Which is which? Quiz for 400mm lens comparison shots!!!

micloi

micloi

Messages
4,188
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
SEE POST #32 for the answer, comments and a shot at 560mm

One is from the Canon 400mm 5.6 and the other from the Sigma 400mm 5.6. Both open wide.
This is a heavy crop

The Canon costs (2nd hand) 7 to 9 times more than the Sigma.

Which is which? :)

400mm1up.jpg


400mm2up.jpg
 
Last edited:
The top one is the Canon....the colour seems to be slightly richer.
 
If I had to guess then I'd probably say that the 1st shot is the Canon just because the 2nd has that very slight hazy feel to it but perhaps that's the expected answer.
 
Cheers Phil, at least I'm not going to be the only one who got it wrong....:lol:
 
Hmmmm interesting!!!! I think I'll have to go for Sigma=No1, just because of the warmer colour!
 
I will say the second shot is the Canon lens.
It seems to be pulling out more detail in the finger grips on the clamps and the lighting control looks overall better.
 
The interesting thing is that we can't really tell between a £100 lens and a £1000 lens :p
 
Both pretty similar. What's the performance like closer to the corners though?

The first one appears a little sharper though...
 
Sorry, maybe its my eyes but they both look a bit soft from where I'm sitting! As the top one is the least soft i'll say its the Canon!
 
A piccy of pegs on washing line is not the ultimate test though. ;):D:p
 
colour rendition aside, I'd vote for the second one being the Canon on account of better detail.
 
I prefer shot #1, so I'll guess that is the Sigma.

I wonder though, is this a genuine lens comparison, or an opportunity to show off your very fancy pegs:thumbs:
 
If I took both lens to a cricket match and used them at full length and then had to crop in as well.. I would find the difference astounding and deffo worth the difference in money

However had I paid out all that money to take pics of washing lines I would be dissapointed :)
 
they are both suffering from the photobucket compreshion. Will go pic 1 as canon as theres a little more colour and def to it, on this monitor and pc.
 
Very little difference that I can see, but I'll stick my neck out and say #1 is Sigma as I think it is a touch warmer. It does make me wonder though if when we look at shots we view through predjudiced eyes dependent on what lens was used, or is it just clever marketing by Canon to get us to pay more for that badge.
 
Maybe a bird in flight would be a better test, the heavily cropped image of a clothes peg may be similar, but how does the AF speed compare?
What I bought mine for mainly and could be worth the extra pounds for that capability

Sure lots of expensive and less pricey lenses could be compared like this, what exactly is the point unless the whole image and use is considered?
 
Last edited:
Really begs the question, why aren't sigma still making this beauty?

It has a closer MFD as well doesn't it?
 
Slower AF but not too bad (I have the HSM version)
Click to expand...

So how much exactly is this lens then, the HSM version with the 1.6m MFD obviously

If its 7 or 9 times cheaper than the Canon, we will take 8 as an average and assume its about 100 quid and if it is that, I agree its a right bargain and i'm gutted to have spent so much cash just to get a better AF and possibly lighter weight
 
Last edited:
I have seen them sell between £150 and £200 depending on condition and packaging. Do not forget that they only work at f5.6 on newer cameras.
One sold for less than £100. That was the bargain of the year.

Having said that I tried mine on an 1Ds at f8 and did not notice an increase in quality that would justify losing 1 stop worth of light
 
Last edited:
I have seen them sell between £150 and £200 depending on condition and packaging
Click to expand...

Are these the ones that may need rechipping if it can still actually be done

Sounding less of a bargain now at approx 3 or 4 times cheaper than the Canon, slower AF, heavier (I think) and fixed aperture plus only available secondhand
 
Well, I've used that particular lens when Michael lent it to me a few days ago when we went to Brandon Marsh and I must say, I was quite impressed with it! In fact it was a brilliant little lens, and I must confess I do a lot of pixel peeping and that lens was incredibly sharp

I posted a 100% unsharpened crop of a photo taken with that lens in this thread yesterday, where you can see the detail you can get with it.

As for the AF, it was quite spot on, and it did manage to follow a flying buzzard and a flying crow without any difficulties, locking on in both cases. Saying that, the fact that you cannot step down is a bit annoying as I instinctively use my lenses at least one-stop slower than the max aperture, but it is indeed sharp at f/5.6.

I think it is time now for the OP to reveal the truth on the two photos, even though I think the message was quite clear :)
 
Last edited:
do you have an example against a very light background? I would assume that the canon would have a lot less chromatic aberration.
 
Will do a better test when I get the chance but from a few shots I took both lenses are surprisingly close which is great news.

The size and weight is almost the same (they even look similar with both having a pull out hood and even use the same size filters, 77mm)

Not all Sigmas 400mm are created equal. This is the elusive APO HSM TELEMACRO.
 
Last edited:
I'll say the first one is Canon, but....

I've seen soft Canons, and I've seen sharp Sigmas so who knows.
 
I would say first is the Canon, the colour looks a little washed out on the second one.
 
#1 clearly has more saturated colours and more contrast. If you've exposed and processed the images identically, then the lens must be responsible. And since contrast and saturation are generally regarded as good things, I'll hazard a guess that #1 is the Canon. But it's a guess.

I can't see any real difference in the sharpness. That might be because they have different levels of contrast. Or it might be because the subjects aren't necessarily entirely within the depth of field. But either way it's interesting because the Canon does have a reputation for being very very sharp.

On this test, the Canon certainly isn't worth 7 to 9 times as much as the Sigma. But as others have pointed out, there are many other relevant factors besides just centre sharpness and colour rendition:
- edge and corner sharpness
- chromatic aberration
- resistance to flare
- focussing speed and accuracy
- build quality (and consistency of build quality)
- weather resistance
- durability
- and I'm sure there are some things I've forgotten.

It would be interesting if you could tell us where you think all that extra money is spent!
 
Ok. Some very interesting comments from the forum members.

I admit that I need to do a more scientific test when I have more time but here we go:

No.1 is the Canon
No.2 is the Sigma

The photobucket compression did change things a bit so I will see how I can put some links for the RAW files.

Below is the Canon with the Kenko 1.4x at 560mm open wide (f8). Does not seem to lose a lot, if at all, IQ wise and still autofocuses on my 1D.

Tried the 2x Kenko DGX. Still autofocuses on the 1D but quality is worse at f11. f13 is much better but only suitable for another country :)

560mmcanon.jpg
 
Well, hardly any difference. If I want to photograph pegs I'll save money and get the Sigma. If, however, I want to photograph things that move then the Canon would probably be my weapon of choice.
 
Sharpness of the Sigma seems to be supported by Prodoto
You can see that the AF is slower but in real life it does not seem to be bad at all.
Feels as fast as the AF for the 70-300mm IS which is not bad in most situations.

telephotoprodoto.jpg
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
Well, hardly any difference. If I want to photograph pegs I'll save money and get the Sigma. If, however, I want to photograph things that move then the Canon would probably be my weapon of choice.
Click to expand...

That's why I will keep both. Canon for birds in flight and the Sigma for smaller birds as the 3.5m min focus of the Canon will never give you the shot below (taken by a friend):

sigma400mm56openwide.jpg
 
Well, if you can test both lenses in real life scenarios and BIF, then we will see why the Canon one is considered a brill lens, but for static subjects and at close proximity, I don't think you can go wrong with the Sigma!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top