Lens Help

[DocDetroit]

I have a canon 10D. I was looking to pick up a long telephoto and was considering the Sigma 50 -500 for about $900. B&H sells the Canon 100 - 400 L series lense for $1299.

Now I'm having a dilema. The Sigma is a little longer (which I really like), but the Canon has image stabilization (which I really like). I have heard bad things about the Canon push-pull zoom, and the canon is $400 more. For that difference I could get the Sigma 50 - 500 and the Canon 100MM macro lens (which I would love to have). One thing I'm not sure of is how these two lenses stack up optically.

My photography is pretty general. I like to get out to the zoo, birds in the back yard, etc. I also have a racetrack less than a mile from me. I used to race so I know a lot of the officials and should have no problem getting into the infield for some shooting.

Thanks in advance for the advice!
Todd

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have heard great things about the Sigma 50-500 from all but the "L" lens only crowd.

The Sigma can be had for under $700.00 from reputable sources.

http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/sigma_50_500mm_f4_63_apo_ex_rf_zoom_lens.htm

And less than $650.00 if you are willing to buy gray market.

B&H's price is the going retail price you would pay over the counter at a Ritz etc. (I am seriously considering this lens too.... in fact I'm positive I will get one but my wallet is alittle dry having only aquired the 10D two days ago :) )

Yes,. I'd like to have the Canon,. I think it works well with the Canon teleconverters for even more reach, but at under $700.00 the Sigma is starting to cost half the price of the Canon. And as I say,. people are really liking this particular Sigma lens. It is of much better quality then there 170-500 or in fact most of there lenses.

[Cal Maier]

Hi Todd,

Thought I'd add my 2 cents here.

I had chance to test shoot a Sigma 50-500 EX lens a couple of weeks ago and the one I shot was very sharp throughout the zoom range. I didn't save any of the shots as I had to return the lens the next day (darn!), and the weather was not co-operating, as I wan't to get some bird shots but the heavy rain was keeping them out of sight.

I will be trying to borrow it again this weekend and hopefully I will get some decent shots, if so I'll post some. As I said, the candid shots of various things in my backyard impressed me enough to start thinking about purchasing this lens in the near future.

The only negative thing that I found was the zoom ring was very tight and therefore awkward to use, even when mounted on a tripod. I guess this may loosen up with use, but it was something that bugged me at the time. It just didn't feel smooth, the way the Canon zooms feel.

Cal

[brunz]

I'm not sure of optical performance but in the long run, you will never regret buying the Canon. They are always easier to sell when you change your mind about what lens you may want in the future.They have great resale value and always will, whereas all second party lenses lose their value quicker and are usually much harder to sell. I am getting rid of all of my non- Canon lenses and will never regret it. That's not to say that the other lenses cannot perform at a high level but it's really hard to not buy a lens which you can usually resell for close to what you paid for it. Think of the future when you buy lenses. I think you get what you pay for. Good luck....just my opinion after 30 years of experience using Canon equipment.......Brian

[DocDetroit]

Thanks for the input guys! I have considered the resale issue too. I have to weigh all that against my budget.

I'd really love to hear from someone who has experience with both lenses, specifically about image quality.

Thanks again!

[Light Chaser]

Doc,

Buy Canon. Period.

What many people on this board are refering to when they say their Sigma (or other) is sharp (or beautiful) is because they have not seen it compared to a Canon.

Forget about the rulers and graph charts talked about here to test lenses. Take anyone of those lenses, put the camera on tripod, and shoot, take the same picture with a Canon lens. Print them. You will never go back.

I did this simple real world test in my kitchen with a Sigma 17-35 and a Canon 35-350 at 35 mm.
I now own a canon 16 - 35mm. I use the Sigma for a paperweight.

Canon L lenses are designed for professionals. The zoom is very stiff at first, it will become smooth with use.

Steve

[CyberDyneSystems]

Really that big a difference Light Chaser?

I am hearing two different stories on this issue,.. I guess I need to (as you said) find out for myself!

