus down to MFD. At that point I have no hope of reacquiring focus since there is no longer a hint of a visible image through the viewfinder. I purchased my 400/5.6 a few years ago after giving up on the zoom/TC combo for BIF, particularly raptors. The 400 prime is an old design, but it is also very sharp. Additionally I have a 100-400mm II that is wonderful for slower moving wildlife. I only wish it had a second focus limit option of 10 meters, as it can also lose lock and focus down to 3 meters. At that point any hope of re-locking on a raptor is gone. Since a used 400/5.6 could be as old as 1993, I chose to buy a new one for under $1200, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 12, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, focussing too. Very annoying if you use a polarizer.
> ...



Hmm, not sure I understand here. I assumed that if the front element moves during focusing, it's somehow involved in the focussing process.. the formula would not be the same if it didn't move. Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 12, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The Digital Picture.
> ...



To be fair, at least they're explicitly canon oriented. It's not as though they pretend to be unbiased and go about hailing Canon and bashing everything else dpreview style. Everyone is biased. The most potent bias is the one unacknowledged.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 12, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?



No, no - this is on me. I'd let my (sleep-deprived) imagination go off on a tangent about the idea that there were lenses out there where all of the actual mechanics of AF were on the outside of the lens.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 12, 2017)

I love my 400 f/5.6L, bought about 6 years ago new. If you like shooting BIF, and you don't have money for a 400 f/4 DO or money plus strength for a 500 f/4 LIS I or II , you can't do better than the old 7-element fossil, it has speedy AF and is fun to handle (well balanced).


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 13, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Oh well my slow brain. You mean some dedicated group of elements doing the focussing regardless of what the rest does? Then what is my front element doing...?
> ...



Been there, done that. Check my past posts here, lol! At least I'm not going crazy (this time)


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 14, 2017)

NancyP said:


> I love my 400 f/5.6L, bought about 6 years ago new. If you like shooting BIF, and you don't have money for a 400 f/4 DO or money plus strength for a 500 f/4 LIS I or II , you can't do better than the old 7-element fossil, it has speedy AF and is fun to handle (well balanced).



Hmm...you have spoken highly of this lens before. And I am running low on patience.

Thanks!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 14, 2017)

nc0b said:


> I have compared my 400mm f/5.6 to my 70-200mm II with 2X TC III. For static shots in the central part of the frame, I see more variation from frame to frame (AF before each test shot) than between the two lens combinations. On the other hand, if I am shooting BIF, the prime wins hands down. The zoom can get lost in the blue sky and focus down to MFD. At that point I have no hope of reacquiring focus since there is no longer a hint of a visible image through the viewfinder. I purchased my 400/5.6 a few years ago after giving up on the zoom/TC combo for BIF, particularly raptors. The 400 prime is an old design, but it is also very sharp. Additionally I have a 100-400mm II that is wonderful for slower moving wildlife. I only wish it had a second focus limit option of 10 meters, as it can also lose lock and focus down to 3 meters. At that point any hope of re-locking on a raptor is gone. Since a used 400/5.6 could be as old as 1993, I chose to buy a new one for under $1200, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase.



This is exactly the kind of input I was looking for!

Thanks very much!


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 14, 2017)

NancyP said:


> I love my 400 f/5.6L, bought about 6 years ago new. If you like shooting BIF, and you don't have money for a 400 f/4 DO or money plus strength for a 500 f/4 LIS I or II , you can't do better than the old 7-element fossil, it has speedy AF and is fun to handle (well balanced).



I second this one!
If I hadn't allowed mine to bounce around after a drop (including the body) I would still praise my 400/5.6L. The only bad thing about that lens concept is the f/5.6 part - it is a sunny weather lens. I got mine used for something like $800-900. The weight is roughly the same as that of the 70-200/2.8L IS.


----------

