Canon 100-400 vs Sigma 150-500

Kondwani

Kondwani

Messages
53
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sure that this topic has been done to death but I have been fortunate enough to convince my better half of the benefits of upgrading my Tamron 17-270mm to either the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 150-500mm.
I am favouring the Canon to go with my 50D as I am looking for a sharp zoom lens for birds and animals whilst on the move (ie. not in a hide).
Does anyone have any comments regarding compatability issues with this camera or indeed is the 100-400 the best option as I do not want to restrict myself to a prime.
I have read of issues with the zoom seizing due to worn rubber/plastic seals...is this an inherent fault or just bad luck !
All comments welcome.
John
 
I rented the canon for a Safari in India and it was fantastic my only complaint was it wasn't long enough for smaller wildlife, fine for the big cats and deer but I would have loved an extra 100mm or so for the birds etc.

The push pull zoom is an aquired taste lots of people seem to hate it but I gues thats as we are all used to rotating zoom control, my usual telephoto is an ancient 70-210 F4 which is a push pull so I've got used to it and actually rather like it, what it lacks in precision it makes up for in speed and precision.
 
Last edited:
Just a warning on the 150-500, its much heavier than the bicycle pump (oops, 100-400). Otherwise it is a good lens but remember it is a less expensive lens than the 100-400 and the images and bokeh (horrible bloody word) are not quite as nice. I have the 150-500 personally because I like the reach of it and can handle the weight. The OS is also very, very good.
 
The sigma is superb value at half the price of the canon at the moment.

I've tried both in a shop and have borrowed my friends sigma, and decided that the canon is visibly sharper (but not massively, the sigma does do very well considering it's price) as well as seeming to have slightly snappier AF and was noticeably lighter.
The sigma does have a carry handle shaped tripod ring, but I carry it by strap so I preferred the canons lighter weight.
But i was still planning to buy the sigma, simply because I couldn't afford the canon.
In the end I did get the canon because I spotted a very good price in amazon and got some prize money from a competition, but if I hadn't then I would have the sigma.
The prices have changed since then (the canon has gone up and the sigma has gone down), so I recommend you try them out for yourself to see if you think the canon is worth that much more of your money
 
Last edited:
There are pros and cons to both, both are good lenses, I chose the Sigma 150-500 a few years ago and don't regret it and would buy another if required, though I may be tempted to get the new 50-500 OS.

Img_1714.jpg
 
Thank you all for your comments it has gone someway to confirm my research that the Canon could be marginally sharper.....but is that worth the extra £££s ?

Just as I was reasonably sure which way to go some of you have mentioned the 50-500mm which has raised more questions. Does anyone have personal experience of the 50-500mm and is it a real contender vs the Canon ?
John
 
Thanks Scott, some stunning photos.
Looks as if the 50-500mm could be worth considering.
John
 
Forgot to mention the 50-500OS

When I bought the 100-400 the 50-500OS was a couple of hundred more expensive, but the prices are pretty much equal now.
The 100-400 is a hair sharper but I doubt you'd ever see any difference between these two in the real world.
The canon is lighter and 1/3rd of a stop faster at the long end, but the sigma has that extra range at both ends, makes it an extremely flexible lens.

Could be a really good buy :)
 
Last edited:
I have both and on a really bright day when you can stop the Sigma down a bit there is not that much between them, but if it's not so bright the 100-400 starts to pull ahead.

Paradoxically although the Sigma is heavier, it can be easier to manage as the tripod mount doubles as a decent carry handle.
 
I have seen awesome shots with both lenses. I have a 100-400 and have had it for 6 years now. Very happy. If you need to react quickly to something then I find the push-pull zoom a real plus. You get used to it. Ideally you should give both a go first, some 100-400 seem to be better than others...
 
Thanks again guys,
I think the next step is to go and try the beasts on the 50D.
The weight is also an important factor, especially on safari where there are tight restrictions (eg.12kg)
John
 
I have recently purchased the 150-500 lens and I love it.

I got a great price from a shop in Newcastle-under-Lyme, if you search google for camera shops Stoke on Trent I think it's called First cameras Pro or something like that. Really worth checking out.

I can promise you that you will not be disappointed with any of the lenses you choose. I couldn't justify the difference in price, but do not doubt that there are advantages for each lens.

:-D
 
Some great pics from your Sigma as always Scott. The things that put me off it are the filter size- is there really any need- it's not like it's fast? and the speed- f6.3 is so sloooow. Maybe with high ISO it's less of an issue these days depending how you shoot etc.
On top of those things there is also the badge:suspect:;). While your pics are undoubtedly sharp you may well have some fancy computer shenanigans going on to cover it up:lol: I jest but it's hard to look past the Canon for build- oh wait a minute they use cardboard to build it (I mean WTF;)) and it's a dodgy push pull design. Oh well,both are better than the 80-400 crap we have so be thankful of that:lol:

I'd probably go for the Canon although I am Sigma averse nowadays and you know Canon will replace it as soon as you do:D
 
One thing that shouldn't be forgotten in this equation. The sigma 150-500 was "originally" designed for Nikon full frame cameras, so will obviously give better results on a full frame camera, no matter what brand.

