Sig 50-500EX vs. 400 5.6L

[ifurlong]

I am in the market for ~400 zoom. I just read a bunch of good things about the new Sigma 50-500 EX. Does anyone have both lenses, how do they compare? is the prime a lot sharper.

[pwagner]

Would you consider the 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS USM zoom? The image stabilization is GREAT. That alone might make it a better lens than either of the others you mention.

Check out this site. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml

[ifurlong]

after reading your test NO! (I like your site) I want a really sharp lens capable on whatever I move into in a couple years (1ds or whatever is out then), Im going to go and read the rest of your site, thanks.

[pwagner]

That's not my site! (I wish it were, though.) That's one of the premire Canon sites of the web.

The Sigma 50-500 is probably about the same sharpenss as the Canon 100-400 L (i.e.: the Sigma 50-500 is consider superb.) Note, however, that the sigma doesn't have image stabilization, so telephoto shots will need a tripod. The Canon 400 5.6 also will need a tripod.

RMFSports, who frequently posts awesome pictures here, has spectacular results with the 100-400L. See: http://rfmsports.com/USSBA/News/USSBANews.html

[henkbos]

ifurlong wrote:
I want a really sharp lens -->

Don't take a zoom then, go for primes.

[mkaplan]

If optical quality tests means anything to you look here:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
You can see that of those 3 lenses, the 100-400L is the best optically with the 400 F5.6 2nd and the Sigma 50-500 3rd. You can also see how some of the other lenses out there compare.