Has anyone compared this Sigma to the Nikon 35mm? Here is a comparison to the Canon 35mm and the Sigma blows it away but the Nikon is a much newer lens.
Either way, the Sigma is way sharper than the Canon:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/87-sigma-35mm-f14-vs-canon-35mm-f14

Meleagris said:

One last consideration, if you buy the 600mm or 400mm, renting the 200-400mm is way cheaper.

JB

will they give you a discount if you own one of the other two :)

I would say I am wondering about the 800mm F5.6 that was announced a while back, but not sure if it will happen though. Hearing about it is one thing but being able to purchase it is another.

LR creates a copy of the file that the plugin can then work with.

I own the 600mm f/4 and would not trade it for anything the world. It is RAZOR sharp (sorry but I disagree with Thom Hogan) and the AF is amazing. Is shoot everything from birds to Thoroughbred racing with it. I have used the 200-400 extensively and love the lens but as others have said it is a totally different lens. It is very nice for shooting large animals where you can get close...but I usually wish for more lens, not less. I am considering getting one to compliment the 600 as others have done.

I find a way to make my 600mm work for most of the things I do. For me, the reach is appreciated over the 400mm and I just do not believe the extender gives you the quality of the lens only. Since most of what I need is long...the 600 is a no brainer for me.

As others have stated, you might consider the 500mm if you are considering the 200-400. The weight savings is substantial. The 600mm (and 400) is a beast and requires some extra planning when traveling.

One last consideration, if you buy the 600mm or 400mm, renting the 200-400mm is way cheaper.

JB

I own both the 200-400 and 600mmm vr lenses and they are quite different. If i am going out to shoot birds I take the 600 and it is most often too short. When I am traveling by airplane I only take the 200-400mm and do not shoot birds because it fits into a checked bag and still leaves room for clothing. The 600mm even in its own smalller bag will not fit in a carry on anything. I shoot a D3X and print many 24X36 images and I try to not use any tela-converters because of the degrading of the image. The 200-400 is too short for morst birding situations but works on larger animals and long senics very nicely. I had the 500mm F4 and bought the 200-400 and I found that i was not using the 500mm because there was not enough differance. Then I traded fort the 600mm F4 VR and I now use both. If you can only get one The 500mm VR would be my choice and I have owned all three. The VR does make a difference.

Chrisjhood said:
I am in the market for a new large lens and am having a hard time deciding which is the way to go. I have done a ton of reading and havent been able to make up my mind yet so I thought I would ask you all.

Forget the 200-400mm, it´s not even near the quality of either the 400mm or the 600mm.

If you want a lighter lens than the 400 or the 600, get the 500mm f/4 instead.

A little off topic, but just out of interest:

When you use plugins in LR, how does it work? Does LR create a copy of the file that the plugin can then work with (like Aperture), or is the plugin integrated as a "module" somehow, like it was in the original LR interface and workflow?

When I enable the lens profile in my copy of LR4.3 I can clearly see complex distortions being corrected in the image on the screen - not just barrel and pinching distortion. It has been like that at least since I got LR3.

I don't have LR, but from what I heard they integrated pretty much all the algorithms and functionality from the Camera Raw module in Photoshop, so it would be weird if they didn't use the same lens DB and as the Camera Raw.

I think you can also select the lens manually, just found this "tutorial" on photographylife: http://photographylife.com/lightroom-3-lens-correction maybe that helps.

I may not have the newest profiles loaded - My LR applied the 14-24 and didn't have the 16-35 profile. Maybe the idea failed on that point.

Auto sensing

Auto then me pulling the distortion slider

Same as the last photo just pulled the color out and increased contrast, etc. to see the lines better.

My conclusion LR does not do the complex distortion removal. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything either way, which to me means, No.

You can also look at some 2nd hand VR I version (1st ten) as there's not really that much difference between them and the 1st gen should be 30-40% cheaper

good decision Chris, You will not regret it

scoobysmak said:
Here is what I did on the issue, I had the same debate but the 600mm wasn't really high on the list for me but I did look into it.

1. I really wanted the zoom feature of the 200-400mm, for sports this is great unless its like a night time game, then the extra stop of light might be a bit more usefull but make me move around much more and possibly miss a shot. Since I pretty much figured that if I was shooting day time sports with a zoom I figured the 70-200mm VRII with a 1.7 TC-E could suffice unless I got a lot of request for this type shot. This gives me a 120-340mm F4.8 for my daytime stuff.

2. Now the choice between the 400mm and the 600mm, well the 400mm is a bit more versitale when I picked up my lens since the smallest F stop cameras could autofocus was F5.6. If I used a 2.0 TC-E I could get the same reach as the 600mm with a TC-E 1.4 but would problaby have to sacrifice some quality for my combination. The price was another factor, the 400mm was a tad cheaper and the finishing blow to the 600mm; I can pack my 400mm 2.8 VR lens in a pelican 1510 case that is rated as an FAA carry on item. I will say that some smaller planes you have to use the check bag at the ramp but most larger planes it fits in the overhead bin just fine.

This was my thoughts on the issue but depending on if your getting paid for this or its more of a hobby would make me look more into the issue of what I really need out of my gear.

So you chose the the 400 2.8?

After reading all the posts and talking with a few people about my needs and what I will use this lens the most for its seems as if the 200-400mm is the best one for me. The zoom capabilities and because its lighter and that will hurt me back that much less when i go to a lot of the remote locations that i will be shooting at. As for now I think the 400 2.8 and 600 will have to stay on the wish list.

