Quote:
Originally Posted by wavemachine
I have been looking into the value of upgrading my Macro lens to the L series version and have concluded the difference in image quality is marginal and seeing as I shoot most macro on a tripod the image stabalisation is not going to be that useful so in other words I think I am looking for an increased zoom .
|
I'm fortunate enough to have the Canon 100mm L Macro IS and it is lovely, but I agree with you, if you have the non-IS, I'm not sure what benefit you'll get from the upgrade. Unless of course you need the IS for hand-held macro. Is there anything in particular that you aren't happy with the non-IS that you have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavemachine
Of course another lens to throw into the mix is the Sigma 120-400mm found this review here |
Oh great, thanks for that link, makes the decision so much easier - not
. I especially like this quote "Numerous photographers I know refer to the Canon lens as the Vacuum Cleaner." for the amount of dust it sucks into the lens, when zooming in and out!! From the way I read the article it looks like the Canon 100-400 and Sigma 120-400 are pretty evenly matched, until the 400mm end, where the Canon just nixes it. But I've just looked at the price difference on WEX - Canon 100-400 = £1200, Sigma 120-400 = £709 a price difference of £500!! (the Sigma 50-500 for comparison is £1199). Decisions, decisions.
I thought I'd check out
http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/ and
http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/services/rental.cfm that 2beers posted, to see how much the rental of the lenses would be, so I could do the comparison myself. The Canon is £38 per day/weekend from Camulet, or £70 per week from lensesforhire. Unfortunately neither of them offer Sigma lenses for hire
Regards
Nick