My budget is limited,. but that said,. I have no interest in buying the same lens twice!!!!

My only lens currently is a Sigma 28-200mm zoom.

I have been thinking of getting the very reasonably priced Canon 50mm 1.8,... but I was going to get a Long Zoom first.

Given your opinion,. I think I may get that Canon first and do a side by side comparison with the Sigma zoom lens at 50mm.... (lord I HOPE I don't see the difference! :) )

Do you think that the Canon 50mm 1.8 will show me what you are talking about? (assuming I have eyes enough to see the difference)

[D60DIETER]

Just can support you buying the Canon "L" lenses.

- 100 to 400 is like 160 to 640 !!!
- they are built for Pros - they last forever!
- the AF is fast, silent and it works even under bad light conditions.
- the Image Stabilizer is worth the money, especcially at 400mm!!
- and the color adjustment with the other "L" lenses is a very interessting point.

[UK_Terry]

DocDetroit wrote:

Thanks for the input guys! I have considered the resale issue too. I have to weigh all that against my budget.

I'd really love to hear from someone who has experience with both lenses, specifically about image quality.

Thanks again!


These were taken with a Canon 100 - 400L IS

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/SrobVGcity/index.htm

These were taken with a Sigma 135 - 400

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/thame/index.htm

These were taken with a Standard Canon 75 - 300

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/u14_Cup_Final/index.htm

Hope this helps.

[CyberDyneSystems]

UK_Terry wrote:

Hope this helps.

I won't know till I get home to my Sony FW900,... this little 12" laptop isn't telling me a thing.

Amazing pics though!!!

I love the one where he's headed the ball!

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/SrobVGcity/gc1.htm

Stunning shot! :)

[UK_Terry]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
UK_Terry wrote:

Hope this helps.

I won't know till I get home to my Sony FW900,... this little 12" laptop isn't telling me a thing.

Amazing pics though!!!

I love the one where he's headed the ball!

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/SrobVGcity/gc1.htm

Stunning shot! :)


Thanks

here is another one 10D & standard 75 - 300

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/RobinsFC_Photos/Blyskawica/img_0223_std.jpg

It depends on how critical quality is to you.

i do it for fun, post to my own website and give out copies to anyone in the teams that want one.

i have had photos printed in local papers as well.

The 100 - 400L IS was an outstanding lens and cost £1300, i part exchanged it with my D30 straight swop for a 10D,

the Sigma was a good lens but too heavy cost £430, sent it back.

the 75 - 300 i think with the 10D is good enough for what i need.
Lens cost £130 - 150.

as you see a huge difference in price, but look at the photos, not much difference.

for a pro photographer i am sure the "L" lens is a neccesity, but for the average person i think you should buy 2 lenses for the price of 1 "L".
which is what i did, adding a sigma 17 - 35 to the canon 75 - 300, and all for the same price as the sigma.

[David Lawson]

Like a lot of photographers I got a 100-400 and it just didn't do it for me and I went back to 300 and 1.4x. I tended to use it as a 400f5.6 which it isn't. Andy Rouse a fellow UK wildlife photographer rated it a lot shorter than that, as I remember. He got rid of his as well. If you want long lens quality go for primes. To support this see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
If you want a really good, well priced zoom look at the Sigma 100-300 f4 of which I've heard excellent reports. A stop and more faster than the 50-500. Could be long enough with 1.6 crop factor. David

[robertwgross]

Light Chaser wrote:
Buy Canon. Period.

What many people on this board are refering to when they say their Sigma (or other) is sharp (or beautiful) is because they have not seen it compared to a Canon. ...


Part of the problem, Steve, is that there are lens offerings by Sigma which Canon simply does not offer.

For example, I purchased the Sigma 170-500mm zoom as a wildlife lens. Canon simply does not make anything like that, and the similar lenses are priced much, much higher.

Of course, you don't get something for nothing. There are compromises that Sigma had to make on this zoom to keep the cost down. However, I needed that zoom flexibility for the intended purpose, wildlife.

