Bigma Vs. 100-400L + 1.4x TC, any experence?

[NickSimcheck]

Has anybody used the Bigma and the Canon 100-400MM L IS + 1.4x TC and compared them? I'd like to get the Canon but fear that I might need an eek more reach sometimes, and "140-560MM" would do the trick. IS doesn't mean a whole lot to me cause I'll be shooting from a mono/tripod, but I know I have to take into consideration the 1-stop loss with the T-con. Putting that aside, how do they compare?

[LightRules]

FWIW, the Bigma is more like 470mm (f6.3) while the 100400IS + 1.4x is 560mm (f8 ). That said and considered, I'd say given these exact FLs and apertures (wide open on each), the Bigma IMO is slightly sharper and has slightly better contrast. But of course you are getting more reach with the IS lens. If you always use a monopod/tripod, you can save yourself a good amount of $ with the Bigma. If you think IS will come in handy here and there (which is the case for me), get the Canon. I generally shoot with the 100400IS + Kenko 1.4x for an effective 900mm FOV on my 20D. I can get a lot of keepers even with this set up handholding. YMMV. Both good lenses.

[condyk]

Had both and liked both. As JoJo says ... Bigma is a great choice unless you really need IS, in which case the IS L is also a great choice. That's really the basis for deciding AFAIC.

[liquidstone]

Has anybody used the Bigma and the Canon 100-400MM L IS + 1.4x TC and compared them? I'd like to get the Canon but fear that I might need an eek more reach sometimes, and "140-560MM" would do the trick. IS doesn't mean a whole lot to me cause I'll be shooting from a mono/tripod, but I know I have to take into consideration the 1-stop loss with the T-con. Putting that aside, how do they compare?

I had the Bigma and have the 100-400 L IS now. I'd say both are of similar optical performance when bare, and they sharpen pretty good when stopped down to f/8 at full zoom.

A good copy of the Bigma should be sharper when bare compared to a good copy of the 100-400 L IS with a 1.4x TC. Whether the 100-400 L IS at 560 mm is good enough depends upon your standard of acceptable sharpness. It used to be good enough for me, but at this point it's no longer such. I prefer to use a 1.4x on my 400 5.6L if I need 560 mm and I don't have the 300-800 on hand.

Romy

[cfcRebel]

Has anybody used the Bigma and the Canon 100-400MM L IS + 1.4x TC and compared them? I'd like to get the Canon but fear that I might need an eek more reach sometimes, and "140-560MM" would do the trick. IS doesn't mean a whole lot to me cause I'll be shooting from a mono/tripod, but I know I have to take into consideration the 1-stop loss with the T-con. Putting that aside, how do they compare?Bigma will still AF on your 350XT, but 100-400+1.4TC will lose AF. So it depends on how much you rely on AF.

[ScottE]

FWIW, the Bigma is more like 470mm (f6.3) while the 100400IS + 1.4x is 560mm (f8 )..............
I haven't found a reference that has measured the 50-500 at 470 mm, but I did find one that measured the 100-400 at 381 mm.

In the lenses I compared there was very little difference in the optical quality of the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 50-500. If you want to compare a Canon 100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter you should compare it to a Sigma 50-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter to get comparable results.

The conclusion will still be the same. Get the Sigma 50-500 if you need a longer focal length and lower price. Get the Canon 100-400 if image stabilization, lighter weight and filter compatability with other Canon lenses is more important to you.

(I chose the 50-500 because I want the longer focal length, but I almost always shoot from a tripod. If I shot mostly hand-held the decision would have gone the other way.)

[NickSimcheck]

All things considering, I think having f/5.6 and AF will be more important then IS and a little extra reach. But it seems that the general answear to my orignal question is the Bigma will be sharper then a 100-400 with 1.4 T-con. Which combined with the price factor, is mostly my desiding factor.

Bigma it is.

If I was more serious about wildlife I would go for the Sigmonster and a 30D, but I'm generally a midrange person.