Having said that, I use mine on a canon 450D and am very happy with the results, providing the light is good.:)
 
I took the Sigma 150-500 in trade for another lens, thought I'd give it a go and if I didn't like it I'd get the 100-400. Well I've still got the Sigma, it's not a bad lens at all for the money :)



 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
in the test above done by andy the crop of the number plate there is defo movement in the sigma shot.
Click to expand...

Defo not! ;)

I was waiting for someone to make that observation! That's what I thought at first but I shot several images, all on the same camera (7D), tripod mount, wireless shutter release, and all were similar. In fact I've just gone back and checked them again - to be sure. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong - I loved that Sigma and kind of hoped it would outshine the Canon - but it didn't in so many ways. Still a fantastic lens for the money and you've clearly put yours to good use. :thumbs:

Andy
 
andybeach said:
Defo not! ;)

I was waiting for someone to make that observation! That's what I thought at first but I shot several images, all on the same camera (7D), tripod mount, wireless shutter release, and all were similar. In fact I've just gone back and checked them again - to be sure. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong - I loved that Sigma and kind of hoped it would outshine the Canon - but it didn't in so many ways. Still a fantastic lens for the money and you've clearly put yours to good use. :thumbs:

Andy
Click to expand...
hi andy, well maybe there was something wrong with your copy, it certainly doesnt look right.
 
Well, I was about to come in with get the 100-400 as thats what I did after owning the 150-500, now I have the 400 prime and 70-300 Tammy VC, but thats another story, but having seen what the 50-500 OS is putting out I would take a look at that, those images are stunning.

Now I'd love to know what the AF speed is like in comparison.

Lens speed wise 6.3 to 5.6 isn't that much, just an ISO bump or two so not a killer on a newer DSLR, so I wouldn't get too hung up on that, now if it were 2,8 to 6.3, then sure ;)
 
JohnN said:
Well, I was about to come in with get the 100-400 as thats what I did after owning the 150-500, now I have the 400 prime and 70-300 Tammy VC, but thats another story, but having seen what the 50-500 OS is putting out I would take a look at that, those images are stunning.

Now I'd love to know what the AF speed is like in comparison.

Lens speed wise 6.3 to 5.6 isn't that much, just an ISO bump or two so not a killer on a newer DSLR, so I wouldn't get too hung up on that, now if it were 2,8 to 6.3, then sure ;)
Click to expand...
thanks for the comments john, af speed i have found is as good as the canon if not faster i have had no problems its not as fast as my canon 2.8 glass but not far off,
 
scottthehat said:
sorry but sigma sell alot of lenses and there was someone on here the other day that had sent a lens back to canon and its been back 3 or 4 times and was still naf.
i have had one duff lens out of about 20.
Click to expand...

I think I'm 6 for 6 on good sigmas. On some people's opinion of sigma I must be the luckiest person alive.. :lol:
 
scottthehat said:
thanks for the comments john, af speed i have found is as good as the canon if not faster i have had no problems its not as fast as my canon 2.8 glass but not far off,
Click to expand...

Oh, don't go saying that, I just swapped my 100-400 for a 400 prime and if I got another lens my wife would kill me!!

:bat:
 
JohnN said:
but having seen what the 50-500 OS is putting out I would take a look at that, those images are stunning.
Click to expand...

They certainly are great images from Scott, but I think a lot of that is down to him as a photographer and good processing rather than the lens he is using.
I dare say you could give him any one of the lenses mentioned here and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a final web-sized pics.
 
squishy said:
They certainly are great images from Scott, but I think a lot of that is down to him as a photographer and good processing rather than the lens he is using.
I dare say you could give him any one of the lenses mentioned here and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a final web-sized pics.
Click to expand...
you could well be right. i dont do alot of p&p because i only shot jpeg for my wildlife.
 
Just use google, there are plenty of people who have issues with Canon lenses too. Copy variation with the 100-400L is well documented. I guess I've been lucky to not have any issues with my lenses, Canon or otherwise :)
 
I recently got the 100-400 but visited Warehouse Express to look at it alongside the 150-500 and the 50-500. I took test shots and came home and downloaded them for my own comparison. I chose the Canon based on these shots but also on the weight of the lenses. Both Sigma's were too heavy for me but this is only a personal opinion and I am a girl so my advice would be just go and try them all and, if you are happy with the weight and performance of all three, budget will help you make a final decision.

I researched for over a year before deciding and it is clear that folks on here have produced great results from all options however, I needed to buy the option that would give me the best opportunity of good results and the Sigma's were just too heavy for me.

Good luck with deciding!
 
This is all very interesting, I joined this forum yesterday to find out the answer to this Q, I also have a tamron 18-270 with a canon 450d but find a bit more zoom is needed for wildlife, was planning to get the 50-500 but when I went to view it the shop only had 150-500, it was quite bulky but would prob use a mono pod with it! I think I'll hold on and try and check out the 50-500 and will probably dismiss the canon due to price!! Does anyone no of a decent camera shop in Bristol area??other than jessops and London camera exchange which are both very expensive!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top