One such compromise became obvious when it was delivered. I had neglected to purchase the optional trailer. (It is a big sucker!)

---Bob Gross---

[Light Chaser]

Gentlemen,
I am a professional photographer that has been earning my living taking pictures for eighteen years. I come to this site often but rarely post (mostly because of time constraints). I come here for two reasons. 1. For inspiration. Many of you are taking pictures for the sheer joy of the art and your enthusiasm reminds me where I came from. Reading your posts makes me want to take pictures again even when I am not on an assignment, something I rarely do anymore. I have never forgotten the worlds greatest pictures are taken by amateurs (yes I know a lot of you are other pros). 2. I come here to keep up with technology. Camera manufacturers release new technological improvements on prosumer equipment before they upgrade their top pro models. They do this because advanced amateurs are the group that is willing to run out and buy the latest “hot new item”. Professionals must get a financial return on their investment and therefore upgrade much less often. We know we must rely on talent and knowledge, not technology.

With all of that useless information said; let me get on with the lens thing.

The bottom line is you are better off owning fewer lenses of a high quality than many lenses of the aftermarket type. A Canon lens will out perform a Tamron or Sigma in every aspect. This site is littered with threads discussing focus, both camera and lens issues. Some of them make no sense to me. There is one near here (see 10D and Tamron Lens) where guys are trying to figure out how to manipulate the cameras custom functions to get a sharp image from the lens. Give me a break. They invested in the technology of a beautiful high tech camera and are now trying to figure out how to use and limit that technology to take a sharp picture because they tried to save money on a cheap lens. And, after market lenses are not cheap, they just cost less, you get what you pay for. Any camera is only as good as the glass you screw on to it.

The number one (and most basic) rule of photography is that images must be sharp. If you’re shooting with a lens that is less than sharp every shot you take is useless no matter how great the shot could have been.

Just because I am a professional does not mean my dollars don’t count. It means I absolutely can not hand a client a photo that is less than technically perfect. I wasted over a thousand dollars buying 1 Sigma and 1 Tamron, trying to save money.

The most versatile lens Canon makes is a 35mm to 350mm L series USM. It’s big bucks (about $1,700.00). It is sharp all of the way through (not fast though) and will maximize all of the functionality and technology built into your Canon Camera. I read the comment all of the time that “I would rather have 2 lenses for the price of one”. Not me, if those 2 or 3 lenses degrade every shot I take. Do the math, how many after market lenses does it take to add up to one Canon utility lens. Make this your first Canon lens and buy additional lenses as your budget allows, you may be surprised to find out you are in no hurry to add to the arsenal as you are so happy with what you have.

I know I jumped on a soap box here. No disrespect intended. Sorry about the long rant. The whole subject is just clear as good glass to me. You invested in a high quality camera, why degrade it with a low quality lens?

Steve

[Light Chaser]

CyberDyneSystems Wrote:

Really that big a difference Light Chaser?

I am hearing two different stories on this issue,.. I guess I need to (as you said) find out for myself!

My budget is limited,. but that said,. I have no interest in buying the same lens twice!!!!

My only lens currently is a Sigma 28-200mm zoom.

I have been thinking of getting the very reasonably priced Canon 50mm 1.8,... but I was going to get a Long Zoom first.

Given your opinion,. I think I may get that Canon first and do a side by side comparison with the Sigma zoom lens at 50mm.... (lord I HOPE I don't see the difference! )

Do you think that the Canon 50mm 1.8 will show me what you are talking about? (assuming I have eyes enough to see the difference)


Light Chaser Replys,

Yes, the Canon 50mm 1.8 will show you a better image. No special eyes required. Just look at the edges of the prints and the overall quality of the reproduction.

Some times I wonder if all of this sharpness stuff is going on and all many of you are doing is looking at pictures on a computer screen. Monitor resolution has little to do with print sharpness. Some photos that look good on a screen quickly fall apart when printed.

