Jump to content

Sigma 100-400mm With MC-11 Adapter for A7III

D.R. Smith
 Share

Recommended Posts

D.R. Smith Contributor

D.R. Smith

Posted
Posted

Hi All.  I do a lot of outdoor photography; landscape, nature, wildlife when I can find it.  I recently switched from a Canon 80D to a Sony A7III.  I'm torn between two lenses and was wondering if any of you could help.

First Sigma has a 100-400mm f/5.6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF that can be coupled with the Sigma MC-11 mount converter Canon EF-E.  This seems like a good way to go except everywhere I usually shop says they are on back order and havve no idea when they will get them in.  I did find a refurbished version of this lens that I could buy but I'm hesitant to buy refurbished.

There is also a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM with the same Sigma MC-11 adapter that I am considering.

I guess I should say that I absolutely cannot affford the native Sony 100-400mm lens. Oh I wish I could.

Do you folks have any recommendations?  I'm not a pro, but In love photography and especially outdoor photography.

Thanks very much for your time

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knack Rookie

Knack

Posted
Posted

Don't disregard yet!

I too am in about the same situation. I have an a6000 (soon to be an a6400), the kit lenses, a Tamron 18-200 and an old Nikkor 35-70 zoom.

I like wildlife and nature, landscape etc.

Am thinking about the SEL70-300g, the Sigma/MC-11 150-600c and the Sigma/MC-11 100-400.

I'm thinking the 70-300 would have too much overlap with the Tamron and the 150-600 would be so big and heavy I wouldn't use it much.

Does anyone have any experience with the 100-400 as far as the AF and sharpness goes?

Any direction would be appreciated.

Knack

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • Pieter
      JPEG options?

      By Pieter · Posted

      If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...