Conflicted - Canon 100-400mm L lens or Sigma 50-500mm EX???

[phuocle]

Ok, here goes. I was so set on getting the Canon 100-400mm L lens after reading a few reviews on it and seeing sample photos.

But then I read some in depth reviews from photographers who seemed very knowledgeable over at Fred Miranda's forum praising the Sigma EX 50-500mm lens. Alas, no sample pictures though.

Here's what I gather:

Canon L:
Optically excellent, fast, L (luxury) lens, sharp, IS, luxury-priced

Sigma EX:
Optically excellent, fast, sharp, less expensive than the L lens (by about $350 - $400), extra 100mm, no IS

I would never use the 50mm end on the Sigma, but I can use that 500mm... what to do?

Anybody with comments on the Sigma and sample photos? Thanks.

[Phil Hall]

I've never had much luck with the Sigma lenses. I like the Canon 100-400 and use it a lot with the Canon 1.4x extender, which brings it up to 560 mm and still has IS , so it can be handheld. This makes a big difference for wildlife shots.


Phil Hall
Santa Ynez CA

[defordphoto]

It is the opinion of most Canonites that nothing, nothing compares to L glass.

I have to agree.

The 50-500 is a fine lens yes, but it's not L glass and the switchable IS is pretty awesome too.

[phuocle]

Any reservation about the push/pull zoom? I've heard that it acts like a vacuum and turns your expensive lens into a dust magnet.

Any truth to that?

[defordphoto]

LOL! Well, some people just have the propensity to complain about freaking everything. Yes, I have read that, but when I've questioned these people on the forums they never replied back.

I have yet to hear any sounds from my 100-400 that sound like sucking sounds, nor have I seen any dust devils nearby.

You get used to the push-pull just like you do anything else. Some people (again, there are those people again) can't stand it and (again) whine and moan about it. It's a different way of operating a zoom lens is all and like with ANY lens, if I was operating in real dusty/dirty/sandy environment I'd protect the lens accordingly.

The twist zooms are smoother and a little easier to operate, but I don't have any huge issues with mine. Like I say, it just takes a little getting used to.

[phuocle]

Thank you all... I think I will stick by my first choice, the Canon L lens. None of the Sigma guys spoke up...!

I personally don't have a problem with Sigma lenses; the one I have with my 10D works fine and it's not even an EX lens.

I have to see how much lighter my bank account is after my current credit card statement comes back... I had a trip to Paris (hotel and all), the 10D, the lenses, the software, all within the past month or so.

I'm afraid to even check, so that Canon may have to wait a bit. ;)

[pwagner]

>>> LOL! Well, some people just have the propensity to complain about freaking everything. Yes, I have read that, but when I've questioned these people on the forums they never replied back.

[ChrisNardone]

I was looking at the same lenses. I had tried a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and loved it, but I exchanged it for the Canon 70-200 f/4L mainly due to the weight difference. Anyway, my experience with Sigma was positive so I was leaning toward the 50-500. Then I saw this:

http://www.sd9.org/hardware/lens/50_500.htm

It gives a good review, but the test images didn't wow me. I ended up getting the Canon 300 f/4L IS and a Canon 1.4 teleconverter. The 1.4 works on the 70-200 and the 300 giving me a nice range a little lighter weight than the 100-400, and no push-pull.

[phuocle]

OK, I couldn't wait. I just placed my order for the Canon 100-400mm L IS USM lens at B&H.

I got the imported version ($100 less) since I heard someone on this forum mentioned that Canon doesn't really give a rodent's rear end as long as you have a U.S. receipt.

With a much lighter wallet, I thank all of you for your feedback.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Heh heh,

I'm one of the 50-500mm owners,. I was too late to speak up,. :(

The Sigma is a great alternative,. and one of Sigma's best lenses. It also the best least expensive way to get 500mm.

BUT! I think you made a wise choice.

