Sony Trying to decide...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

If I should spring for a Sony 100-400 lens. To help myself I thought I ought to set up my Nikkor 300mm 4.5 on the new to me old tripod to see how it's going to work out.
So far it's mixed reviews.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Brownie]

What part is mixed? I've been looking hard at the Sigma 100-400. Reviews are outstanding, as are image samples, and it's $1500 less than the Sony. The slightly slower 5-6.3 from Sony's 4.5-5.6 shouldn't be an issue based on the intended use. Downside is no TC, but that doesn't bother me.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I guess I should be looking at this setup as the 'worse case scenario' since it isn't auto focus. That and the fact this lens is one of the heaviest I own. When viewed in that light, it's not so bad. It is hard to hand hold at 300mm as the DOF seems to be pretty shallow if the lens is opened up.
I would like to be able to use a TC on the new one for moon shots, and possibly taking BIF up at my brother's place. He has some nesting hawks up on the hill behind his house that are usually out and about up there hunting squirrels in the vineyards.

 

[Brownie]

I guess I should be looking at this setup as the 'worse case scenario' since it isn't auto focus. That and the fact this lens is one of the heaviest I own. When viewed in that light, it's not so bad. It is hard to hand hold at 300mm as the DOF seems to be pretty shallow if the lens is opened up.
I would like to be able to use a TC on the new one for moon shots, and possibly taking BIF up at my brother's place. He has some nesting hawks up on the hill behind his house that are usually out and about up there hunting squirrels in the vineyards.

Interestingly enough, I just posted this on another forum where a similar discussion is taking place:

The Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC costs $3,046.00 US, while the Sony 200-600 + Sigma 100-400 cost $2,947.00.

I did a lot of research comparing the 100-400 and 200-600. I learned that both lenses play very well with both the 1.4 and 2x TCs. I have seen some amazing results out of the 200-600 with the 2X at full extension. One thing of note, a reviewer (I think at FM) noted that he received one and was unimpressed, but instead of returning it he decided to exchange. The second one was stellar. If you do end up buying a TC, get it from a place with a liberal exchange policy.

 

[mnhoj]

The Sigma 100-400 will likely be my next buy.

What part is mixed? I've been looking hard at the Sigma 100-400. Reviews are outstanding, as are image samples, and it's $1500 less than the Sony. The slightly slower 5-6.3 from Sony's 4.5-5.6 shouldn't be an issue based on the intended use. Downside is no TC, but that doesn't bother me.

 

[Brownie]

The Sigma 100-400 will likely be my next buy.

Yeah, even though I just dumped many thousands on this new kit, that Sigma calls to me. 100-400 is my favorite FL at the Drag Strip. It's just short enough for me to stand down the safety wall 100' or so and frame the cars any way I want, and long enough to get up close and personal on a driver or detail. I will probably wait until closer to the season though.

 

[mnhoj]

Got a chance to take the Sigma 100-400 out for a stroll. Carry and handling are nice. AF is quick and sure for static subjects. Will test on the moving next weekend hopefully. The 7Riv's res is nice. This is cropped to approx. 10mp.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Herman]

@mnhoj wow!