Steve

[D60DIETER]

I Just can agree to the replies of light chaser. It would be the same if you buy a 2500.- US$ Stereoequipment and connect speakers for 125.- US$ to it. What are you expecting??? Good sound?

[PaulB]

Lightchaser has said it all really.

I was thinking of getting either a Sigma 17-35 or (more likely) a 15-30 to go with my 10D.
I must point out that although I too am a professional photographer. like Lightchaser - and us all I suspect - I have a budget, and the Sigma route seemed to fit that budget. Also I have been using a Sigma 18mm/3.5 on film for a while and it did a competent enough job – but Error 99 on the 10D…..

So I went down to a local dealer armed with the 10D and my Canon 28-70/2.8L.
I tested the two Sigma zooms at a variety of focal lengths and apertures and they seemed O.K.
Then the clincher – tested all three at 28mm and f3.5.

The L lens even looked better on the preview screen, but I waited until I got the images onto the computer before dismissing the Sigmas out of hand.

At 100% crop of the same portion of the image from each lens the Canon shone out for sharpness, contrast and colour balance – the Sigmas even exhibited different colour balance one to the other.

The moral of this is that if you have high standards and want or need the best then buy Canon lenses – if you can’t afford L series then I suspect that the ordinary Canon lenses will still have the edge over the third party manufacturers.

What did I do?
I PXed my RB67 medium format outfit, a 540EZ and the Sigma 18mm for a Canon 16-35/2.8L and a 550EX (neede one anyway).
Am I happy with it?
Time and results will tell, but I am so far.

For all you equipment freaks out there who seem to use equipment lists as a signature here is my “Mine is bigger than yours”

1nRS, 10D, 16-35/2.8L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L, 1.4x, 2x, 550EX , Canon ringflash and Tamron 90/2.8 Macro (so I’m not THAT biased – it does the job – but a Canon 100mm macro would be nice).

So can we stop the pointless going round in circles and agree that:

1/ Camera manufacturers lenses are likely to be better than third party ones
2/ Buy the best you can afford
3/ Less often does mean more – restrict your number of lenses, but buy better ones.
4/ Prime lenses will still beat zooms – the more you pay the less the difference though
5/ Learn to properly use what you have before “needing” something else
6/ Go out and take lots of photographs – see 5/
7/ Enjoy yourselves

[UK_Terry]

Light Chaser wrote:
Gentlemen,
I am a professional photographer that has been earning my living taking pictures for eighteen years.

That is the point, most of us do it for pleasure and cannot recoup the large outlay of "L" lenses.

Light Chaser wrote[/b]:The most versatile lens Canon makes is a 35mm to 350mm L series USM. It’s big bucks (about $1,700.00). .

As above most cannot afford a lense that costs more than the camera, also this is a Huge lense, completely impractible for taking photo's of the family in the front room.

Light Chaser wrote[/b]: I read the comment all of the time that “I would rather have 2 lenses for the price of one”. Not me, if those 2 or 3 lenses degrade every shot I take. .

For those of us who do not have to satisfy clients the quality of the photo's taken with sigma etc are very acceptible and do not degrade the shots we have taken (our ability might though).

Light Chaser wrote[/b]:I know I jumped on a soap box here. No disrespect intended.

No offence taken, you are entitled to your opinion as well as i am, it is good that Pro Photographers give opinions on this forum, we respect the views of people who use cameras and lenses a lot more than we do. and if i won some money and had it to spare, i would buy "L" lenses as well.

But i am completely happy with my Canons 28 - 135IS & 75 - 300 & Sigma 17 - 35. I have a range from 17 - 300 and all for less than £600 ($955)

Maybe you could answer this for me?

you said "Any camera is only as good as the glass you screw on to it."

So do you put a "Skylight" filter onto your "L" lense?

$1700 for a lense then put another piece of glass in front.
As far as i can remember i have not seen a Canon one, so they are made by 3rd parties!!!

would this not degrade the shot down to maybe a Sigma without a filter?


Just a thought!!! and No i do not use filters, i am careful when useing the camera and when not useing i replace the lens caps.

