anyone sold their 100-400 and got 150-500

[steunited]

as title says has anyone sold their canon 100-400 and bought the sigma 150-500 for the extra reach and if you did was it a good decision.

 

[Beav]

I doubt it bud.

I know the 100-400 is mean't to be sharper and people wouldn't sacrifice that for 100mm.

I could be wrong though but I have heard how good the 100-400mm is.

 

[SDK^]

I sold my 100-400L for a Sigma 120-300 F2.8, purely for the speed and quality improvements. The Sigma lens is pretty heavy but it's worth the extra weight. Stick a 2x extender on it and you have 240-600mm F5.6

 

[artyman]

As nice as an extra 100mm might appear, if you already have a Canon 100-400 then I wouldn't change, it isn't really worth it, and that's from a fan of the Sigma. If buying fresh then yes I would recommend a Sigma.

 

[modchild]

I had both when I had a 5d2 and a 7D and when I sold them both to get a 5D3 I didn't need 2 expensive long lenses. After a lot of testing I found there was negligable difference in IQ, the Sigma won by a mile in the OS/IS battle and the AF speed was near enough to make no difference. The main thing for me was that the Sigma, despite being an f6.3 against a f5.6, still acquired focus better than the Canon in failing light.

Now I've added another 7D to my 5D3 I use either the wifes Sigma 120-400 OS or my Canon 70-200 f2.8 MkII and MkIII 2x extender to get the reach for that, but the 150-500 OS is almost glued onto my 5D3 throughout summer for airshows and wildlife shoots.

I'd definitely buy a Sigma again if I had to, it was definitely the right decision for me and I don't regret it for a second. These were taken with my 5D3 and the Sigma and none have had any PP apart from a crop.

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

And an even stronger crop from the above shot.

[/url][/IMG]

 

[GR3Z]

I had both when I had a 5d2 and a 7D and when I sold them both to get a 5D3 I didn't need 2 expensive long lenses. After a lot of testing I found there was negligable difference in IQ, the Sigma won by a mile in the OS/IS battle and the AF speed was near enough to make no difference. The main thing for me was that the Sigma, despite being an f6.3 against a f5.6, still acquired focus better than the Canon in failing light.

Now I've added another 7D to my 5D3 I use either the wifes Sigma 120-400 OS or my Canon 70-200 f2.8 MkII and MkIII 2x extender to get the reach for that, but the 150-500 OS is almost glued onto my 5D3 throughout summer for airshows and wildlife shoots.

I'd definitely buy a Sigma again if I had to, it was definitely the right decision for me and I don't regret it for a second. These were taken with my 5D3 and the Sigma and none have had any PP apart from a crop.
[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

And an even stronger crop from the above shot.
[/URL][/IMG]

Interesting I have 70-200 mkii and 5d3, how do you find its work with the 2xTC. What the IQ and focus speed like, with Motorsport in mind?

How would you compare it the 100-400

 

[modchild]

I've not used it too much on my 5D3 as it usually goes on my 7D but the IQ is good enough to get plenty of keepers. The AF speed is still fast enough for most things although I've not used it for motorsports. I've used it for some BIF shots though and got this one on my 7D.

[/url][/IMG]

I'll give it a try on my 5D3 over the next few days and post some of the results but I'm happy with what few I've got so far.

I've been out with the 70-200 MkII and 2x MkIII converter and I'm reasonably happy with the IQ I'm getting from it. The AF speed does take a hit but I don't think the light helped too much TBH. I didn't find too much in the way of subject matter and it was bloody cold out there so I didn't stay out long. Here's a couple of shots very heavily cropped but they were so far away I could hardly see any detail with my eyes only. Both at 400mm.

At f7.1, 1/2000, ISO1000, +2/3 EV, very dull and far away.

[/url][/IMG]

At f5.6, 1/800, ISO100 and a little bit of blue sky.

[/url][/IMG]