Replace a Canon 70-200L IS F4 with a Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS?

hashcake

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Messages
5,943
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
I really like the Canon 70-200L IS F4 but I am getting more into wildlife photography and the focal length just doesn't cut it.
We will also be doing a land tour / cruise of Alaska in July and much prefer the idea of having more reach for when we go whale and bear watching.
The Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS does seems to get very good reviews but I am concerned about the level of sharpness compared to the Canon and also the old argument about Sigma's QA if I buy new.

Has anyone gone from the Canon to the Sigma and regretted it?
 
Sorry I can't comment on the Sigma Cuthbert, but I use a Canon 400 5.6L for long reach (wildlife) and love it. Of course there's no zoom (you'll find yourself maxed out 99% of the time with wildlife anyway) or IS...I did briefly have a 100-400L but I much prefer the prime personally.
 
grotty said:
Sorry I can't comment on the Sigma Cuthbert, but I use a Canon 400 5.6L for long reach (wildlife) and love it. Of course there's no zoom (you'll find yourself maxed out 99% of the time with wildlife anyway) or IS...I did briefly have a 100-400L but I much prefer the prime personally.
Click to expand...

I have toyed with the idea of the Canon 100-400L but I think it'd be out of my price range once I've sold the 70-200 and the 1.4x extender.
The additional 100mm with the Sigma is also very appealing.
 
I agree extra reach would be appealing. As one often reads about Sigma QC (or lack of) I'd suggest to go to a store and test one out, take a memory card, your body and your 70-200 and take some shots..it's the only way you'll really know.
 
I had the Sigma 150-500 for a while... as soon as I got the 100-400 L I just didn't bother with it. Don't completely discount the 100-400 L, its a cracking lens.
 
a lex said:
I had the Sigma 150-500 for a while... as soon as I got the 100-400 L I just didn't bother with it. Don't completely discount the 100-400 L, its a cracking lens.
Click to expand...

I'm only discounting the 100-400 L because I believe if falls outside of my budget.
 
You'd get a good used one from the sale of the 70-200 and extender, easily.
 
westley byford said:
how much do you want for the 70-200L ?? ;)
Click to expand...

At the moment another member is interested in the lens and the extender so it depends what he comes back with.
Also as I am joining you on the Leigh meet next Sunday, as Tim mentioned doing some bird photography, I would want to pick up a 10-400L IS before the weekend :D
 
I've got a 70-200 f2.8 & 150-500 (both Sigma) & wouldn't part with either focal lengths. I'd hire a longer lens for Alaska & see how much use you give it.


Ps. How far North is North London ? I'm up near Stevenage if you want to try a 150-500 :)
 
im also after a 150-500 or 50-500 siggy, but cant decide between them :(
would love a 100-400L but funds wont allow it..

edit: sorry didnt realise your lens (70-200) was the IS version, also out of my price range.. lol
 
Here's 5 jpg's straight from the camera 2 from the 70-200f4 and 3 from Siggy 150-500mm - all exif is intact,

Personally id keep both - the 70-200mm is such a versatile lens.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Here's 5 jpg's straight from the camera 2 from the 70-200f4 and 3 from Siggy 150-500mm - all exif is intact,

Personally id keep both - the 70-200mm is such a versatile lens.
Click to expand...

Cheers Paul, I remember when your first posted that thread, you've got me thinking.
 
mrgubby said:
I've got a 70-200 f2.8 & 150-500 (both Sigma) & wouldn't part with either focal lengths. I'd hire a longer lens for Alaska & see how much use you give it.


Ps. How far North is North London ? I'm up near Stevenage if you want to try a 150-500 :)
Click to expand...

I think the hiring idea might be a good plan.
It's likely that I would miss the 70-200, it's such a good lens.
Stevenage isn't too far at all, I've been to digital depot a few times.
I'll drop you a pm.
 
why are you opting for the 150-500 and not the 50-500 out of interest??
as im trying to find out what is REALLY the best, ive seen pics from both and well impressed with them both too, the extra zoom aside then its a toss up between OS or better EX glass??
 
I have a feeling you will seriously miss that lens if you get rid of it. There is hardly anything sharper and that weight. I'd try to raise funds in another way and maybe look for 400mm prime (an old sigma f5.6 may interest you for what they cost)
 
westley byford said:
why are you opting for the 150-500 and not the 50-500 out of interest??
as im trying to find out what is REALLY the best, ive seen pics from both and well impressed with them both too, the extra zoom aside then its a toss up between OS or better EX glass??
Click to expand...

Have you seen the price of the 50-500?
Besides, I don't think a lens like that will be sharp across the range.
I also have a 24-105L that I have no intention of selling and I would prefer to a lens for wildlife.
I think my conclusion is to keep the 70-200, it's such a sharp lens and I was after one for ages and I think I would miss it.
I will probably hire a Canon 100-400 from Stewart (lenses for hire) for the Alaska trip but I am also going to take mrgubby up his offer and meet up with him to take a few test shots with his Sigma 150-500.
 
daugirdas said:
I have a feeling you will seriously miss that lens if you get rid of it. There is hardly anything sharper and that weight. I'd try to raise funds in another way and maybe look for 400mm prime (an old sigma f5.6 may interest you for what they cost)
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you, grotty is missing his as well so this has also inspired me to keep it.
 
the more expensive version.. went for £405, i think a dealer bought it, he had over 12,000 feedback!! probably going to sell it himself now for £500+:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top