Hey guys so I'm in the process of upgrading my long lens for wildlife work. I specialize in macro and long lens but getting more work in macro at the moment so keep this in mind while reading of course. Being a wildlife Filmmaker, primes are kind of out of the question since you really need to build a sequence with one lens during fast times but while still looking cinematic. I simply cannot afford a CN20 or 50-1000 as they're 50-70K each but I've been looking at stills glass and I have a dellema that made me write into a forum about what to do...
I've been looking at 3 lenses
Canon 100-400 MKII 4.5-5.6
Sigma 150-600 Sport 5-6.3
Sigma 300-800 5.6
The Canon is apparently extremely sharp and rivals some of their best prime long lenses. I have the original version and I do really like the versatility but problem is, the 400 focal length is what made me look into a linger lens upgrade in the first place but its like stupid sharp so that makes it really appealing and secondly the most appealing about it is the fact that it basically lets you get wide macro shots which would really help with my gigs. I could add a 1.4 extender but that would bring my f stop to f8 wide open while being less sharp than the sigma 150-600.
the Sigma 150-600 Sport is great I really liked how sharp it was when I rented it. tack sharp but a few issues, its a little heavy but I'm still able to carry around attached to my EPIC but while feeling a little worried about the lens breaking the connection even on rails... maybe thats me being overly cautious. The other thing is, the f stop goes to f22. Now for wildlife thats fine and I wont ever stop to that depth but I do like shooting landscapes on long lenses a lot and I'm used to stopping to f32 for dense sunset shots. The sky looks really pretty and nice when you have that versatility with exposure. last thing is, in order to use this lens properly, I need to get a matte box for it with shneider ND's since the front thread is too big (105mm) and thats a bit of a pain really it'll cost me an extra 2000 so the 2000 dollar lens will actually cost me 4K.
Lastly the 300-800 which I've never worked with but its 800 at 5.6 which is awesome. The lens weighs about the same as the 50-1000 about 13 pounds which I heard is a pain in the ass to carry for an assistant cameraman. The weight also might mean I need to go for a bigger tripod head and mine maxes out at 30 pounds already but I'm assuming once on, something will throw it off. Secondly, it has no Image stabilization. The lens is heavy which will help but slightly shaky wildlife shots are not acceptable anymore so I'm hoping that wont cause an issue. I don't know how sharp it is at all but for 8 thousand dollars it better god damn be sharp as crap! This lens coupled with the 100-400 seems like a best bet for me at the moment but if the 800 is shaky or not as sharp as the 600 then why not get the 150-600 but then I do macro so if the 100-400 helps then I should get that too but why would I spend all that money for a 100-400 and a 150-600 when all I'm ganging is 200mm? See the problem? Hope someone can give their thoughts.
I've been looking at 3 lenses
Canon 100-400 MKII 4.5-5.6
Sigma 150-600 Sport 5-6.3
Sigma 300-800 5.6
The Canon is apparently extremely sharp and rivals some of their best prime long lenses. I have the original version and I do really like the versatility but problem is, the 400 focal length is what made me look into a linger lens upgrade in the first place but its like stupid sharp so that makes it really appealing and secondly the most appealing about it is the fact that it basically lets you get wide macro shots which would really help with my gigs. I could add a 1.4 extender but that would bring my f stop to f8 wide open while being less sharp than the sigma 150-600.
the Sigma 150-600 Sport is great I really liked how sharp it was when I rented it. tack sharp but a few issues, its a little heavy but I'm still able to carry around attached to my EPIC but while feeling a little worried about the lens breaking the connection even on rails... maybe thats me being overly cautious. The other thing is, the f stop goes to f22. Now for wildlife thats fine and I wont ever stop to that depth but I do like shooting landscapes on long lenses a lot and I'm used to stopping to f32 for dense sunset shots. The sky looks really pretty and nice when you have that versatility with exposure. last thing is, in order to use this lens properly, I need to get a matte box for it with shneider ND's since the front thread is too big (105mm) and thats a bit of a pain really it'll cost me an extra 2000 so the 2000 dollar lens will actually cost me 4K.
Lastly the 300-800 which I've never worked with but its 800 at 5.6 which is awesome. The lens weighs about the same as the 50-1000 about 13 pounds which I heard is a pain in the ass to carry for an assistant cameraman. The weight also might mean I need to go for a bigger tripod head and mine maxes out at 30 pounds already but I'm assuming once on, something will throw it off. Secondly, it has no Image stabilization. The lens is heavy which will help but slightly shaky wildlife shots are not acceptable anymore so I'm hoping that wont cause an issue. I don't know how sharp it is at all but for 8 thousand dollars it better god damn be sharp as crap! This lens coupled with the 100-400 seems like a best bet for me at the moment but if the 800 is shaky or not as sharp as the 600 then why not get the 150-600 but then I do macro so if the 100-400 helps then I should get that too but why would I spend all that money for a 100-400 and a 150-600 when all I'm ganging is 200mm? See the problem? Hope someone can give their thoughts.
