can anyone help

[magpie56]

this my first post. Ihave about$1600 aus to spend Ive narrowed it down to one of the following sigma 50-500,80-400,100-300 or tamron200-500 would like your opinion on which would meet my needs best .Will using for airshow ,wildlife etc on a canon 30dor300d . Ive read all reveiws Ican find still cannot decide.
best regards les

[newfly5]

Bigma

[Tee Why]

Consider reading reviews of all those lenses to familiarize yourself with their optics at photozone.de.
Going from cheaperst to most expensive
Tamron 200-500: optically very good and light. However, cheap build feel with noisy AF and lots of plastics. Least useful zoom range and more CA than others.
Cheapest way to get into a supertelephoto zoom.

Sigma 50-500. Optically very good to good. It's the heaviest but the most useful with the biggest range. Has a nice HSM AF motor with FTM. I really like mine. It has a nice build.

Sigma 80-400OS. Has OS and is a bit sharper thatn the 50-500 and Canon 100-400L, but not by a hugh amount. No HSM AF and the OS not as good as IS. Only goes to 400mm.

Canon 100-400L. Optically very good to good. Has IS. Has an old push/pull zoom design. Only goes to 400mm. Has a nice build feel with USM AF.

The 100-300 is not a supertelephoto, so if you are looking for a lens in this category, I'd skip it all together.

[runninmann]

I have been involved in a similar decision making process myself. I currently have the Canon 70-300 IS and I have used it with a 1.4X teleconverter and still desire more length for photographing medium sized birds. Because of this, even though the Tokina 80-400 is considerably less costly, at $650 USD at B&H, than the Bigma or the Tamron, I have ruled it out. The Bigma (Sigma 50-500) is a very well regarded lens and reportedly offers acceptable results with a 1.4X, resulting in a 700mm focal length. However, it is heavy at 4.1lb. In addition, based on my intended use, I don't foresee needing the 50-500 range enough to justify the additional weight and cost (999 USD vs. 879 USD after rebate) over the Tamron. Although I've found fewer user reviews for the Tamron than for the Bigma, those that I have found have been positive. Therefore, I am leaning toward the 2.7 lb. Tamron. The user reviews I've seen for the Sigma 80-400 OS have not been glowing, it costs as much as the Bigma and weighs in at more than 3.5 lb; and, as I mentioned earlier, 300 may not be long enough for your intended use. Hope this gives you food for thought.

[samkiki]

Welcome,

I just went through this myself, I mainly shoot kids soccer and motorsport. I also had a budget of around $1600-$1800. I finally decided on the Sigma 100-300 F4 mainly due to its faster aperture which helps in low light. I was previously using a 70-200F4L and have not noticed any image quality difference and I shoot wide open most of the time. The extra weight is defiantly noticable but this is a penalty you pay for faster longer glass. I will be adding a 1.4TC shortly which will increase the range out to 420MM @ F5.6.
Anyway I highly recommend this lens if you decide to go this way.