Canon or Sigma Long lens buying thoughts???

Sinbecks

Sinbecks

Messages
66
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok

I currently have the 'Bigma' 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX DG APO HSM Lens and need some advice.
It is a heavy weight and at f6.3 at the long end I find it is a little too slow for hand holding, which is what I intended it for (mainly used for nature shots/birds when walking in the great British summer with the excellent light we always have)




So.... I'm thinking of something new and the preferred options for me seem to be:-

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens
Image stabilised and a good zoom range + is faster than the 'Bigma' but unfortunately not as long. Is also the most expensive...

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO
Probably as fast over the range as the 'Bigma' but with image stabilising and the cheaper option of the two.




Also rans for me, unless someone can give me a really good reason to go with one of these are:-

Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO
Image stabilised but can't see the point of going for a shorter lens when I could get the 150-500 which is also stabilised.

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens
No stabilization, but a prime is going to be sharper. Faster than the 'Bigma' but not as long.





The questions then are:-

1) Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS or Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO?:thinking:

2) Is the Canon worth the extra cost for the shorter length due to 'L' quality?:shrug:

3) Anything else I should be considering (£1k near the absolute limit)?:help:

4) What good news/horror stories have you got re these two lenses?:eek:
 
100-400. There is no other choice :D It was my first big lens, and I wish I still had one today, purely for the flexibility of it!
 
Sinbecks said:
1) Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS or Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO?:thinking:

2) Is the Canon worth the extra cost for the shorter length due to 'L' quality?:shrug:

3) Anything else I should be considering (£1k near the absolute limit)?:help:

4) What good news/horror stories have you got re these two lenses?:eek:
Click to expand...

1. Canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS all the way. You might get a bit more reach with the Sigma but with a starting F stop of 5 you will strugle in poor light.

2. Yes.

3. A Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM (2nd hand?) and a 1.4x and or a 2x converter

4.
 
Well if it's because of low light you want to change the Canon isn't any faster than the bigma at 400mm and the 150-500 siggy is actually slower as it moves to 6.3 much earlier in the range although the IS/OS would be handy at the long end.
That said if I was considering swapping my bigma the only one that I would consider would be the Canon 100-400 unless I could afford a long fast prime..

Edit: have you considered a monopod, much cheaper solution ;)
 
Thanks for the replies so far. You are basically confirming the way I was leaning anyway :)
 
Where are you based, we could meet up and you can have a go of mine (100-400) see if you like it? (I am in Lancs)

My friend has the sigma 150 - 500, really likes it, I believe it is 5.6 at 400mm, the same as the canon (you might want to check this). One thing i have noticed is that the IS on the sigma is very noisey. All in all i think canon is a bit better IQ, but is quite a bit more expensive.

Probably no help at all but there you go.
 
My vote would be for the Sigma, the OS system is 4 stops whereas the Canon is older technology and only 2 stops. Both are good lenses, but shooting birds you need all the length you can get. The OS system does whirr a bit but at least you know it is working and isn't that ontrusive, no more than the shutter, as for VFM the Sigma wins hands down. The IQ can match the Canon, this was shot hand held at 1/160 through Double Glazing which isn't recommended as a filter :D

http://SPAM/c3whur/dec/Img_0282c.jpg
 
Slicemydrive thanks for the offer but can't really make the time at the moment (Work & family). The fact that you rate the Canon & your friend swears by the Sigma makes it more difficult!

Artman that is a quality photo. I'll have to get myself a double glazed filter as well! It has got me leaning again the other way towards Sigma.

The beauty of the Sigma is that it is black and unobtrusive, which means I wont have to explain where the shiny new white lens came from as even 'she' will notice and I will have to declare the purchase to door step customs.
The 100-400 would be my first 'couch' lens and the Sigma could avoid that...
 
1. When I was contemplating a big lens for a wildlife holiday (before I founded LensesForHire!) I tried the Canon 100-400L against the comparable Sigma offerings. Admittedly the 150-500 OS wasn't out then, but even so, I found the Canon to be in a totally different league. Better build quality, MUCH better ergonomics, better image quality.

