Sigma 50-500mm lens vs. Canon 100-400 IS

[gordeaux]

Thanks for the replies on the Sigma 50-500mm lens so far. Sounds like a good candidate.

Yesterday I got several trusted opinions that a Canon 100-400 f/4 lens with Image Stabilization would give me noticeably better images, excluding only a bit of range vs. the 50-500.

Has anyone had experience with the IS lenses? Do they take noticeably sharper images than non IS lenses?

I'm anticipating using the lens hand held from the deck of a 30 foot boat, so a tripod won't be an option there. Sometimes photographing the shore line, sometimes birds, sometimes seals/whales/etc. Any thoughts on how much benefit the IS would be here?

[defordphoto]

A lot of people swear by that Sigma 50-500 and I've seen some very impressive shots with it. I have the 100-400L IS and love it. I have taken some of the best shots of my life with that lens.

But, the only time the IS makes your shots sharper, is when used under low light conditions, or when using mode II for panning.

And the 100-400 is Canon's infamous "L" glass.

Here's a gallery with all shots being with the 100-400L IS: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

[scottbergerphoto]

The Canon 100-400 IS L lense is awesome. Here is an example and then a gallery of spontaneous portraits taken with this lens:

http://www.pbase.com/image/20905204.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

You won't regret buying this lens. In addition to its quality, it looks so good that it starts alot of conversations and gets you access to places reserved for people with press credentials. I just did a parade in NYC and the police didn't bother me, while they were moving a bunch of other people with cameras to the sidewalk.

[defordphoto]

Heh...We ought to start a 100-400L club! ;)

[scottbergerphoto]

RFMSports wrote:
Heh...We ought to start a 100-400L club! ;)

Top on the club's agenda should be to develop a series of exercises to develop the upper body strength to keep this sucker steady when zoomed to 400.

[drandy]

I have the Sigma lens and wondered recently about the Canon lens as an addition or alternate. I rented one for a weekend (ex. Calumet). I took some comparison shots some handheld and some on a tripod. I then compared these shots in Photoshop looking at the detail and color balance. Bottom line - VERY tight call. The Canon was very slightly sharper in some shots, but in others the color saturation was better with the Sigma. The key difference is the IS function in my view. In bright sunlight the Sigma is at least a match for the Canon. As light decreases/or wind prevails the IS factor kicks in for handheld shots. For tripod shots, less so. The choice will depend on your subjects and set up. Ideally the Sigma needs a tripod much of the time (weight factor, etc) whereas you can do more handheld with the Canon. I decided against buying the Canon after my test and am looking more to a 300mm prime lens for picture quality but not necessarily versatility.

[nsxpower]

The bottom line:

Canon > IS + Faster AF

v.

Sigma > 500mm + Cheaper

[CyberDyneSystems]

Also,..
100-400mm = Lightweight compared to 50-500mm

50-500mm = Weighs a LOT more than the canon... a LOT more!

(for those who think the 100-400 is heavy,. you have no idea! :D )

I have not taken any photos wiht the 100-400,.. but from what I have seen of others work I can agree that it is one sharp lens!

However I had compared the two side by side ergonomically. The Canon feels so much lighter it allmost seems "cheap" compared to the brutish Sigma.

Also I know that the design is a matter of getting used to any particular lens, but after using nothing but rotating zooms I found the 100-400's push pull awkward.

Lastly despite the fact that Canon makes a great product, and Sigma in geeral is not considered to be up to par,. I have read numerous posts from people who needed some form of service or repair for the 100-400, where as to date I've never read a post where the 50-500mm was in need of repair. Take this with a grain of salt,. as it is likely there are just more 100-400 owners postinh where I frequent,.. and they are probably using there lenses harder as well.

[Canuck]

CDS,
Hey you want to talk about heavy lenses, lets see here...according to the Sigma website, the 50-500 is 58.2 oz w/o HSM, or 65.2 oz w/ HSM. Look at the 120-300 F2.8 that I have, it weighs a whopping 91.7 oz (5.75lbs)! Man anything seems lightweight compared to that. Source: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/lenschart.htm
and look for yourself! It comes in almost 1/3 heavier than the 50-500. I'm only stressing weight and it is a REAL big 'un! This is NOT a lens for the lighthearted! I'm now wondering how Sigma is fairing w/ their Optically Stabalised (OS) lenses????

Cheers,
Canuck!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Haven't read any reports of the 80-400 OS yet. It was realesed about the same time as your 120-300mm..

Wow, I didn't realize it was that much heavier,. but i am not too surprised. Sigma builds these EX lenses like tanks,. and to get that f/2.8 you need glass the diameter of a Dinner plate!

[robertwgross]

No, you don't need glass the size of a dinner plate, but you will want to purchase that lens with the optional trailer.

:-)

---Bob Gross---

[Canuck]

Bob,
That's not too far from the truth! :p I'm the one that has to lug it around. Although, I might add it takes great pics...see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17667
Both pics taken by me and w/ that 120-300 lens. The Tenby pic was at 120mm.

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

. okay,. then the diameter of a saucer... :D

And Canon's 300mm f/2.8 weighs in at 5.6 lbs... virtually the same weight.

I wouldn't dream of using either of these lenses without a monopod at least,.


(or a trailer :D )

[Canuck]

Hi!
The moon pic aforementioned was shot on tripod; the Tenby, Wales shot was freehand. It is a little bit of a juggling act, but what the heck! I enquired and looks like I'll be looking elsewhere for that trailer :) LOL! So then I have met my match. Canon has one of similar size and weight. It is still not light. I was surprised how heavy it was on the 10D. I had been using the 70-300 cheapie Sigma lens and upgraded, and the quality is night and day different. I'm still not 100% sure why this is but I think (amung other bits) the higher quality glass/LD bits are the key. Could you explain why the serious lenses give such better pics? Thanks...
Cheers,
Canuck