The distortion that is most discussed is spherical... About all "non-distorting" wide angles will keystone too... The most tame prime I know photogs use is the old 28mm

Positron said:
Lightroom is also nondestructive and only costs $150, but if you already have Aperture that's not a particularly helpful piece of information.

It does, however, correct complex distortion, but only on a lens-by-lens basis.

Aperture cost me 80 and directly integrated with my already existing photo library. I bought it from the app store at 2 in the morning sitting in my PJs in the dark. That and I'm sort of an adobe anti-fanboy. Not sure why I just have an immediate aversion to anything adobe. *shrug* And I'm extremely happy with aperture so why change....
anyway. Aperture does simple barrel and pincushion very simply and extremely smoothly. (it does everything that way) just leaves those waves. I just might have to save up for a 14-24 or wait a few years for used ones to start showing up.

Here is what I did on the issue, I had the same debate but the 600mm wasn't really high on the list for me but I did look into it.

1. I really wanted the zoom feature of the 200-400mm, for sports this is great unless its like a night time game, then the extra stop of light might be a bit more usefull but make me move around much more and possibly miss a shot. Since I pretty much figured that if I was shooting day time sports with a zoom I figured the 70-200mm VRII with a 1.7 TC-E could suffice unless I got a lot of request for this type shot. This gives me a 120-340mm F4.8 for my daytime stuff.

2. Now the choice between the 400mm and the 600mm, well the 400mm is a bit more versitale when I picked up my lens since the smallest F stop cameras could autofocus was F5.6. If I used a 2.0 TC-E I could get the same reach as the 600mm with a TC-E 1.4 but would problaby have to sacrifice some quality for my combination. The price was another factor, the 400mm was a tad cheaper and the finishing blow to the 600mm; I can pack my 400mm 2.8 VR lens in a pelican 1510 case that is rated as an FAA carry on item. I will say that some smaller planes you have to use the check bag at the ramp but most larger planes it fits in the overhead bin just fine.

This was my thoughts on the issue but depending on if your getting paid for this or its more of a hobby would make me look more into the issue of what I really need out of my gear.

msmoto said:
I fully appreciete the issue...and for me this is about being old and figuring if I am to play... better do it now.
And, it is fun to discuss the difference in one's corporate jet....and that of your competitor....LOL

Please don't stop on my account. Fantasizing is much more enjoyable than working.

I think if one were shooting crop sensor, the 300mm f/2.8 is more sensible. But to be able to get out at 800mm on full frame...really nice. I think I might have to try hand holding the 400 to see if it does work. If one sits down, this may actually be practical.

Got to love Tom Hogan.

And I quote:

"I've shot with my 400mm all over the world now: Eagles on the ice between Japan and Russia, lions in Africa, Geese in the US, and much more. I've used it in sports shooting, including some shooting under lousy lights, and I've used it for the occasional odd landscape shot. I've never been disappointed with the results. Do you know how good a woman would have to be for me to say that about her? I've never been disappointed by the lens."

"A three week rental on this lens is about US$1000 (plus shipping). A one-week rental is about half that. So, the question you have to ask yourself is how much you actually shoot with it. If you make one long trip a year to a workshop or favorite location where this lens is going to get used, you're better off renting. Just give yourself enough lead time to test a rental lens before the trip (and maybe do an AF Fine Tune). I'd also suggest you rent the lens prior to purchasing it and really try it in practice. This is a lot of lens to handle, and frankly, not everyone is up to it."

+1 Enough said.

In closing, I totally agree with Adamz on the 300 2.8...being "the most versatile." As I have said before, this will the my next lens.

I fully appreciete the issue...and for me this is about being old and figuring if I am to play... better do it now. I suppose years ago when I used two months salary to buy a new "F" body, I found out the equipment pays for itself, if the entire investment is consistent with one's desire to produce good work.

But, the subject here is a bit specific for shooting either for a good sports publisher or any client who is willing to pay top dollar for the perfect shot.

My recommendation for anyone is to rent the lens/body when needed unless one can truely justify the expendature.

And, it is fun to discuss the difference in one's corporate jet....and that of your competitor....LOL

You realize of course that for some of us this is a little like debating the relative merits of the Gulfstream 4 and the Gulfstream 5.

:)

@ spraynpray....camera/subject distance about 200 feet (60 m). And some cropping. This is just to demonstrate when stopped down a bit the 400 + TC-20EIII works well enough for me. And the bike is coming toward me about 50 mph (80 kph) so the continuous servo with the combination also works fairly well. I must admit I need to calibrate the combination, but it is close as it is.

And, I just read Thom Hogan's review...the part about the Sherpa's.. I use a Temco rolling bag which works well as a backpack. And the entire setup weighs about thirty pounds with some goodies in the bag....all so this 70 yo lady can carry this up and down three flights of stairs....slowly....LOL.

I will admit, when down at the seashore, it is in a LensCoat cover so as to avoid the salt spray and sand.

And once you ante up for this thing, not a lot of thought is given for the other big guns...But IMO the one to get is the 400mm f/2.8 as it is extremely versatile except for hand holding.

Wow msmoto - those are nice sharp shots of Josh Hayes! Even with 800mm you must have been close. Did you have a press pass?

Lightroom is also nondestructive and only costs $150, but if you already have Aperture that's not a particularly helpful piece of information.

It does, however, correct complex distortion, but only on a lens-by-lens basis.