News:

[07-11-2024] Various forum updates made.

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: maximum total size 8.00 MB, maximum individual size 2.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

How many engines are on a C-17 Globemaster III?:
How many engines are on a P-38 Lightning?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by SkyBaby
 - October 12, 2012, 10:45:08 AM
I am saving up for a new lens and not too far from being able to afford one. Well, new to me that is, as I will be buying used locally so I can save some money and can check it out first. All I have right now is the Canon 28-135, which performs well and its sharp enough for me, but I need more reach. I am aware the Canon 100-400 is sharper, but its also out of my budget, even used, as much as I would love one. Either Sigma is in my budget.

With the Bigmos, it's f/5-6.3 but I get more reach than the 120-400mm, but the 120-400 is slightly faster at f/4.5-5.6 My question is, should I go for the shorter but slightly faster lens, or the longer but slightly slower lens? Both cost about the same on the used market and perform similarly image quality wise. I also know the Bigmos is a bit heavier though. Would the extra weight be that noticeable? I have handled the 100-400 on my camera in the field before. Is the Bigmos all that much heavier?

Thanks for your help!