[Light Chaser]

Light Chaser wrote[/b]:The most versatile lens Canon makes is a 35mm to 350mm L series USM. It’s big bucks (about $1,700.00). .

As above most cannot afford a lense that costs more than the camera, also this is a Huge lense, completely impractible for taking photo's of the family in the front room.

Steve Reply,
My 35mm - 350mm is the lens I use most often to shoot my children (I have 3) in my tiny living room (15'x15'). It is also the lens I use the most often for professional candids. If I had your selection, the 75mm - 300 would be my choice. Long telephotos are perfect for candids. They allow you to keep a comfortable distance from the subject and still fill the frame with a face. I train the lens on the subject and follow their actions until the exact moment I see what I want, and that is almost never when they are looking directly at me. Also, to avoid making people uncomfortable by having a big lens pointed at them try this - I focus and compose a candid head shot but do not fire, I lower the camera and wait until the person is not paying attention to me, then I fire a shot quickly and get a natural expression. Often the subject does not even know I took the shot and they love the result.



Terry Wrote:
Maybe you could answer this for me?

you said "Any camera is only as good as the glass you screw on to it."

So do you put a "Skylight" filter onto your "L" lense?

$1700 for a lense then put another piece of glass in front.
As far as i can remember i have not seen a Canon one, so they are made by 3rd parties!!!

would this not degrade the shot down to maybe a Sigma without a filter?


Just a thought!!! and No i do not use filters, i am careful when useing the camera and when not useing i replace the lens caps.

Steve Reply:
Yes. I always use lens filters - UV Haze. Canon does make them and Heliopan also makes excellent filters. Same rules apply - buy expensive filters and you are not lessening the quality of the lens.

Here is another tip - never buy used equipment from a pro - OK at least not me. Watching me work with all of that expensive gear makes some guys have fits. I do not intentionally abuse it but getting a shot is more important to me than lens caps. When I am shooting action I throw lenses in and out of bags without caps, I will set complete rigs down in the dirt or snow if I need to. They get beat up just clanking around my body and hitting against each other. In short, my stuff gets used, it has a lot of miles on it. Sometimes I have it professionally cleaned.

[/quote]

[Light Chaser]

Don't ask what I did to make such a mess of that last reply, I don't know how I did it. Good thing I shoot better than I responded to your questions!

Steve

[CyberDyneSystems]

Lightchaser and Paul,

Wow!

Thanks for the passionate reponses to our questions!!!! :)
Personally,.. as a complete "newbie" this is exactly the sort of answer I was looking for. It is clear that a lot of thought and experience goes into your answers. As this is something that I personally lack on this subject,. I am all ears,. (or eyes?)

Indeed as I said I have no desire to buy the same lens twice. Also,. I want as few lenses as possible,. (part of the alure of the "massive zoom range" ) Who wants to carry more than the lens on the camera?

I will say this. You have convinced me.

My next lens (second lens in total :) ) WILL BE Canon.

It probably will not be an "L",.. but I have to see for myself.

If we were talking about a $200.00 Rebel,.. I might laugh at the idea of an $800.00 - $1,500.00 lens. But as you point out,. it is a $1,500.00 camera.

Your audio analogy with the speakers was icing on the cake. As an Audio professional and enthusiast going way back,. the speaker analogy speaks volumes. If I take your word for it,. and indeed the lens is anologous to the Speaker in the food chain.... then the lens like the speaker is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

I hear you.

Thank you for "shooting straight"

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S.

DocDetroit,.. I am sorry we "Hijaaked" your thread,.. but I do think the topic is apllicable to your question which involved a Sigma Vs. Canon choice :)

I still like the look of that 50-500 as it would fill so many uses,.. assuming I would carry it!

[UK_Terry]

Thanks for the reply steve.
i will now go look for those Lens filters (you persuaded me).

i take it you live in the US?

i say that because 15' x 15' is Big in the uk, my largest room is 13' 10'.

again thanks for your reply, and i will think twice before i buy 2nd hand from a pro.
wishing you every success.