2. Yes.

3. For birding I wouldn't rule out the 400mm f/5.6 L. It's sharper than a sharp thing that's just been sharpened - much sharper than any zoom - plus it's lighter and faster to focus. The only downside is that it needs decent light. Or the 300mm f/4 L IS with a 1.4x Extender would give you similar capabilities with IS.

4. Our friends at LensRentals.com in the USA have discovered that the Sigma 120-400 OS and 150-500 OS are amongst the most failure-prone lenses they've ever seen, and have discontinued stocking them as a consequence. Details here.
 
I went down the 100-400mm route and have to say I am very pleased with it. It is a little on the soft side at 400mm and loves light but it will be spot on when I have micro adjusted it.
 
Well you can pretty much rule out the sigma 200-500mm f2.8 @ £19,000 and 15.7kg :D

So lets look at the contenders for weight as I think you would seriously need to take that into the equation as well.

Sigma 150-500mm 1.91 kg, also f5-6.3, very slow, minimum focal distance 2.2m, thread size 86mm. Also I've read, its not a true 500mm lens, more a 450mm and very soft at 500mm end.

Sigma 120-400mm has some supporters and is very affordable. f4.5-5.6, 1.7kg, minimum focal distance 1.5m, standard 77mm thread.

Sigma 100-300mm f4, very good lens and shouldn't be dismissed. 1.44kg, f4, takes a 1.4x TC, sharp and 82mm thread. 1.8m minimum focal distance.

Canon 100-400mm, on L series, although some pro's think its not a real L series lens, however, versatile f4.5-5.6, standard thread 77mm, 1.38kg, abit soft at 400mm, 1.8m minimum focal distance.

And finally, the canon 400mm f5.6 L, fantastic affordable prime, very fast focusing, sharpest of all the contenders, and a great lens for birds. 1.25kg, 3.5 minimum focal distance (its only flaw), standard thread 77mm, you can't beat a prime

However do you want the versatility of a zoom or do you take all you images at the longest focal length. Hard decision. I quiet like the sigma 100-300mm f4 option + add a TC 2 lenses in 1, probably the best of the sigma offerings.

See if you can hire the lenses and get some feel for what you want
 
StewartR said:
Wow. The 100-400L supposedly has a reputation for being a little soft at 400mm, but at 400mm wide open it is TONS sharper than the Sigma!
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree with you the Sigma is every bit as capable as the Canon at full stretch and wide open, the OS system is also better. Your comments give the impression that it isn't a good lens which is far from the truth and the web is full of top drawer images from it.

If I was buying another zoom I would get another Sigma even if it cost the same as the Canon, which it doesn't by some margin. Both the Canon and the Sigma are very capable lenses, but on the VFM front there is no contest.
 
petersmart said:
Check out the charts for the 2 lenses ;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...Comp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&Lens=683

You can see that after 300mm the Canon has superior quality all over.
Click to expand...

Great link and certainly food for thought.

48thEagle said:
Is waiting a while, saving more pennies, and going for a 70-200 F2.8 with a 2x TC an option?
Click to expand...

Not really what I am after to be honest as the 2x loses a lot of sharpness compared to the 100-400mm, unless someone can correct me???
 
StewartR said:
Wow. The 100-400L supposedly has a reputation for being a little soft at 400mm, but at 400mm wide open it is TONS sharper than the Sigma!
Click to expand...

artyman said:
I would have to disagree with you ... Your comments give the impression that it isn't a good lens which is far from the truth ...
Click to expand...
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was just commenting on those test results posted by petersmart.

I'm happy to acknowldge that test shots like that don't give a complete picture. But I think they do support the (narrow and limited) conclusion I drew from them.
 
I decided to go for the sigma 150-500mm because wanted extra reach. Was exactly in the same dilemma as you, torn between the canon 100-400 and the sigma 150-500. Then had a chance to try my hands on a sigma 150-500mm and was so impressed I did not think twice.

Not sure how some members mention about the fact that its a bit soft on the long end but my experience is that its sharp thoughout.

Some of the images below are highly cropped

4160008942_39f876351d_o.jpg


4158340568_71cea8c7d2_o.jpg


4168470309_2fe3a253c4_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top