Zoom lens!

W

wildsam90

Messages
571
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
No
Hi, basically looking for a large lens for wildlife.
Would like around 500mm and I'm very interested in the 100-400 white lens.

Ive been told the SIGMA 50-500 is a good lens but the canon white lens are better, I know there "pump action" and that doesn't worry me.
I dont want to end up buying a lens ill want to upgrade in time again.

Now the 400mm might be fine for distance shots but say i needed more length i.e adding a TC what are peoples views on this?

Googled it and there's so many different views, Any reply will be a help!
Thanks!!
 
Last edited:
Both are very good.

The Canon 100-400L will be sharper at 400mm, but the Sigma is far, far better by 500mm.
 
Last edited:
So how affected is the 100-400 when a TC is added on?
Would i be better off getting the simga? And if ever needed get a TC for that mayb
 
Have only used my 100-400 once with a canon 1.4tc and apart from having to use manual focus was very happy with the results. The 100-400 is by far my most used lens.
 
As above you'd lose AF with a tc as most TCs are designed to AF with wide aperture lenses which the Canon 100-400 isn't you you'd be stuck with manual focus. Not ideal if you intend to shoot wildlife or sports.
 
And they are good points,
Manual aint the best root for wildlife and im worried 400mm wont be enough,
400mm has better sharpness but the sigma has the extra length just no idea what todo!
 
The difference between 400 and 500mm is naff all really and in that context I'd choose the lens that was better optically and sacrifice the length.
 
Well ive just done some ebay reasearch and the 100-400mm L lens sell for around 800 and the sigma there one (Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO) buy it now for 550 so there is a big price diffrence too
 
wildsam90 said:
Well ive just done some ebay reasearch and the 100-400mm L lens sell for around 800 and the sigma there one (Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO) buy it now for 550 so there is a big price diffrence too
Click to expand...

I've owned both and the 100-400mm is a much, much better lens. I wouldn't have a siggy 50-500mm but quite miss the 100-400mm
 
odd jim said:
... but the Sigma is far, far better by 500mm.
Click to expand...


Ain't that (de facto) the truth. (y):bonk:

You might also consider the Sigma 150-500. In terms of value for money, it is very hard to beat. At the long end there really does not seem to be much to choose between the 50-500 and the 150-500. I say that based on owning the 150-500 and compareing pictures I have taken with it with pictures peple have taken with the Bigma.

My own findings are that the Sigma likes lots of light. A picture taken at F10 1/1000th will rival a picture taken with the 100-400 (which I also have). If there is not that much light, the 100-400 works better.

Street price for the 100-400 and 50-500 £1200+. 150-500, £800+. ;)
 
Im personly drawn towards the 50-500 as the price is almost 300pounds cheaper and a longer lens, The 150-500 you can pick up for abit cheaper but as the 50-500 is't far off it think its worth that bit more for flexibility ect,

As you said oggy the 100-400 is better in low light but im not sure if thats worth 300pounds more just for the chance ect!
 
Actually the canon 100-400 isn't better at low light as they are both f5.6 at 400mm

edit: compaired to the Sigma 50-500 although the IS will make a differencw if handheld
 
Last edited:
I've had the Sigma 150-500 since 2008 and I think I know what Oggy means. The IQ at the 400-500 end in low light conditions is not that good, but in bright conditions it's quite acceptable. High ISO does nothing to defeat this tendancy (Nikon D300/700). I don't understand this, but I've had to accept it as I can't afford (or carry?) the Nikon 200-400.

Would I buy it again? Yes - what else is there anywhere near the price (expecially Nikon)?
 
Steve the 150-500 is at f6.3 at 400, it's not the same as the 50-500.
 
You're absolutely correct of course, but I'm not talking about any specific maximum aparture. I mean that the ambient light needs to be high enough for the lens to achieve any decent IQ performance compared with better quality lenses at the same (opened) stop, whatever that might be. I suppose that's pretty obvious really otherwise why pay more? I was disappointed recently after acquiring a D700 and finding that despite the high iso/low noise capability of the body, and thus the ability to stop down somewhat at higher ISO without noise, IQ was no better with this lens except in bright daylight. Not well resolved and poor colours/contrast. Quite possibly a photoshop wizard could do something about that, but sadly that's not me.

It's not all bad, I acheived "image of the year" in my local camera club with the 150-500, but I think the judges might have been short-sighted http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevelindley/5494812604/in/photostream - You can see conditions were pretty bright. That was 1/640 @ F7.1 ISO 200 (D300)
 
Last edited:
I had the Sigma 150-500 OS and the Nikon 70-300 VR and for me I got just about as good results using the Nikon and cropping as I did with the Sigma and given the size and weight advantage of the Nikon I sold the Sigma and have no regrets (well, I would have liked to try the Sigma on my new D700 as the 70-300 has really come to life on it but there you go).
 
I dont know what the new Sigma 50-500 are like but we have the older version with no stablisation it is tac sharp, is heavy so you need to get accustomed to that, it now lives on my sons 50d, he does wildlife and equestrian and it suits all his needs admirably having such a good range and he doesnt need to change lens.
The 100 - 400 I have, I find limiting at the lower end more so when at a zoo wildlife park etc when you have an animal closer than your 100mm range.
 
Then asking friends recommendations for wildlife i got suggested FIX most of the time. Why? because in 97% cases you will use maximum zoom and then even crop it. Have a look at some 300 or 400mm options with optionally converter 1.4x . I still consider for myself 100-400, but looks like it is better for reportage, because it is zoom, light and compact.
 
The advantage I find with the 100-400 is that in most captive wildlife environments you really need the flexibility, I would be stuffed with a prime
 
Well. Can't imagine i will go shoot tiger on 200mm :) I have 70-200mm, i never was able to take picture of any bird except 200mm, maybe only in zoo.

100-400 is good that can be used not only for wildlife.

Then using with 1.4 you can enable autofocus. There is a way to enable it.
 
The new 50-500mm OS is fantastic the the stabilization is better than the 100-400's
The 100-400 is sharper than the 150-500 and the old 50-500 but the new 50-500mm OS is very very close + it is longer and with a much better range (very useful having 50mm and 500mm on one lens!)
 
A couple with the 150-500 (Non OS) -

IMGP3295.jpg


IMGP3303.jpg


Feeta.jpg


The 100-400 may be nominally only a little faster than the 150-500, but in terms of usable apperture it is actually quite a bit faster. The 100-400 is not bad at F6.7 whareas the 150-500 starts to work at about F9ish.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top