My 70-200mm f/4L + 1.4x or 100-400mm L

[whom]

Hi guys

I've had quite a reshuffle in my kit lately. I've gone 5d2 from 5d+40d plus I've also got the 24-105mm. I've always found reach a problem because I like to shoot birds in the garden and wildlife when out walking and occasionally track days and BTCC events (casual spectator).

My new kit lens covers 70-105 meaning the 70-200 is only really useful at the long end. I've got a Kenko 1.4x DGX that gives a nice increase in reach and tends to live on the 70-200.

I've seen quite a few of the 100-400s going for around 650 on here and that seems like a lot of lens for the money. Stabilisation would be great and 400 a significant improvement over 280mm.

What would you do in my situation?

 

[pete.rush]

Or the sigma 150-500mm OS probably going for about the same price used. The wildlife togs on a budget seem to really rave about either that lens or its slightly more expensive brother, the 50-500mm OS

Not to say the canon 100-400mm ain't a bad lens, but it does depend if you get a good copy

 

[whom]

I did have a little look at that lens. I borrowed a 120-500mm sigma and I hated it so that has made me a little cautious. It does seem to have got good reviews though (the 150-500mm). I have also thought about primes but they don't seem that much better than the 100-400mm in terms of value considering the big reduction in flexability. The 100-400mm is also a lot smaller than the Sigma which adds to its attraction.

About time Canon refreshed the 100-400... or is that what the 200-400mm 1.4X L thingy will be...

p.s. I am an engineer and you sig is correct

 

[modchild]

I've got a Sigma 150-500 OS, bought from www.panamoz.com for under £600 new, and I did have a Canon 100-400 IS L. I went from a 7D and 5D2 combo to a 5D3 recently and so I had 2 long lenses and 1 body so I decided to sell one on.
The Sigma is an excellent lens for the price, the IQ is very good even wide open, although it is a little slow at f6.3 at the 500 end. It has good AF speed and accuracy and the OS system is absolutely brilliant and the overall range is excellent. The only bad thing is the weight, but you soon get used to that, and I'm using it handheld all day with no bad effects.
In the end I decided to sell the Canon as I found the Sigma was very close to the IQ of the Canon, the OS was far better than the Canon and the AF speed was around the same. The Canon also seemed to need more light to keep the AF going than the Sigma even though the Canon is f5.6 at the long end. And the last thing I found, the Canon seemed really soft whenever I used any type of filter on it, whereas the Sigma doesn't seem to suffer much with a filter on.
All in all, I'm glad I kept the Sigma and would recommend it to anyone, but that's not to say the 100-400 isn't any good at all. It is a very good lens, but in my circumstances it came second best.

 

[whom]

Thanks for taking the time to detail your experience Stuart. It does sound like Sigma have done a good job with this lens. Just how much better is the stabilisation? Say 1 is none, and 10 is the best IS you've ever used, how do these lenses compare?

I guess there are two main things putting me off the Sigma at the moment.
One is the size. Being so big it is unlikely that I would carry it with me like I do the 70-200 whereas the 100-400, while bigger, should still fit nicely into a reasonable camera bag. The Sigma is 95x250mm whilst the 100-400 is 92x190mm. My current lens is 76x172mm, or more like 76x192mm with the 1.4x on it. It would be +600g for 100-400 or +1000g for 150-500mm but that isn't as important as the size.

The second thing is depreciation. Now I don't know for sure, I would guess the Sigma wouldn't hold its value like the Canon would, especially if I bought it new. I know that the chances are, if I bought the 100-400mm, kept it for a year and sold it on I would lose maybe £50.

My thoughts are that if I did get the Sigma, then I would have to keep the 70-200 for carrying around whereas the 100-400 could replace it as it remains reasonable portable, and keeping the 70-200 is something I couldn't afford to do at the moment.

Do my thoughts sound sensible or am I missing something?

 

[markmullen]

I had a similar lineup, a full frame body with a 70-200 F4 IS and a 1.4 converter but recently swapped the 70-200 for a 100-400 as I wanted some extra reach. I have to say I find the 100-400 more useful, the long end is much longer, the IS works well and it all works really well.