I desperately wanted the extra 100mm,.. and for me the 450.00 price difference was significant.

The lens is excellent at 500mm,. and very good all the way down to about 100-150. 50mm though I have no use for it actually is surprisingly "O-kay" :D

The 100-400 is worth the extra cash if only for the IS...

I also understand that it focuses faster and more accurately.

[Mark Benavides]

Phuoc,

I own both lenses, and on a recent trip, used the 50-500 exclusively.

If I absolutely positively needed a shorter lens, well, that's why I carry the S400!

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Mark B
Ottawa, IL

[Barnsie]

I see you've made your decision, and while I'm sure you won't be disappointed, I really love my 50-500. I would like to play with the IS on a 100-400 for a weekend to see how much of a difference it makes at 400, but any difference in optics on the dozen or so comparison shots that I took was completely wasted by the perscription of my glasses. I really couldn't find a difference, and I was doing everything I could to justify the price of the L glass. In the end, the extra $500 and the similar quality on the tripod won out over the L fanatacism and the promise of IS. I honestly can say that I haven't thought of upgrading since the 50-500 was delivered.

Chris

[defordphoto]

Good choice on the 100-400. On the other hand I have also seen results from the Sigma that are quite impressive. Still, L-glass stands above all else.

Good point on the tension ring there phuocle. I use the tension ring quite a bit. I keep it loose when I need to adjust the zoom and it's super smooth. Then, if I need to keep the lens say at 200, I just set it, tighten the ring and then it won't creep on me. I love this lens and (so far) have noting bad to say about it.

No, it's not THE best L-glass out there, but it's a great bang for the buck for those of us that can't spend $10-$20,000 on primes that would take its place. The photos produced with this lens will stand up to any from a prime.

[holland_patrick]

I'm most likeing going to rent the bigma and see ...

[Milner]

I went to the store and tried both, ended up with the 100-400. The Bigma is BIG and heavy. I never thought I would say it, but it is too big. I love my 100-400 and don't regret going with it....
Besides, white is coooooool:)

[PhotoJourno]

The thread is from 2003, who knows if the new Bigma was out yet.

Regardless, one of my main reasons choosing the Sigma lens over Canon L was the zoom system. They both boasted out of the chart quality, but when it came down to it, Sigma was almost making fun of the Canon lens. It comes with a lock that keeps the focal lenghth from creeping up on you while you are NOT taking photos, and best of all, the zoom was not pull/push. In the Bigma, you twist left/right for a conventional zoom operation.

I was upgrading from a Tamron 100-400, and I had lots of trouble trying to take Sport photography, pulling and pushing the zoom in and out. So at the store, and handling both lenses, Sigma just felt natural.

to this day I do not regret it. Actually, my new line up of lenses is as follows: (Main, for the field)

- Sigma 28-70 EX DG f/2.8
- Sigma 70-200 EX DG APO HSM f/2.8
- Sigma 50-500 EX DG APO HSM f/1.4-6.3

Gonna be building up some muscle in the next couple of months, but for the money and Image Quality, I could not find better built lenses. As soon as the new sigma arrives, and I upgrade my 10D (in the works) I will update my signature.

Not getting rid of my thrifty fifty, and I will still pursue the 10-22 Sigma, but I need to focus on work for a while, and make more money.

Cheers,

[Tee Why]

I fail to see how seeing good images from either lens would make any difference as they are both capable of very good to good resolution. I have the Bigma and wouldn't decide my decision on image quality as they are very similar.
The Bigma has a normal way of zooming by rotating the zoom ring, is heavier, is wider and longer (especially taking into account the crop factor), cheaper, and has a warmer color tone.

The Canon is lighter and has IS. I know you already ordered the lens, but photozone.de has reviews of both lenses on it's site. I think both are pretty good versatile lens.

If you want to look, almost all my zoo shots are with the bigma.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/575260

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ordered the lens in 2003..


:lol: