Bigma vs Canon 400 vs Canon 100 - 400

[the undertaker]

Please help me decide, I need new telephoto lens for wildlife and motor racing which do i buy?

sigma 50 - 500 f4

Canon 400mm L f5.6

Canon 100 -400 IS f4.5

Please help, I need to buy ASAP

 

[sportysnaps]

sigma 50 - 500 f4 the widest range and so the most versatile, but the lowest quality and will lose its value the fastest

Canon 400mm L f5.6 the best quality by a mile but the least versatile, will hold it’s value very well and produce stunning photos

Canon 100 -400 IS f4.5 a good compromise lens (but get a sharp one – they seem to vary) – if the lens you are to buy will be your only one then this maybe is the one to buy – if you already have a 70-200mm for example then I would buy the 400mm f5.6 -


I suspect that this post will be moved as it's in the wrong section

 

[the undertaker]

sigma 50 - 500 f4 the widest range and so the most versatile, but the lowest quality and will lose its value the fastest

Canon 400mm L f5.6 the best quality by a mile but the least versatile, will hold it’s value very well and produce stunning photos

Canon 100 -400 IS f4.5 a good compromise lens (but get a sharp one – they seem to vary) – if the lens you are to buy will be your only one then this maybe is the one to buy – if you already have a 70-200mm for example then I would buy the 400mm f5.6 -


I suspect that this post will be moved as it's in the wrong section

Thank you. Yes I have 17 - 85 IS USM and 70 -300 IS USM
Both do well, just not enuf size. I've read up that the AF on the prime is far superior and sharper. I dont want to conpromise but can't afford to buy any more, only just re-armed with 40d and above lenses. And do worry the Sigma may not offer quality I want???

 

[CT]

Yep.... I'll move this to Cameras Lenses And Accessories.

I agree entirely with sportysnaps. You can't really beat the versatility of a zoom with a good range. Primes offer optimum quality, but often the fixed range can be a handicap.

I have the Canon 100-400L - it was my first long lens and I took a lot of my early bird shots with it. I just wouldn't part with it - far too useful.

 

[the undertaker]

I didnt know could post in wrong place, I'm new to this but lovin it, thanks to Spikeman. Go ahead move me.

 

[admirable]

The other option is a 70-200mm 2.8IS with a converter, 1.4x or 2x. This gives the best of both worlds as you still get a 400mm 5.6 but can also use the 70-200mm if required.
I have recently moved up from a 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS to the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and it's like night and day. I would rather have a crisp shot at 200mm than a soft one at 300mm if that makes sense.
I realise it's all down to how deep the pockets are but that's photography!
The other thing worth mentioning is a tripod, is is vastly more difficult to hand hold a heavy lens at 400mm than your present 70-300mm.